White House frustrated with gay bloggers

[Bluebear]

via Americablog:

Feeling's mutual.

From an account by Michael Kenny, executive director of Florida Together, of a White House meeting last week with state-based equality groups.

Marriage Equality In the meeting's closing stages, Brian Bond, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and liaison to the LGBT community, took questions from the audience. Given recent statements reaffirming President Obama's opposition to same-gender marriage in the wake of a decision striking down California's Proposition 8, Equality Federation members pressed him on the contradictions posed by the president's call for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and his support for civil unions instead of full marriage equality.

Bond asserted, "There is still a lot of work to do" before DOMA will be repealed. "Look at the trouble we're having with ENDA." he added. But Bond conceded that there are inconsistencies in President Obama's positions. In response, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, stated, "Respectfully, we need President Obama to push for full inclusion of the LGBT community on ENDA, on marriage- we need the full get, not the lesser get. The highest office in the land sets the tone for the whole country." Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is "99 percent supportive of your issues."

It's great that you're "supportive." But it's the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive of us, they'd say, even if he didn't help us a whole lot legislatively. I'm not saying you're George Bush, but the empathy thing is wearing thin. We don't want your support in words, we want you to keep your promises. And you're not.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/08/white-house-frustrated-with-gay.html

[scheming daemons]

1. I'll donate $25 to DU if you go one week without finding new, obscure ways to bash Obama

....

[meegbear]

5. My, what a sensible post!

[Forkboy]

9. I'll donate $25 to DU if you start caring about equal rights...

..as much as you care about protecting a politician.

[scheming daemons]

10. Go ahead and donate then... I'm for marriage equality

It's the one area where I strongly disagree with the President.

[Forkboy]

12. Could have fooled me.

I never see you offer the slightest bit of support to Bluebear, just insults. Go ahead, show us how much you care.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. That seems to happen a lot.

Bluebear and equal rights are two different things.

[Forkboy]

21. Yes, he does insult Bluebear a lot and defend a politician over equal rights a lot.

No wonder you like him, you do the same.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. When he's not defending rape. eom

[scheming daemons]

90. I'll donate $100 to DU if you can find a post by me where I was anti-Marriage Equality.

...and Remember... being anti-Bluebear has nothing to do with being anti-Marriage Equality.

[Forkboy]

130. The OP is about marriage equality, not Bluebear.

I've never seen you voice any support for the issue here at all, yet I have seen you attack people who do. You don't have to come out and scream, "Hey, I'm anti-gay!"....your actions paint the picture anyways. You clearly support a politician far more than you support equal rights. You've made it clear over and over and over again, and your first reply here was just another example. If you're not mature enough to separate the OP from the issue then that's your problem

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

96. See what peace the ignore function has brought me?

I have no idea what idiot says what anymore lol!

[lonestarnot]

121. LOL!

:toast:

[lonestarnot]

122. LOL!

:toast:

[readmoreoften]

74. Then why do you have such an issue with LGBT DUers caring about their own lives?

Oh right! We should accept how irrelevant we are in the scheme of Obama's presidency!

If you cared about LGBT equality, you wouldn't interrupt critiques of Obama's failure to be an ally. But you're an *ally* much like Obama is an *ally*. You'll be pro-LGBT when it suits your purposes to sound like a nice guy. But when push comes to shove, we're not worth standing up for.

[scheming daemons]

88. Being pro-Obama is not the same as being anti-LGBT

[jgraz]

119. Yeah, it's just a five minute prayer

:eyes:

And, once again, you aren't "Pro-Obama". You're anti-Obama-critics. There's a difference -- one which you continually fail to understand.

[walldude]

78. Then why do you berate people the minute they post something about it?

You disagree with the President. You just said so. Yet when someone else posts about disagreeing with the President on the same damn issue, you start attacking them.

So let me see if I have this straight, it's ok for you to disagree with Obama on gay rights because you won't talk about it, but it's not ok for gays to make posts about it even though it's their rights being violated?

Ok did everyone get that? It's ok to disagree with Obama, you just need to keep your damn mouth shut.

[scheming daemons]

89. I only berate people who disagree with the President on other issues... never marriage equality

[walldude]

91. ?? Are you serious? What do you call your original post in this thread?

You being nice? Telling a gay man that his fight for equal rights is an obscure way to bash Obama is you supporting gay rights? Gimme a fucking break. At least be honest, the post is right fucking there for everyone to see.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonLP24]

100. ANY other issue?

Because I think Obama's stance on Bagram is real shitty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. The mental gymnastics are just damn amazing

aren't they?

[asdjrocky]

17. +1 nt

[nashville_brook]

22. +10000

[QC]

31. +100000

[asdjrocky]

16. Equal rights matter.

And they can't be bought.

on edit-
God, what a thing to say!

[dionysus]

18. !

:spray:

[Lucky 13]

20. So gay rights are "obscure" issues?

This isn't about pettiness. We have a major difference of opinion here. Do gays deserve full civil rights or not?

It may have no impact on your life and seem like just another way to "pick on" Obama, but for those of us in the trenches, who are deeply effected by these policies, I can assure you it's a VERY big deal.

[LostinVA]

26. I don't see how this is either obscure or bashing

[Bluebear]

97. OMG what fool on the ignore list could have said that?

Let me see...no, don't bother lol.

[Marr]

29. 'You have to push them!' 'Shut-up and stop complaining!'

Make up your damn mind. When he pushes right-wing policy, the boosters say it's our fault for not pushing him hard enough. When people push, they say to shut-up and stop complaining.

Apparently you'd prefer it if liberals confined their "pressure" to occasional, polite, easily-ignored ideas dropped into the suggestion box.

[mikelgb]

79. why only $25 when you have such priceless posts?

priceless

[LWolf]

83. What, exactly, constituted "bashing?" nt

[RetroLounge]

99. Wow, what an asshat post

:puke:

RL

[Hassin Bin Sober]

105. Grow up.

[Lorien]

115. Not everything is ABOUT Obama

Equality is an issue that effects all of us. If you're a straight white Christian man from a privileged background you may not understand this, but the rest of us sure as hell do.

[uponit7771]

125. +1

[Vincardog]

2. Note to White House, the reality based community judges based on ACTIONS, NT

[nashville_brook]

28. amen.

[piratefish08]

3. Good! They're causing plenty of frustration too. I should hope they feel a little.

[GodlessBiker]

4. Bond should have said, "66 percent supportive of your issues."

There is both the quality and quantity of issues to be considered.

[zipplewrath]

6. Technically, Kenny did

Technically, all he did was post another column. Something goes on here everyday.

[Roland99]

7. 19 months in and the campaign promise to repeal DADT is where?

[closeupready]

8. If I were forced to make an uneducated guess, I think Obama feels deeply

that, on the one hand, he wants to support same-sex marriage, in light of the obvious contradiction in the fact that he is the product of an interracial marriage who is opposing same-sex marriage, when the arguments presented today against same-sex marriage are the very same arguments presented in opposition to interracial marriage when his own parents were together. But, on the other hand, he is afraid of the presumed electoral consequences of doing so.

However, we worked hard to put him there, and we deserve representation every bit as much as any other Democratic constituency - perhaps more so, since gay people are the Democratic Party's biggest, most loyal constituency.

It's just something everyone has to work out for themselves.

[EFerrari]

11. Well, good job, John. Now let's see them do something productive

to resolve that frustration.

[Lucky 13]

13. So... if a politician agrees with 99% of your issues, that obligates you to relent on the 1%

Bullshit.

Oh and the time for justice is always right NOW.

[bullwinkle428]

24. 99%? If only! My wet dream involves a President

who supports even 90% of my own positions!

[Lucky 13]

27. Agreed. But even then, does that mean the other 1% doesn't matter?

What's right is right.

[bullwinkle428]

106. I guess my point was that Obama was nowhere near even that 90%

value, so for someone to claim he was 1% from perfection or such, was beyond ridiculous.

[MadHound]

14. Obama frustrated with gay bloggers, Obama frustrated with the left,

Gee Obama, perhaps if would start addressing some of the concerns of these two groups we wouldn't be making your life miserable.

Seems to me like Obama has a choice, address the concerns of these groups, or continue to experience frustration, especially this fall and fall of 2012. His choice:shrug:

[emilyg]

25. Too bad. I'm frustrated with him.

[ProSense]

33. Everyone is frustrated.

It's a sign that everyone is paying attention to something.

Obviously from the statement in the OP, the WH knows that more has to be done, but frustration is not the same as doing nothing.

[joeybee12]

15. 99% supportive? Gotta wonder where he pulled that number out of...

...his ass?

[Laughing Mirror]

56. It means that LGBT folks are not quite human, almost, but still only 99%

Still not the required 100% status that Bond, et al, enjoy. At least, that's the way I read it.

[Joey Kidd]

23. Who cares about those trivial things ?

What's important is that he took a dip in Florida isn't it ?

[Sapphocrat]

34. I know what you mean!

I was completely distracted from all my silly little civil rights thingys by Obama looking so dreamy in that ever-so-teasing shot of his unclothed torso peeking out of the water! It sent a tingle right up my leg! tee hee hee!

[Joey Kidd]

117. Lol !

:toast:

[ProSense]

30. Oh brother

"But it's the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive of us"

Yeah, the administration is the same as Bush, "secretly supportive."

Things were really the same under Bush. These criticisms are becoming more lame by the day.

The WH is frustrated by a lot of things, it isn't breaking news. Congress is frustrated with the WH. The WH is frustrated with Congress.

[Gormy Cuss]

32. Nice use of a selective quote.

I expect such nonsense at right wing sites, not here.

The OP followed that by stating clearly that it wasn't a statement that Obama = Bush.

"But it's the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive of us, they'd say, even if he didn't help us a whole lot legislatively. I'm not saying you're George Bush, but the empathy thing is wearing thin. We don't want your support in words, we want you to keep your promises. And you're not."

A common sense interpretation of that paragraph is that the OP is tired of being told to wait.

[ProSense]

36. Absolutely

lame. Bush was not "secretively supportive," and throwing that in there and then trying to qualify it is absolutely lame.

[Gormy Cuss]

38. Nonsense. Read it again.

The OP didn't say that Bush was secretly supportive.

[ProSense]

40. "it's the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive"

Nothing about this situation is the same as George Bush in any context, not even trying to use gay Republicans to disguise it.

[Gormy Cuss]

42. Right. It's the same argument GAY REPUBLICANS used, not Bush.

See the subtle difference?

[ProSense]

44. Right,

"secretively supportive" is the argument, and it refers to Bush's actions. This WH is not secretively supportive. Its action are well-publicized and go further than any other administration in history. So claiming that this is the same argument is nonsense.

[Gormy Cuss]

53. No "secretly supportive" refers to an assertion by deluded gay Republicans,

not about any actual policy by Bush.
The comparison is of promises by gay Republicans that Bush was really supportive behind the scenes and the Obama's open promise of being supportive. Trying to turn that into a direct comparison of Bush and Obama is nonsense.

[ProSense]

55. Oh please

Your point is proving that the claim is irrelevant. By making it, the piece attempts to link Obama to Bush. It's that simple.

[Gormy Cuss]

59. Oh please.

My point is proving that what you're reading into the OP's statement is ridiculous.

[ProSense]

63. Why mention what gay Republicans thought about Bush?

How relevant is it to this administration at this time related to what it has done and what needs to be done?

[Gormy Cuss]

73. Because it's comparing two statements asking LGBT people to wait quietly

rather than complain about the lack of positive movement(Bush)or the slow movement (Obama) towards equal rights.

The administration complaining about gay bloggers isn't addressing the civil rights issue.

[Touchdown]

39. Central points fly over your head all the time, don't they?

Thought so.

[ProSense]

43. Central point:

Make a big negative hoopla about a positive step by harping on the a minor point: WH frustrated.

[Touchdown]

68. And myopic too, I see.

Nope.not the Central point.

[Raineyb]

95. Only every day. Someone should probably take up a collection to buy that one a clue. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Uh, no one said things were the same at all, and you know that

The point is that the same arguments were made by those making excuses for the last President as the excuse vendors for this one use. Clearly, that is not at all about the two politicians, but about their supporters. You obviously can tell the difference between the two points, but wish to frame away.
The two Presidents are not being compared to one another, nor are their policies. It is their most ardent supporters who are being compared, the one to the other, with great accuracy. The excuses are virtually the same.

[ProSense]

61. Really?

"The point is that the same arguments were made by those making excuses for the last President as the excuse vendors for this one use."

Making excuses for the President in the same way the Republicans made excuses for Bush. Why mention Bush if nothing about the policies or the politicians are remotely the same?

Why emphasize "secretively supportive"?

Americablog, specifically John Aravosis, has been at this for long, and he knows how to spin any positive news into a negative.

Here he is reporting on outreach, a meeting between gay activists and the WH, and his takeaway is to hype that the WH is frustrated.

[TriMera]

66. As opposed to the hype that you are pushing?

You are basically pushing the WH hype that everyone who disagrees with the POTUS is comparing him to Bush. That seems to be your "takeaway" on everything.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. Obama is not being compared to Bush, let me be blunt here

his supporters are being compared to Bush supporters, in that they use the same pathetic excuses and rationalizations that gay Bush supporters used. The supporters are being compared, not the people being supported, which are both irrelevant to the point being made. But you know all of this. You just have a silly game to play, and you are playing it. From one look at the thread, you are not winning it either.

[kestrel91316]

35. The "WH" wouldn't have to suffer such frustration if they would just

MAN UP IN THAT PLACE AND ACKNOWLEDGE GAYS AS FULLY HUMAN.

I think our president's own mother would be embarrassed by his stance on gays, thinking that partial rights are acceptable........

[ProSense]

37. The President's mother?

His stance is the same as it was during the campaign, the same as Hillary's. It's one thing to want him to change his stance, it's another thing entirely to create the false perception that this is a recently discovered position.

[kestrel91316]

45. I never said it was a new position. I WILL go on record as saying it is a

WRONG position and his mother would have been embarrassed by his conservativism on it - JMHO, BTW.

[ProSense]

52. "his mother would have been embarrassed "

Did you know his mother?

[Sapphocrat]

46. It was "recently discovered" that his stance is 180 degrees...

...from where it was in 1996.

Obama Once Backed Full Gay Marriage: "President-elect Obama’s answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: 'I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.' There was no use of the phrase 'civil unions'."

Or would a visual aid be more helpful?

Of course, I expect you to say this wasn't "during the campaign," so it doesn't count.

But it sure as hell was "during the campaign" for the Illinois state Senate.

Now, would you care to post forty or fifty unannotated links to articles that have nothing to do with Obama's complete flip-flop on equal rights? I always look forward to those riveting exchanges with you -- thanks in advance!

[LostinVA]

48. rofl

[ProSense]

49. Not recently discovered,

and his stance is the same as he campaigned on.

[Sapphocrat]

57. Sorry 2009 isn't "recent" enough for you...

...but I do thank you for A) declining to deny that he flip-flopped like a live fish on a hot skillet, and B) sticking to your "during the campaign" guns, just as I predicted you would. You never fail to disappoint!

Have a nice day! :hi:

[ProSense]

67. This is your debate.

The reality is that people know the Obama administration's position and it hasn't changed since the election. They know that a repeal of DADT and DOMA are in the works, and the administration strongly supports that. Congress is going to have to act, and nothing anyone says is going to change that.

Attempts to ridicule and introduce constant distortions isn't going to impact perception.

[Sapphocrat]

72. What distortions?

Has he or has he not done a complete U-turn on equal rights?

And it's not "my" debate -- unless, of course, you're of the school that thinks "gay rights" is a little island all off on its own, and that Obama's approach to (or avoidance of) the issue of equality is not indicative of his M.O. on virtually every other issue, from FISA to marijuana to you-name-it.

Sorry you feel ridiculed. That wasn't my intent. I just find your every word on this subject, and most others, all over the map. Trying to pin you down to your opinion, without you constantly moving the goal posts or resorting to blind links that shoot off to uncharted destinations, is like trying to pin down a worm, covered in snot, to a piece of glass covered in motor oil.

No, I am not comparing you to, or calling you, a worm (or a snot).

Just a little focus -- and originality -- would be a welcome change.

[laughingliberal]

127. +10,000 nt

[Bluenorthwest]

47. He used to be inclusive and went all pro-discrimination a few

short years ago. Few Democrats become more conservative over time, but he did. He says this is because he became devoutly religious, but it was also just after he lost an election, so the religion thing could be as fake as the rest of it all, pretense, affectation, I mean, clearly Michelle rejects the rules Paul wrote for women, and yet she feels I should live by the other rules. Let the Obamas follow those rules for a fucking month, and we can talk. Until then, hypocrisy is just that and nothing else.
If they believed it, they'd live it, but they do not, so they don't. You should dig that, because in Pragmatism, the proof of faith is action. Statements of 'belief' are not proofs of anything but the fact that the speaker is able to talk.

[ProSense]

51. "pro-discrimination," yeah like Hillary Clinton. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Who's talking about Hillary? You. Out of the blue.

I am talking about Barack Obama, who reversed his stated opinion, his public opinion, and went all the way from supporting equal rights to opposing them. He says he is against equality because of the religion he adopted in 96. But his church of many years, Trinity UCC in Chicago, is very inclusive and equality based, and most of the Christians I know do not favor unfair and discriminatory laws toward anyone.
This is about the President, not about his staff. What a pitiful thing, bringing up the Sec of State, unrelated to this conversation, or to any point I made. Are you under the impression that I supported Hillary in the Primary? You'd be mistaken.
I'd freely call Hillary's stated views on marriage vs civil unions as being pro discrimination, no problem, because it is just that. Anyone who favors that crap is pro-discrimination.

[Laughing Mirror]

60. Thank you!

Canada and Mexico, our neighbors to the north and the south accept us as human. Why can't the US?

[bigbaddan]

50. Gay community does not understand what a political hot potato their issues are.

This is no excuse in principal, but if you were not around to see what Bill Clinton went through in the first couple of weeks as president when he tried to lift the ban on military service, one can understand why Obama is going slow.

I really blame Bill Clinton for "Don't Ask Don't Tell." He should have signed an executive order lifting the ban as soon as he took office. There would have been an outrage for a week or so and it would have been over. Instead he sewnt out these trial balloons which allowed the right to gather their forces. We eneded up with "Don't Ask Don't Tell," and unprecedented congressional control over a decision left to the CIC.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. That is absurd. the gay community lives this battle, and has

won ever single victory we have gained, and those are huge and many, with no help from the political mainstream that was not purchased or pressured into action.

[Sapphocrat]

64. "Their" issues?

How dismaying you do not understand that all equal-rights issues are one and the same. I hope someone -- perhaps a member of the Feminists group, or the AA Issues group -- who is not as tired of this never-ending "YOUR isssue/MY issue" roundy-round will be willing to explain it to you.

Oh, and I was 32 years old when Clinton signed DADT. I remember everything with crystal clarity. I perceived it as a temporary stop-gap measure to keep a rabidly homophobic Congress from putting through something even worse. That was then; now, it's just a 17-year-old pile-of-shit excuse to keep teh gheyz in their place.

[asdjrocky]

69. Equal rights is everyone's issue.

How is it that you don't see that? If one of my brothers or sisters are denied freedom, we all are.

[foxfeet]

70. I beg your pardon?

I have been working for equal rights for the LGBT community since the early 1970s. To say "Gay community does not understand what a political hot potato their issues are" is just plain ignorant and insulting. We live that "hot potato" every day and there are costs for that. Some pay with their lives; all pay when our relationships are ridiculed and considered unworthy of the material benefits accorded to heterosexual married couple. We know what Bill Clinton did. Instead of posting sanctimonious lectures, perhaps you could sit back, shut up and read what the LGBT community here has to say before you jump into this debate. And welcome to DU. I hope it's an eye-opening experience for you.

[walldude]

77. I see... you talk about the trouble Clinton had..

Well Clinton got into office almost 20 years ago. So tell me, if Clinton tried to get the ball rolling 20 years ago then what exactly is a "reasonable time frame" for the GLBT community to receive their rights?
It's been over 20 years, is that not enough time?

People are tired of being told it's not politically expedient to receive their basic human rights. There is never going to be a "right time", it will never be politically expedient. So someone needs to fucking grow a pair. I was hoping it would be Obama, but the truth is, he is just another politician. He's not great, he's not awful, he's just another politician.

Edit: I before E except after C... :eyes:

[FreeState]

80. Its so nice to have straight people tell us we don't know our own civil rights struggle

hetrocentric superiority is homophobia.

[Starry Messenger]

82. Are you joking?

Tell me you are joking.

[NMMNG]

84. Just what we need

Another straight person to lecture us about our petty little issues, and why we need to just STFU about them. :eyes:

Such a pity you weren't around a few decades, or even a few centuries, ago so you could tell other minority groups how trivial and politically touchy their little pet issues were.

[LWolf]

86. They don't understand their own issues. I see.

:banghead:

[John Agar]

98. As you say, "no excuse is possible."

And yet we see many excuses in this thread.

I'm surprised by it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. So let me get this straight

civil rights is a "hot issue?"

Has the teaching of US history so defective people don't remember the 1960s?

And yes SON, they are comparable.

[myrna minx]

104. Human rights and equal rights are *all* of our issues. n/t

[RoseMead]

58. K&R

:kick:

[VMI Dem]

65. Rec for awareness. This is that quiet support I heard about.

[Orsino]

71. It must be hell, having all those gay bloggers dissing the White House's civil rights. n/t

[laughingliberal]

128. Zing! nt

[earth mom]

81. K & R! nt

[NMMNG]

85. Leave Obama Alone!

It's hard work giving gay people equal rights. You have to do studies, then studies about the studies. You have to interview the people who'd be working with the gay people, their relatives, and the people they took to their high school proms. I mean, that's how they did it when they were considering the Civil Rights Act, interracial marriage, allowing women to vote, abolishing slavery, ending child labor and the other great advances this nation made. The US never gives anyone rights without first getting opinions and consent from those who don't like the minority group in question. Why should gay people be any different?

[tnlefty]

93. $60,000 question, okay scaled back to $60 'cause I don't have $60K...

If there is a serious push being made relating to getting rid of DADT, DOMA, ENDA, why not express frustration with Sens. A, B, C, D, and Reps. A, B, C, D, etc. who are obstructing getting anything done? Name them each and every one.

Why express frustration with gay bloggers who can't vote on any of these items and who can't sign an Executive Order to halt the discharges resulting from DADT?

Hmmm...

[xchrom]

94. Note to white house: get four square on the right side of the issue

And it might get different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. I'm not gay, but on this issue

the feeling IS mutual.

:hi:

[JoeyT]

107. I've often considered a poll asking if people would demand

minorities or women support a politician that didn't think that they had the right to own property.*
I never bothered because I know it'd create such a huge flame war that it might get locked in fairly short order.

*Yes, GLBT civil rights and civil rights for minorities and women are very much the same thing unless you're dumb enough to think being gay is a choice. Marriage is comparable to owning property, since society grants so many benefits to married people that no other class gets. Separate but equal always manages to be really separate, but never anything close to equal.

[amborin]

108. knr

[pinboy3niner]

109. K&R

[Stinky The Clown]

110. If people can find the necessary empathy, get inside the persons making these sorts of statements

Become them, just for a few moments. Try to actually FEEL what they're feeling that causes them to say what they say, to feel the disappointment that the political party they're more inclined to is less than inclined to support them. Try to FEEL it.

And then see how you feel about shortchanging them.

The time is NOW. Not after the next election, or the campaign after that. The gay people my age face a more rapidly ticking clock. When they die, I want them - and me, for that matter - to at least die knowing we were all equal under the laws of country.

The time, indeed, is now. No excuses. No "wait until the time is right."

[TriMera]

114. Hey, Stinky!

Thank you for that perspective...:pals:

[pgodbold]

124. Thank you. At my age I too would like to know how it feels to have the same rights as everyone else

even if it's just for a day.

[Contrary1]

111. I think the list of those of us who do not "frustrate" this White House

is getting shorter all the time.

[Stinky The Clown]

112. Why isn't the title written exactly opposite? "Gay bloggers frustrated with white house" is also tru

The issue is GAY PEOPLE, not the politician du jour.

P E O P L E

Remember them?

[PufPuf23]

113. I almost posted something that POed me greatly about Obama

My stake in the issue is it effects various friends from the from my life 60s to now in Northen Caifornia and liberal northcoast (Eugene to Portland), Oregon.

I am heterosexual with two divorces. I know gay couples that have existed since I was a child in rural California and have been to gay weddings outside the law for love and commitment.

Many of these couples are just as solid and capable of raising children as hetero9sexual couples, this is compounded by more hetero-parentages are created in less than thoughtful youth rather than adults that accept themselves and onl;y want peace, happiness, and equality.

Obama recorded statements were used daily in robo-calls by the individuals that want no gay marriage in the days prior to Prop 8 in California -- I received the robo-calls of Obama recordings against gay marriage every day leading up to the election -- Obama needs to clarify and I hope he is not a bigot.

[Morning Dew]

116. The President is against full equality for GLBT Americans

and the WH is frustrated that GLBT bloggers are critical?

Laughable, really.

[QC]

118. In the words of a very old hymn, we should trust and obey,

or at least that seems to be the attitude of the administration and its fans.

[Vickers]

120. GOOD. n/t

[whathehell]

123. Apparently they're frustrated with MANY in their base....Tough shitskies!

They need to review or perhaps renew their definition of "Democrat".

[Riverman]

126. "99 Percent Supportive of your issues" Which fingers do I cut off

for the cause? When was support of civil rights limited to only those whose civil rights are denied, or restricted? Civil Rights are everyone's issue! I have no interests in settling for denial or restriction of civil rights for any group, whether I am a member of that group or not. I am getting older, I am gay and I am not, yet, physically disabled, nor diagnosed as mentally disabled, and I fully support full access to jobs, housing, public buildings, public transit, parks, etc for persons with disabilities. I am no longer a child and my children are grown, but I am uncompromisingly in support of all civil rights for children to not be expoited for the mere fact of being young - to do work without pay or meager pay, without proper housing and medical treatment, without being physically abused or sexually exploited. It is in everyone's interest in any society, country, state or community that children's rights are never abrogated. So those of us who are not children must be vigilent in protecting and expanding the civil rights of children. The same is true for the people born members of racial/ethnic groups, elderly, disabled persons, women, and gay/lesbian/bisexual and transgendered persons, and many other groupings of human beings. Whose civil rights are we willing to deny for our own perception of comfort?

I do not care who is the President, member of congress, local official, and whether I support them 50%, 75% or 99% on issues. I will fight for the civil rights of any group, which cannot be compromised, put-off, or denied, just because it makes a politician uncomfortable to address the issue. I want courage in all public officials! If politicians are unahppy with the needed persistent advocacy for civil rights for all, then they should not seek public office. As the saying goes "If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen."

[laughingliberal]

129. WH frustrated with gay bloggers, the professional left...Are they just going to whine...

all the way to November? Might be more productive to address the concerns of all those independents whose #1 concerns are jobs and the economy. I don't think the, "we're standing up to the big, bad liberal boogeyman is working for them.