President Obama and First Lady host Reception for LGBT Pride Month

[jenmito]

Scheduled for 4:25pm ET: http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/

ETA: MSNBC said they'll cover it. I'm guessing CNN will, too (but ya never know).

[Cha]

1. Soon! That should fun

and interesting:)

[jenmito]

3. Yup. MSNBC SAID they're going to cover it...

but I don't trust them. They may show a second of it then cut away, saying they'll "monitor" it for us. :eyes:

[Pirate Smile]

2. Thanks.

[jenmito]

4. No problem!

[Clio the Leo]

5. I'm here! I got taco meat!!!

(no actual taco shells sadly .... too many carbs .... but I have one tiny tortilla that I'm not eating all of that I'll share) :)

[jenmito]

6. YAY!

And I had 4 beef tacos yesterday-with lettuce, cheddar cheese, AND shells. Sorry-but they're my favorite! :D

[LooseWilly]

111. Uhhmm... what is "taco meat"?

Do they grow special "taco animals" where you live or something?...

[mystieus]

7. Its 4:30. still no live stream

[Pirate Smile]

8. It just started.

[vaberella]

10. I see it. And it's 4:34 my end. n/t

[mystieus]

15. okay, its on now

[Clio the Leo]

17. Unfortunately punctuality is the first thing to go when you become President. NT

[Clio the Leo]

9. Huge applause for POTUS and FLOTUS....

.... digital cameras going like crazy.

[Political Tiger]

11. Oh cool! I'm watching it now! n/t

[jenmito]

12. It's on!

[Cha]

13. THis is Great..Potus and Flotus

lookin' Good!

[Parker CA]

14. It's up on MSNBC

[Clio the Leo]

16. "There are unfair laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop." NT

[vaberella]

18. Not trying to be funny, but why didn't many LGBT decide to boycott this event?

nt.

[Clio the Leo]

21. lol, behave! NT

[Political Tiger]

36. Obviously they haven't been reading DU! ;)

n/t

[LooseWilly]

112. Define "many".

I think there is some insight to be had here.

The most pertinent sentence, in my opinion, is this one: "Whether Mr. Obama will address the complaints at Monday’s reception is unclear."

In other words, I think a lot of the people who showed up did so hoping that there would be an announcement of a serious policy initiative, perhaps in response to the protests and boycotts of the DNC fundraiser on Thursday.

Obama is really good making with the hope... I'll give him that.

[Cha]

19. Steve Hildebrand!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hildebrand

[Clio the Leo]

22. I'm reading Renegade right now.....

... well, listening to it rather .... and Wolffe talks about how much Hildebrand pushed for Baracks candidacy WAY back when. Give that man a medal!

[jefferson_dem]

20. Beaming with pride right here.

:)

[Cha]

35. It that what that emotion

was that was taking over my very being?!

[Jackeens]

23. Quack, quack....I want that ringtone!!

:rofl:

[Clio the Leo]

24. "By the time this admin. is over, you guys will have good feelings...."

"... about the Obama administration."

And he said something else about keeping his campaign promies but I didn't catch it enough where I can type it. The text of this speech should be STICKIED!!!!

[Political Tiger]

33. I truly believe him! I believe he cares and wants to do the right thing.

n/t

[LooseWilly]

113. I believe that too.

I'm just frustrated that he's being too cautious... when a lot of these things, especially repeal of DADT, have broad popular support... it's like he's caught a bad case of PTSD from those around him who were around during Clinton's first term...

[flpoljunkie]

37. Assuming he means the end of his first term--which would be no later January 21, 2013.

Obama did not explain why he does not sign a 'stop loss' order to prevent gays from being thrown out of the military. I would like to hear a good reason why he refuses to do this--if he is able to do so, and I believe that he is.

Throwing people out of the military, just because they are gay, seems so short sighted and morally wrong, as well.

[Pirate Smile]

38. One point I picked up from his comments was that he thought pressure needs to continue in order for

Congress to pass legislation repealing DADT and staying it would relax the pressure to move on legislation.

Pressure Congress.

[flpoljunkie]

40. One way to look at it, but his leadership with stop-loss order could be momentum for DADT repeal

[Clio the Leo]

44. If service men and women weren't losing their jobs....

.... then why would Congress need to do anything?

[LooseWilly]

114. So that they wouldn't start losing them all over again, once Obama was out of office...

[Political Tiger]

42. The President believes doing so would be just a temporary fix

which would have the effect of taking the pressure off Congress to send him a bill ending DADT for once and for all.

[Clio the Leo]

43. Watch Hardball.....

.... either when it's repeated tonight or on the website. Gibbs gives you your answer.

[Clio the Leo]

25. Just called on Congress to repeal DOMA. NT

[jenmito]

26. Yup.

[Clio the Leo]

27. Assured the crowd he would help pass the Mat Shepherd bill. NT

[Clio the Leo]

28. Believes that DADT weakens our military....

.... and please see the text of what he's saying for the rest because his words were VERY carefully chosen and I dont want to mislead anyone by typing the wrong thing.

[Clio the Leo]

29. "After the Stonewall march 39 years ago, no one could imagine...

.... that you ..... or that matter *I* ..... would be standing here in the White House today."

[Clio the Leo]

30. Another huge applause with shouts of "I love you!!!" as Barack and Michelle leave the stage. NT

[Cha]

31. Who loved that heartwarming,

heartfelt speech as much as I did?! :loveya: :fistbump:

[Political Tiger]

34. I did! Very inspiring and very reassuring!

:fistbump:

[Cha]

39. It was very sweet what

he to say about Dennis and Judy Shepard and the Matthew Shepard Bill:loveya:

[Clio the Leo]

45. Michelle certainly seemed to....

.... as Jackeens photo thread will show, hung off of his every word! ..... I think someone has a crush on Obama! ;)

[Cha]

47. I had a dream about the White House

last night..a bunch of people were camping out there inside and I was one of them..we had sofas and the floors. Michelle came through our room with a tour and waved to us as she stopped to sharpen a pencil.:D

She looked so beautiful today as she hung on every word like I did from my perch.

[Clio the Leo]

48. This means that you think Michelle is ......

.... hardworking, traditional, and homey (as in reminds you of home, not HOMELY.) That's all the things the pencil represents.

I dreamed the other night that I was back in college and Gibbs, who was also college aged, and I and some of my friends went out to a bar. I sat next to him as he cracked jokes on everyone else there and basically held court. A good time was had by all. :)

[Cha]

49. She also had

lightened her hair..I think that was just me thinking about my own hair.

YOur dream sounds fun..you just know Gibbs would be a blast!

[Clio the Leo]

50. Did you see this cutie?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/robert-gibbs-former-earri_n_220051.html

[Cha]

51. Adorable! Big

of gotchuck not to "criticize"..he who should not talk about anything!

[Pirate Smile]

53. Was that the infamous "pearl necklace discussion" on Morning Joe where Willie said he also had an

earring in college and Barnicle asked him if he also wore a pearl necklace? Mika could not figure out what they were laughing about after that.

[jenmito]

54. Yes! Wasn't it Barnicle who made that joke?

Either way, I could NOT believe he said that and I can just imagine them explaining it to Mika during the break.

[Pirate Smile]

58. Yes, it was Barnicle. Sex in the City was truly educational programing for me.

I guess Mika didn't watch it. It was also the first place I ever heard of "tea-bagging".

When the Jeff Gannon controversy erupted - I learned even more.

This reminds me of Rummy: "as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." So many unknown unknowns that I now know I know. ;)

Wow, this is quite a tangent I gone off on. :)

[jenmito]

59. I learned it from some fellow college students (years ago) who were joking

about it and I, like Mika, didn't get it.

And I had to look up "teabagging" on the internets. :D

And yeah-Gannon was very "informative."

I'm glad you went off on this tangent. It was quite amusing. Especially the part about Rumsfeld. :)

[Clio the Leo]

62. Ah, but does he wear the occasional Dirty Sanchez?

I bet Joe does. :)

[jenmito]

67. ...

I JUST learned what THAT was a couple months ago (via the internets after a joke on Comedy Central).

I bet you;re right. :D

[Pirate Smile]

100. That reminds me that I had to google within the past week .... the meaning of

Cleveland Steamer.

:wow:


What would we do with the Internets and the urban dictionary? Remain blissfully clueless of all sorts of bizarre stuff. :)

[jenmito]

105. Ewww...

Of course now I just googled it. And I'm now going to bed. Sweet dreams! Or maybe NOT. Yuck. :o

[Jackeens]

61. Cha, that pencil-sharpening thing....

:shrug:

Admit it, have you bought one of these:

[PopSixSquish]

52. Hey Clio - I Wonder if Michelle Didn't Give Him a Little Shove

I read a transcript of an exchange she had with a reporter in CA last week regarding LGBT rights where she promised him that DOMA and DADT would be repealed. Perhaps, she got back to the WH and told him to "Cowboy up"...

[Clio the Leo]

63. Or maybe she read the letter the President wrote back in May ...

[Politicalboi]

32. Thanks for the link

Typical MSNBC cutting out to yack at us some more instead of covering the event. Even CSPAN didn't have it. MSNBC spent more time on a police chase than on the President.

[Cha]

41. We had it perfect

on whitehouse.gov, didn't we!

[Clio the Leo]

46. Have no doubt, this will eventually be posted on WhiteHouse.gov.

[vaberella]

55. Why is it the same old, same old on this thread?! Anyway I'm glad. ^_^ n/t

[Clio the Leo]

64. You mean the posters?

I thought the same thing. lol, well, it's nice to be in the company of friends I guess. :)

[jefferson_dem]

56. Pitiful bitterness at americablog...

:eyes:

Obama and the big gay party
by Joe Sudbay (DC) on 6/29/2009 06:30:00 PM
Well, it's over.

The President gave his speech to the big gay A-listers at the White House (well, minus those who were blacklisted). Boy, that crowd was really into it. They clapped wildly when he said the words, "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender." Just because he said the words. Even though Bill Clinton said those words - what? - 17 years ago?

Also, your president wants you to know that unjust laws must be overturned. Some day. The crowd loved that one too. One might forget that the Obama administration defended the Defense of Marriage Act law recently. They not only defended it, they defended it in a way that demeaned and mocked same-sex marriages by invoking incest and pedophilia. But never mind.

...

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-and-big-gay-party.html

[HopeOverFear]

60. yep, that's about par for the course for Ameriblog

[jenmito]

57. Shuster and Hall cut away from the event and went on to talk about how he didn't mention DADT

but if they would have continued to cover him instead of leaving it and talking, they'd see he DID talk about DADT. :eyes:

[Clio the Leo]

66. I'm not liking all the changes MSNBC has made....

... all that crap on the screen .... I dont like what's his name .... the new guy .... I turned to CNN during Dr. Laura's show and WHY take two of your best anchors (David and Tamryn) and make them share a desk?

[jenmito]

69. Same here...

they made a whole new screen appearance and I can't stand their 2 new shows-one with Dylan Radigan (sp?) (for TWO hours) and the other with "Dr. Nancy" or whomever. All bad moves if you ask me.

I have no idea, but that's when I tune back in-from 3-5. (I don't watch Andrea Mitchell anymore, either. She's plain incompetent.)

[KJETS]

65. no

gays were thrown under the bus

[Jackeens]

68. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[jenmito]

70. Why so many posts with so few words? n/t

[Jackeens]

71. Brevity's the soul of wit??

Hiya jenmito :toast:

[jenmito]

73. Hey Jackeens!

:toast: I think there's another explanation in this case. :D

[Jackeens]

74. Methinks.....

...you are very probably right ;-)

[jenmito]

77. ...

:fistbump:

[Jackeens]

82. .....

:hug:

[jenmito]

85. Well...

Back atcha. :hug:

[Clio the Leo]

121. Whomever said that....

..... never met this guy.



(and that's not hyperbole, I'm giving you my word as Biden here!)

[Prism]

72. Interesting Thread

How odd it is, to have the most powerful man on earth flick a few crumbs at the LGBT community, and then those who admire him - and who are decidedly not second-class citizens - seize the opportunity to rush forward and declare what a magnificent feast was head by those below.

Strange.

I would say insulting, but that almost requires will and forethought. I don't think people really understand how insulting all of this is. Nor do I think they're inclined to care very much.

As for those in attendance tonight, they are the establishment gays, more enamored of their own access, money, and power than those they purport to help. They are partly what the community is now rebelling against. They do not speak for us. They do not represent us. We did not elect them, and we do not support them.

And yes, some people are bitter. Decades of inequality will do that to a few.

I appreciate knowing that bitterness is mere occasion for comment and condescension.

Like I said, interesting. And expected. And more than a little depression.

A speech is not a policy, is not an act. President Obama has yet to act. Until then, yes, some of us are going to be bitter. I'm sorry so many don't seem to care much.

The White House did have a rather large parlor though, didn't it?

[Jackeens]

75. Fair enough Prism, but did you find nothing at all encouraging in the speech? n/t

[madfloridian]

78. The words were empty, signifying nothing.

Especially when Victor Fehrenbach is losing his work and pension.

[Prism]

81. I'll be honest

I'm tired of speeches. Speeches were well and good during the campaign. They are a large part of why I supported President Obama during the primaries. They're about what a candidate wants to do, will do. One day, should s/he ever reach that vaunted office.

Now, I want actions. It's not longer about wants and wills. It's about what he now can do. He has yet to do a single thing promised during his campaign. Not one single act.

I cannot understand why so many here don't understand the deep anger and hurt currently being directed by the community towards this administration.

President Obama has done nothing.

You know what I didn't see in that speech? An apology for the DOMA brief. What I saw in that speech were an awful lot of promises. We're past promises. He made promises to us last year, and his actions to date have gone in the exact opposite direction of those promises. He is no longer in the position to promise, to talk down, to pat us on the head and tell us we must be patient.

It's easy to become lost in the man's eloquence and elegance. He has always been skilled in telling us how we will sail to the moon and have a grand wedding once we get there.

But when it's your life, when you live the day to day reality of those broken promises and lack of actions, you gain a certain immunity to the eloquence and speechifying. I remember being so moved by him during the campaign. I was there in Chicago, in Grant Park, on election night, tears in my eyes.

Now? I watch a speech and feel nothing. He hit us and hard with that DOMA brief, with his McClurkins and Warrens. The magic is gone. The honeymoon is over. Where I saw a capable, charismatic man, I see a consumate politician who will do the absolute minimum necessary to appease us. He doesn't want to spend the political capital. So now we have spent the last few weeks getting portions of appeasement, this administration trying to discover how much is enough. "We had no idea about DOMA, is that ok?" No, we're still angry. "Well, how about some benefits?" No, still angry. "Well, how about a last minute, slapped together speech?"

Who is he kidding? Who are these gay establishment sychophants kidding?

We want our rights.

[Jackeens]

86. Ok

That's the most powerful expression of disappointment in and anger with Obama that I've read on DU - as I've said before, thank you for educating me.

But genuinely - and I know they're only words - did this extract not give you some encouragement today:

"And I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.

But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

[Prism]

109. Not particularly

Because those words are intended to ease the great pressures the community is now exerting on both the administration and our own leadership. When faced with a mob and pitchforks, the best course of action is to talk them down. I understand that, and were I in the President's position, I might do much the same.

But it is that very pressure that is dragging things forward. Before the outrage over the DOMA brief, there was nary a word that federal benefits would be there in mere days. Before this outrage, this administration did not have to explain itself so vigorously.

Before the outrage, there was not this speech.

I think diffusing the pressure, easing up, allowing the administration and Congress to buy more time when this political party has had untold time to work harder and go further in advancing our rights than they've ever bothered . . .

Well, we have to let them know that we do not move on their time. They're supposed to move on ours. Especially when it comes to equality. We are not a pet cause, an item on a checklist, an agenda piece to be gotten to eventually. We're people who are currently cut out from the Constitution of the United States.

This idea of "We'll get to it eventually," is just completely absurd, and it's disappointing to see our fierce advocates buying into it.

[Clio the Leo]

115. And how do you define "something"

Over the last few weeks, I've seen numerous requests (and rightfully so) for the admin. to repeal the AIDS travel ban. Well, he began that process today and the matter was ignored. Was that another crumb? Where's the line drawn between crumbs and loaves?

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid93814.asp

[ruggerson]

118. Well, he could start by endorsing HR 1283

n/t

[Clio the Leo]

120. but that puts us back into the section 5 BS again ....

... as you addressed in your reply to my post in the other thread. ;)

Time and time again I'm amazed how often (we all) want simple answers to what are obviously complex questions.

[ruggerson]

122. section 5 is there to ensure the bill can pass

there is no problem with Section 5. Until DOMA is repealed, section 5 is needed.

[Clio the Leo]

123. Ok, now go over and answer my question here...

lol

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8502713&mesg_id=8502785

[LooseWilly]

124. Yes... the presumption *is* that DADT can be repealed before DOMA

Or did you want the answer from ruggerson over there?...

Currently public opinion favors doing away with DADT. Marriage rights are still being held out against by a greater proportion of the population... and, as for the worry that "it's all or nothing"... that's just an argumentative point to attempt to diminish critics. The LGBT community is asking for something substantive... and critics are the ones who're trying to turn it into an :all or nothing" argument... and it sounds like you are amongst those doing so.

I'll leave it to ruggerson to answer you on the other thread... since you see fit to cross pollinate them with links, rather than just put your argument here too... so that the threads can maintain a certain "stand alone" integrity...

[jenmito]

76. " As for those in attendance tonight, they are the establishment gays..."

Really? Did you watch The Rachel Maddow Show tonight? Lt. Col. Victor Fahrenbach went and said after listening to and talking to Obama he now has hope that Obama is serious about repealing DADT and DOMA and is honest in what he said.

[madfloridian]

80. Not in time for him.

Why not in time for him. He has 5 months, he said. He said he was told by the president help would not come in time for him.

[jenmito]

83. That's right. Yet he still has hope after today. HE spoke to Obama. Did YOU? n/t

[madfloridian]

84. I should by know by now not to question.

No, I don't get to talk to presidents.

[jenmito]

88. That's not my point...

you're talking about someone who's going to be fired from the military who has hope after talking to Obama. I'm sure he cares about that at LEAST as much as you do.

[madfloridian]

90. No, tonight he said not in time for him.

Maybe he has hope for others.

I guess since he has hope it is okay he is losing his pension after 18 years.

He said he was hopeful, but nothing will happen in time for him in at least 5 or 6 months.

We have a majority in both houses and we have the WH.

Why can we not get anything done?

[jenmito]

91. I know it's not in time for him, yet he still has hope...

for OTHERS (like you said). He said that Obama explained there is still resistance among the older people (I think he was talking about those in the military leadership positions). Whatever he told him made him believe that he (Obama) is not a phony and meant what he said.

[Prism]

87. That's immaterial

I do not need to speak to the President in person to bear witness to the injustice suffered by those around me. Unless this man witnessed President Obama signing an executive order or a congressman bringing legislation to the floor for a vote, we are precisely in the same place today as we were yesterday.

"Because the President said so!" means nothing without actions.

[jenmito]

89. " As for those in attendance tonight, they are the establishment gays..."

You ignored my post #76. You don''t even believe the people who were at that event were "regular" people but "the establishment gays." I'd like you to address that post.

[Clio the Leo]

116. No he wasn't......

he was not "told by the President" that help would not come in time for him. He said....

For my case in particular, it doesn't necessarily help me because what I heard then was that it might take a lot longer than expected. I'm on the clock, I've got about five to six months left and it didn't sound like we were going to get this repealed before I was officially discharged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31639386 (at approx the 6:15 mark)

It "it didn't sound like" is NOT the same as "told by the President." That's not exactly what Mr. Fehrenbach said.

[Cha]

79. They're working with Obama and

they trust him as I do.

[HopeOverFear]

93. OIC..they're the BOUGIE gays

like in the black community, they'd be the blacks who got money and forgot where they came from...right?

[jenmito]

94. He's ignored that question from me-twice.

Let's see if he responds to you.

[HopeOverFear]

96. hey...it happens to every group of people, you know

You get money and status, and shit like that, and suddenly you forget where you came from. Happens to ALL groups. Even LGBT people.
I know in the black community, we consider the NAACP to be like that. Totally blind to the REAL needs of African Americans, and only care about superficial stuff. Perhaps to Prism that's what those people at the WH were. :shrug:

[jenmito]

101. Exactly.

:shrug:

[Clio the Leo]

117. Yeah, but look at it on the bright side....

... apparently you're no longer a second class citizen. ;)

[Prism]

98. Not ignoring you

Looking for the guest list. I know a partial list of who was due for the speech from before, and they were the usual types. But I don't want to reply in full without being sure of my facts.

At this point, your response seems to be "Well, this one guy was there." Which, yes, nice for him. But the usual audience for these high-powered affairs on the behalf of the community are generally populated by the heads and attaches of organizations who don't bother much with the community unless there's a cocktail party or fundraiser in it for them (see: HRC and Joe Solmonese).

After years of being hit up for cash by these people and organizations, I have a fairly firm grip of who is who, who actually gives a damn for the people rather than being it because they enjoy eskimo kisses with politicians at a party.

[jenmito]

102. That "one guy" doesn't seem to fit your description.

You ignored my post.

[Prism]

106. I didn't ignore it

I'm trying to understand your point. If your point is that I over-generalized, so be it. I'll cop to that.

It seems the flip side of your point is that because this one man has hope, well, that's good enough for you.

Which, like I said, is nice for you. But when you're living the reality of these policies and broken promises, sometimes people need a little more than mere hope to go on.

[jenmito]

125. My point is not that you "over-generalized" but mischaracterized them.

And Clio provided a guest list.

[Clio the Leo]

119. Are Gerald Hoose and Thomas Schmidt members of the eilte?

And if so, were they also members of the gay elite when they staged the Stonewall protest?

And here's your guest list....

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/06/obamas-white-house-lgbt-stonewall-event-transcript-guest-list.html

[Prism]

95. That's insulting and racist

And not worth a response.

[HopeOverFear]

97. Wasn't meant to be. You said yourself

that the people in attendance at the WH don't care about you. I was just making an analogy.

[Prism]

104. I apologize

If I misread tone and intent. I'm feeling a touch on the defensive. Never a good place to come out swinging from.

I do think these self-appointed leaders live in a bubble of power. Going back many years, many of these organizations get caught flat-footed by the sentiment in the community. Whether it was ENDA last year and the HRC's atrocious response, or the severe misreading by the administration and certain LGBT leaders after this DOMA brief.

When your idea of activism is rounds of cocktail parties, when you haven't done any boots-on-the-ground organization or action in years, when you breathe the rarest of air, enjoying audiences with the president, yes, I think they've grown completely out of touch.

There's a slightly bitter joke often told in my community that "The only people who think the HRC represents the LGBT community are the HRC . . . and the president."

[HopeOverFear]

107. no problem

I understand how you feel though, because many in the black community feel the same way about the NAACP. They've outlived their usefulness for many of us. I had no idea that some in the LGBT felt that way about the HRC, though. I've donated money to them, I get emails from them all the time.

[vaberella]

99. You are very wrong. You do realize the guy on the Rachel Maddow show was there, right?! n/t

[HopeOverFear]

103. Who, Lt. Choi?

[LooseWilly]

110. Was Lt. Choi there? I would've thought he'd be preparing for his trial tomorrow morning...

The one where he has to prove that he's not guilty of "moral and professional dereliction" for admitting that he's gay out loud. 8am June 30 in Syracuse NY.

If he was there, then he's either very confident of winning, or very confident of losing... I know which outcome I'd be betting on. :(

[ruggerson]

108. great post, Prism

I will add that a lot of the posters (certainly not all) in this forum view this issue primarily through a lens of how this affects Obama. How it affects how he is perceived, how it affects his popularity, how it affects his chances for reelection. For them, Obama is the primary consideration, the actual issue of gay equality matters to them only in how it reflects on Obama.

For those of us who have been in the trenches, fighting this fight for decades, the issue of equality trumps Obama. For us (ok, for me, as I don't want to speak for anyone else) Obama (and any President) is merely a vehicle for us to obtain that which our government morally owed us years ago. Our full status as citizens.

For those whose primary vested interest is in whether President Obama is perceived in a good light, as altruistic and authentic, our movement is often a secondary, coincidental, and sometimes aggravating sideshow.

For those whose primary vested interest resides in their families being treated equally under the law, Obama is a means to an end. Not the end itself.

Inasmuch at those two interests collide, for the next four or eight years, we all have a stake in how well Obama does, as he is the engine at the heart of whether this movement races or stalls.

And I think, as Democrats, we all want to see Obama succeed on a broad front. But, I would venture, that many GLBT folks in this country do not put their identities as Democrats, or Obama partisans, before all else. They really can't, because of the unequal position they hold in their own nation.

(note: this is not to say that the gay men and women on this board (and elsewhere) don't have keen, and sometimes overriding interests in many other issues (healthcare, peace, the environment and jobs, to name a few). Of course they do. But when you are living out your lives in a nation as second class citizens under the law, that issue tends to loom overarchingly large. While it may not be the full and only focal point, for many of us, until the fight is won, it is the starting point.)

[aaaaaa5a]

92. It's only been 6 months! NT