Why you should care about Obama’s waffling on gay issues

[cboy4]

By Matt Zeitlin

In the past few months, activists for gay and lesbian causes have learned to expect very little from Washington and instead look for successes at the local level. With gay marriage now, or soon to be, a reality in Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine, things are looking up for the LGBT movement after the depressing passage of Proposition 8 in California, which eliminated gay marriage after it had been allowed for six months. Despite these great successes, those concerned with the rights of gays and lesbians ought to be upset, because the Obama administration has moved painfully slowly.

Although few expect gay marriage to be recognized or authorized at the federal level any time soon, many thought that banning discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation could happen federally. Twenty states have passed laws that expand employment discrimination protections to cover sexual orientation. But despite an employment discrimination bill passing the House in 2007, the federal government still hasn’t included sexual orientation along with race, gender, age or national origin as categories that are protected against discrimination. The fate of employment discrimination protection is just a small example of how Congress and the White House have generally been slow to move or downright hostile toward the demands of gay rights activists and their supporters.

While no one expects movement on these issues when Republicans are in office, more is generally expected of Democrats. That’s because the overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian voters vote for Democrats, and gays and lesbians have ascended to fairly lofty positions in the Democratic apparatus. Bill Clinton famously pledged to revise the military’s ban on homosexual soldiers and was the first president to win with substantial open gay support. But he also turned out to be the movement’s biggest disappointment. Despite having prominent gay supporters and acquaintances, Clinton was responsible for two of the biggest setbacks at the federal level for gay rights.

The first was his squirrely compromise on gays in the military. His Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, authored by the late Charlie Moskos, which banned open disclosure of a soldier’s homosexuality as well as inquiry by superiors into a soldier’s sexuality, has been infamously ineffective at protecting the privacy of gay soldiers – in fact, an Arabic linguist has recently been expelled under the policy, making him the first casualty of this misguided policy since Obama took office.

http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/2009/05/38718/why-you-should-care-about-obamas-waffling-on-gay-issues/

[Captain Hilts]

1. This summary isn't fair to Bill Clinton. Obama allies Sam Nunn and Colin Powell stopped

the repeal of anti-gay laws for the military. No one in Washington backed up Clinton on that one. No one.

[cboy4]

3. When it comes to Bill Clinton, I'm far more understanding about

DADT than I am about DOMA.

[Captain Hilts]

4. DOMA was an election year ploy. Even Barb Mikulski voted in favor. Sad, I know. nt

[bluedawg12]

7. Sam Nunn is the real bastage - he pushed for this

he stacked the testimony with liars and phobes and took pro-gay testimony off the roster, ignored a book length Rand Report in favor of gays serving openly and openly admitted he was not comfortable with gays and fired a few.

No jobs, no military, no life for gays = Sam Nunn. :puke:

[foxfeet]

2. Equal rights for GLBT people is to the Democrats as abortion is to the Republicans.

Each party pays lip service to their respective issue, especially at election time, but make no real sustained effort to enact changes.

[Duncan Grant]

5. Off to the greatest page w/o comment.

:kick:

[xchrom]

6. recommend