Has Obama done enough for gay rights?

kev9100

I know he`s only been in power for 9 months but frankly, DOMA and DADA are still the law of the land and its only gonna get more and more difficult for him to repeal them and personally, i don`t think he will.

Overheal

I cant think of any big dealbreaker why he couldnt repeal those, and take the power of it out of Federal Hands and give each state their own authority on the matter. I really dont see him passing Federal Gay Marriage though.

Still every politician breaks campaign promises. If he kept half of them, I'd be duly impressed.

Nodin

If he gets around to getting rid of the "Don't ask..." thing in the military, it'll be an achievment. He's in the big chair at a busy time.

jumpguy

He hasn't delivered on gay rights as much as he has on his other campaign promises. I can understand though, he's currently occupied with health care proposals, and the Iraq/Afghanistan troop situation. He doesn't want to taunt the Republicans any more with the critical vote on healthcare reform coming up, and he doesn't want to anger conservative military officers with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies at the moment, when they're already angry about his indecision to send extra stoops. Some officers fear such proposals might be demoralising to troops, morale is as important as equipement.

kev9100

jumpguy wrote: »

He hasn't delivered on gay rights as much as he has on his other campaign promises. I can understand though, he's currently occupied with health care proposals, and the Iraq/Afghanistan troop situation. He doesn't want to taunt the Republicans any more with the critical vote on healthcare reform coming up, and he doesn't want to anger conservative military officers with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies at the moment, when they're already angry about his indecision to send extra stoops. Some officers fear such proposals might be demoralising to troops, morale is as important as equipement.

i take your point but personally I just don`t see how anyone could think what someone does in their own private lives, that is legal and consenting, should disqualify them from serving their country. Its extremely insulting and stupid.

Overheal

Perhaps the aliens we have a secret alliance with are happiest with Dont Ask Dont Tell. Who wants to piss off a bunch of aliens anyway?

/honestly I cant think of any good reason for the policy to be left in place anymore.

dave2pvd

If he pushes on gay rights, he jeopardizes his chance of a second term. I suspect any movement on this, if it happens, will be in 2012.

Manic Moran

Nodin wrote: »

If he gets around to getting rid of the "Don't ask..." thing in the military, it'll be an achievment. He's in the big chair at a busy time.

I think changing that is going to have a bunch of second-order effects few people are going to like. I don't think many people have realised the practical realities of removing it in today's somewhat prudish American environment. Some people have pointed out the practical issues which others will have to deal with, I don't know if anyone's listening. To say that an equitable resolution would require a massive culture shift is putting it mildly. I wouldn't mind if it happened, but I just don't see it.

NTM

BlueLepreachaun

jumpguy wrote: »

He hasn't delivered on gay rights as much as he has on his other campaign promises. I can understand though, he's currently occupied with health care proposals, and the Iraq/Afghanistan troop situation. He doesn't want to taunt the Republicans any more with the critical vote on healthcare reform coming up, and he doesn't want to anger conservative military officers with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies at the moment, when they're already angry about his indecision to send extra stoops. Some officers fear such proposals might be demoralising to troops, morale is as important as equipement.

He hasn't deliverd on those either, he is a political coward of the higest order, his Presidency so far has been a long list of surrenders, unnessicary compromises and failures, apart from his stiumulas package, which was weak sauce but still at least something, he's so far been a failure as president and is cruzing at full speed towards a one term presidency.
He doens't need to care what the republicans think, he has a supermajority in congress.

dave2pvd wrote: »

If he pushes on gay rights, he jeopardizes his chance of a second term. I suspect any movement on this, if it happens, will be in 2012.

The people who are against gay rights are not democrats or independents anyway, so it has no effect on him poltically. The only question politically is when he ends DADT, this policy is Bill Clintons worst accomplishment and it needs to be done away with, the US is loosing thousands of soilders because of it, many of them critical arabic translators in war zones.
No other developed country, and no other NATO country, has this absurd policy.

Many don't realize it, but he doens't need to wait for congress to repeal this law. He is allowed, under a seperate law, by executive order, literally the stroke of a pen, to halt any discharges that he beleives are damaging to national security.
He could end this tommorow.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think changing that is going to have a bunch of second-order effects few people are going to like. I don't think many people have realised the practical realities of removing it in today's somewhat prudish American environment. Some people have pointed out the practical issues which others will have to deal with, I don't know if anyone's listening. To say that an equitable resolution would require a massive culture shift is putting it mildly. I wouldn't mind if it happened, but I just don't see it.

NTM

My Boss put it to me the other day like this, and I imagine thats why his kids are Home Schooled. Is that now, unlike when I was in school even in the 90s, kids are dealing with way more drugs, way more guns, and now to throw additional strange new worlds into the mix: Gay and Lesbian makeout sessions in the hallways to be audience to. Oh, and Fort Dorchester High has a Nursery Ward. A Nursery Ward.

Sex: too Liberal?

Im not talking about what happens between consenting adults, but I think we've done a piss poor job in the last 10-20 years at protecting minors from all of it.

BlueLepreachaun

:rolleyes:

Anyone who thinks this change is going to be a big deal if it happens, take a look at this:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/world/141575/british_army_magazine_features_openly_gay_soldier_on_cover_next_to_word_%27pride%27

This month, for the first time in its history, the cover of the British Army's official publication Soldier magazine shows Trooper James Wharton -- openly gay -- clad in his dress uniform, complete with Iraq medal, next to the headline "Pride." It is the most obvious sign that almost a decade after the military lifted the ban on homosexuality it is finally comfortable with its new clothes.

British servicemen and women now march at Gay Pride in uniform, all three services have become Stonewall diversity champions and a few months ago the head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt made history when he became the first army chief to address a Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender conference. "Respect for others is not an optional extra," he said.

Manic Moran

With respect, that's the UK.

The US is going to be just that tad bit more tricky.

NTM

BlueLepreachaun

No, I don't think it is, at all. The millitary culture is fairly consistent worldwide.


Nothing bad is going to happen, the law will change and that will be the end of that, it does not REQUIRE gay soilders to come out, it merely doens't discharge them if they do.
Nobody can actually point to any actual negative consequences if this is repealed, its all pure moral panic.

Don't tell me the people who are having naked pool parties and homoerotic intititations on deployment in Iraq are that afraid of gays sharing their showers..no sorry I just don't buy it.

The experience of Lt Choi, after he came out on tv but before his discharge, where his unit either ignored it or came up to him and told him they didn't give a ****, proves its not going to be that big a deal.

Manic Moran

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

No, I don't think it is, at all. The millitary culture is fairly consistent worldwide.

This is a country which thinks that 20 is too young to drink, and which goes batsh!t when a nipple appears on the television. And the military is the most conservative major instutition in the country this side of the Republican Party, in what is probably the most litigous country in the world.

And you don't think it's going to cause problems?

Why does the US Army keep women's and men's showers separate, do you think? After all, in the same army you'll have mud wrestling constests (as that MP unit in Iraq) or the naked pool parties...

NTM

BlueLepreachaun

The transition may be difficult but that will all be psycological, there are no practical barriers whatsoever.
Nobody is going to be oggling anyone else in the showers, one because that just doens't happen, and two because anyone thinking of doing that knows they'd get their asses kicked.

Yeh, most people thought the janet jackson nipple thing was ridicilous, actually, the complains were from the usual suspects, the same loud and hysterical minority every time.
...the United States is frankly just going to have to ****ing grow up and deal with it like every other developed country, the transition to having women in the armed forces or african americans came with predictions of doom as well, as did the UK army transition (the UK is an extremly conservative country as well, actually)

From all reports this is purely generational, the only people causing major resistence are the older officers (thats what President Obama told Lt Choi when he cornerd him about it at a white house function, anyway), the rank and file really don't caare that much, and those who do, will just have to shut up, follow their orders, and deal with it, if they cant' deal with it, they are welcme to **** off and leave the millitary.
The people who have a problem with this would probably have pretty poor dicipline, and if its that big a problem with them they can be shown the door, with those undiciplined hicks gone from the milltary we might have less war crimes committed in Iraq and Afganistan, double bonus.

Manic Moran

Nobody is going to be oggling anyone else in the showers, one because that just doens't happen, and two because anyone thinking of doing that knows they'd get their asses kicked.

That doesn't seem to stop the requirement for male/female separation. The argument of "Just because I'm gay doesn't mean I'm going to try to shag you" applies just as validly to "Just because I'm heterosexual doesn't mean I'm going to try to shag you" when refering to inter-gender. As long as there is a separation of genders (despite the limitations that forces on military operations, and they exist), there will be the argument that the right to privacy includes a right to not be forced to share showers with someone of a homosexual inclinaton. We can't go about creating yet another set of infrastructure, so the practical equitable solution is to simply abandon all separation. And you can imagine how well that's going to go over. This instution is absolutley paranoid about offending people and leaving itself open to suits. And to a fair extent, justifiably so. You wouldn't believe some of the complaints that have been taken up through the system.

NTM

Overheal

And I imagine that private cubicle showers are just not as practical in the Field, am I correct?

BlueLepreachaun

They've been sharing showers with gay soilders for generations with no problems, the fact that they migh know one or two of the soilders are gay does not create a problem, other than in their own heads, and their own nurosis about homosexuality is not the basis for them to sue the army.
So, no problem.

Gender seperation is a diffrent issue, and no sports team, army etc anywhere, ever, has had seperate showers for gays, that is an absoloute absurdity, espechally since you probably still won't know whos gay and whos not.

If I'm the president, I am not going to conduct military policy based on some hicks lack of comfort with homos, I'm going to look at massive discharges of key personell when I have two wars to run, and a massive recrutitment crises, and say "this is the way its going to be, these are your orders, if you don't like them, you can be discharged", end of.
The civilian leadership does not require the millitarys permission to do anything, they work for us not the other way around, and they will do what they are told or face diciplinary action, Obama seems to have forgotten this in his constant deferring to them.

And I imagine that private cubicle showers are just not as practical in the Field, am I correct?

No, your not correct, have you seen the stuff milltiary contractors have built in Iraq??? Take a look inside the Green Zone in Iraq where the US created their own little imperial colony, their own little peice of America in there complete with nightclubs and pools, sticking some plastic boards between showers is childsplay to these guys, they could do it in less than an hour.

Manic Moran

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

They've been sharing showers with gay soilders for generations with no problems, the fact that they migh know one or two of the soilders are gay does not create a problem, other than in their own heads, and their own nurosis about homosexuality is not the basis for them to sue the army.
So, no problem.

You're not a lawyer, are you?

Gender seperation is a diffrent issue, and no sports team, army etc anywhere, ever, has had seperate showers for gays, that is an absoloute absurdity, espechally since you probably still won't know whos gay and whos not.

To my knowledge, sports teams do not mandate showers be taken at any particular time or place or in the company of any person whether you like it or not, under pain of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

No, your not correct, have you seen the stuff milltiary contractors have built in Iraq??? Take a look inside the Green Zone in Iraq where the US created their own little imperial colony, their own little peice of America in there complete with nightclubs and pools, sticking some plastic boards between showers is childsplay to these guys, they could do it in less than an hour.

If you're ever in this neck of the woods, I've a little base I can take you to see. We are, no faeces, operationally restricted by our gender acommodation problem. And ultimately, FOB/COPs are not what the Army is designed to do. No FOBs in the NTC when on exercise. No opportunity to go to the nightclub when you have to strip for a tick check in Fort Benning.

NTM

BlueLepreachaun

Man, it's simple, grow up and

GET

OVER

IT

..its no more complicated than that.

1. You can't sue an organization for making you feel icky about who you shower with*, and if such laws exist I'm sure they can sort that when repealing DADT.
2. They've been sharing showers with gay soilders for generations, there havn't been any problems, the only problem, is people who are uncomfortable with that, so the problem is not the gay soilders, the problem is guys like you, and the army shoudln't have to write policy based on your personal discomfort, what if you were a white supremacist who didn't want to serve in a unit with black guys? should there be a ban on black people in the millitary?


*and thats another thing..why would you feel that way? what do you thinks going to happen?

No other western army has had a problem with serving with gay guys, so I'm sure the self proclaimed "greatest fighting force on earth" can do a better job of adapting to this minor change than the ****ing French or Brits did, and if they can't, frankly they are a painfully undiciplined and immature organization.

Manic Moran

1. You can't sue an organization for making you feel icky about who you shower with*, and if such laws exist I'm sure they can sort that when repealing DADT

Unfortunately, yes, you can sue an organisation about making you feel icky. It's the fundamental rule in such complaints in the US that what is important is 'what the complainant perceives', not intent, or anything else like that. This is drilled in repeatedly in the mandatory 'respect for others' and 'harrassment' training that we have to suffer every year.

and thats another thing..why would you feel that way? what do you thinks going to happen?

Because I've seen what happen when people in the US Army claim an 'uncomfortable work environment'. There have been suits and complaints about things which most reasonable people will say "Are you kidding?" We have better things to do with our time right now than respond to 15-6 investigations and Congressionals.

They've been sharing showers with gay soilders for generations, there havn't been any problems, the only problem, is people who are uncomfortable with that

I agree with this. Unfortunately, that's a substantial amount in the US military.

so the problem is not the gay soilders, the problem is guys like you, and the army shoudln't have to write policy based on your personal discomfort

I believe you are misunderstanding my personal position (If you even bothered to try to understand it instead of simply assuming homophobia because I disagree with you on the practical aspects of implementation). I suggest you read back over my previous postings and re-read what I wrote when I stated my personally preferred resolution. My concerns are purely pragmatic.

No other western army has had a problem with serving with gay guys, so I'm sure the self proclaimed "greatest fighting force on earth" can do a better job of adapting to this minor change than the ****ing French or Brits did, and if they can't, frankly they are a painfully undiciplined and immature organization.

The French have unisex facilities, they're certainly a little more pragmatic about it. I can't address the British, I've not been in the field for sufficient length of time with them. Regardless, both nations are known for being a little more progressive than the US.

NTM

BlueLepreachaun

Unfortunately, yes, you can sue an organisation about making you feel icky. It's the fundamental rule in such complaints in the US that what is important is 'what the complainant perceives', not intent, or anything else like that. This is drilled in repeatedly in the mandatory 'respect for others' and 'harrassment' training that we have to suffer every year.

Nobody is taking a court cast saying "your honor, I feel uncomfortable cos I think der may be a gay in dem there showers", if you can quote me any law under which one could take such a case I'd be amazed.

They wil have no choice but to get over their homophobia if this law is ever changed.
They're safe for another 3 years though, Obama is a political coward and will never seriously push for repeal DADT, let alone DOMA. In 2010, the excuse will be "we cant touch that now with the mid terms coming up", in 2011 the excuse will be "after re-election".
It will never happen.

Manic Moran

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Nobody is taking a court cast saying "your honor, I feel uncomfortable cos I think der may be a gay in dem there showers", if you can quote me any law under which one could take such a case I'd be amazed.

It would be a civil suit, most likely. No breach of legislation required.

NTM

BlueLepreachaun

No breach of contract or actual injury is required for you to sue someone? What the hell kind of law have you been reading?

Manic Moran

I did spend four years in Roebuck Castle, for what it's worth, but it's true. Civil law does not require any legislative breaches. That's the fundamental difference between civil and criminal law. You break a law, it's criminal. You have a dispute with someone, it's civil. The legislature can give guidance to the courts for civil cases, but ultimately the source of guidance is common law and equity. (i.e. judges making it up as they go along as fairly as they can)

NTM

kev9100

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Man, it's simple, grow up and

GET

OVER

IT

..its no more complicated than that.

+1

dave2pvd

Let me take you back to your earlier comment:

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

The people who are against gay rights are not democrats or independents anyway, so it has no effect on him poltically.

That's not true. Do you know what percentage of the democratic vote is black or Latino? Do you know how those particular groups vote on gay issues? For some background, research California's infamous Proposition 8. So yes, this does have a big impact on him politically.

Another point you have made a couple of times is how the UK is also a very conservative country. I can tell you with certainty that the UK is far less socially conservative than the US.

CPT. SURF

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Man, it's simple, grow up and

GET

OVER

IT

..its no more complicated than that.

+2

BlueLepreachaun

dave2pvd wrote: »

Let me take you back to your earlier comment:



That's not true. Do you know what percentage of the democratic vote is black or Latino? Do you know how those particular groups vote on gay issues? For some background, research California's infamous Proposition 8. So yes, this does have a big impact on him politically.

Another point you have made a couple of times is how the UK is also a very conservative country. I can tell you with certainty that the UK is far less socially conservative than the US.

Yes, and if you look at the breakdown it was the older black vote, so it was generational, not racial.
There are one or two black gay people too, or so I've heard.

The UK is not as bat**** crazy conservative as the US, you woudlnm't find any protestors in the UK claiming their government were in cahoots with aliens or that the govts healthcare bill contained death panels, but they are still very conservative.

At the dawn of the 21st century, there was an actual debate over weither or not to repeal section 28:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/613023.stm

dave2pvd

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Yes, and if you look at the breakdown it was the older black vote, so it was generational, not racial.
There are one or two black gay people too, or so I've heard.

The UK is not as bat**** crazy conservative as the US, you woudlnm't find any protestors in the UK claiming their government were in cahoots with aliens or that the govts healthcare bill contained death panels, but they are still very conservative.

At the dawn of the 21st century, there was an actual debate over weither or not to repeal section 28:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/613023.stm

I'll try again:

If Obama move on this issue, he will lose some of the black vote.

kev9100

dave2pvd wrote: »

I'll try again:

If Obama move on this issue, he will lose some of the black vote.

He may, however he might gain some votes in other demographics as well. Plus sometimes you just have to forget about politics and do what`s right.

Manic Moran

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Yes, and if you look at the breakdown it was the older black vote, so it was generational, not racial.
There are one or two black gay people too, or so I've heard.

The Latino vote didn't help much either.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force put out an analysis focusing particularly on the black vote. Complete with mind-numbing statistical formulae which I can't remember from university.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

The State-wide figures do match the assessment that the older people were, the more likely they were to vote in favour of the assessment, but they believe that when they drill down to the black vote, it was in fact religion which was the major defining factor.

As shown in Figure 4, African Americans are more religious (as measured by frequency of attendance at religious services) than any other racial or ethnic group of California voters. As a whole, 43 percent of Californians attend religious services at least once per week. The share of African Americans attending services with this frequency is much higher: 57 percent. This difference in frequency of attendance between African
Americans and the rest of the population is statistically significant.

As shown in Figure 5, controlling for frequency of religious attendance helps explain why African Americans supported Proposition 8 at higher levels than the population as a whole. Among Californians who attend worship at least weekly, support for Proposition 8 was nearly uniform across all racial and ethnic groups. Among those who attend worship less than weekly, majorities of every racial and ethnic group voted “no” on Proposition 8. The differences that remain among groups are not statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.

On the plus side, you are correct that as the older people die off, that reduces the amount of people who were in favour of Prop 8. On the other hand, whites are a minority in California now, and the current trends see that decrease continuing, with the accompanying increase in the more religious black, Latino and Asian populations which may counter-act that.

It should be added that I'm somewhat surprised by the figure that 43% of Californians attend weekly church. I would be very curious to see the figures for UK or Ireland.

NTM

BlueLepreachaun

Black people vote republican?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

...as Chris Rock said a few years ago "all the black people that voted for Bush are in the Cabinet"

...oh god thats ****ing hillarious.
Obama got around 90% of the black vote in 2008.
They are not gonna vote republican, against the first black president, and throw every economic issue they care about overboard, just because gays can say "yeh man I'm gay" to their buddys in the millitary.

kev9100 wrote: »

He may, however he might gain some votes in other demographics as well. Plus sometimes you just have to forget about politics and do what`s right.

The problem is hes surrounded himself with a lot of people, like his cheif of staff, who only care about politics.

..but your right, progressive voters don't blindly vote democrat no matter what, while it's true the US doens't have a multiparty system like us (despite supposidly being the "greatest democracy on earth"...) dissapointed progressive voters tend to just stay home if they are pissed off.

But even though Obama has been very careful about not taking any bold policy stances and has been overly concerned with his (already doomed) re-election, hes not very good at politics, and neither are the demoratic party. They assume that if they are low in the polls on an issue they should run to the right.
In one of the Goverors races, Virginia, this year the democratic gov that was up for re-election saw his polls slipping sharply and so ran to the right even saying he'd opt out of major parts of Obamas already grossly watered down healthcare plan, he still lost, because 1.2 million progressive voters that had come out for Obama stayed home, and a poll done after the election showed that most thought the gov running for reeelection was too conservative.

Manic Moran

Black people vote republican?

I don't believe he made that suggestion.

They don't need to cross party lines in order for Obama to lose their support. As you point out yourself, all they need to do is just stay home.

NTM

BlueLepreachaun

Oh a huge chunk of the new voters who came out in 08 wont be there in 2012 to re-elect him, but thats because he turned out to be a dull as dishwater centrist with no spine.
Gays in the millitary are just not that big a politicial issue for anyone other than the usual suspects.

A Gallup poll this summer found:

• 69% in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military
• 58% of conservatives
• 86% of liberals
• 77% of moderates

The only people who oppose this are the aged millitary brass that don't want the hassle of dealing with the transition, religous funadmentalists, politicians who like to use culture wars to distract the US working and middle class from their economic situation and some socially conservative troops who are already major closet cases (doing shots out of each others asses as in Iraq for example) and don't want to admit it.

kev9100

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

.


But even though Obama has been very careful about not taking any bold policy stances and has been overly concerned with his (already doomed) re-election, hes not very good at politics, and neither are the demoratic party.

Ah come on, its way too early to say his re-election is doomed. His numbers are still around 54/55 and the republicans have NO ONE electable. In 2010 however, the dems will take a hit.

dave2pvd

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

But even though Obama has been very careful about not taking any bold policy stances and has been overly concerned with his (already doomed) re-election, hes not very good at politics, and neither are the demoratic party.

With such bold statements, I just can't figure out if you are:

A) A highly respected professor of politics. Harvard? Yale?

or

16

BlueLepreachaun

dave2pvd wrote: »

With such bold statements, I just can't figure out if you are:

A) A highly respected professor of politics. Harvard? Yale?

or

16

1. He sacrificed 40% of his stimulas bill to ineffective tax cuts rather than actual stimulas spending just to get the vote of one republican senator that he didn't even need.

2. He watered down his health bill to get the vote of that same republican senator in a comittie that had a massive democratic majority.

3. He named a senator who said Obama wanted death panels as one of the people on the right who was "genuinly trying to find soloutions"

4. In his healthcare debate instead of using the very very basic negotiating tactic of asking first for more than you think you can get (single payer) he started with the compromise (a public option), then compromised on the compromise (public option only open to those without insurance), then compromised on the compromise of the compromise (public option with a state by state opt out clause)....all of this to get senate votes he did not need since he could have used the senate reconciliation rule to prevent a fillabuster by republicans or conservative democrats.

5. He allowed a democratic senator who campaigned against him to get the powerful Homeland Security committie chairmanship, and allowed him to keep it despite that same senator threatening to fillabuster the centrepeice of his domestic agenda, his health reform bill.

He is a terrible politician, good campaigner does not equal a good poltiical leader when you actually get the job.

kev9100 wrote: »

Ah come on, its way too early to say his re-election is doomed. His numbers are still around 54/55 and the republicans have NO ONE electable. In 2010 however, the dems will take a hit.

When you combine progressive and independent voter apathy with a continued bad economy what do you get in 2012? President Romney!

I'm not saying a crazy like Palin would be elected, she'd not even get the nomination for that very reason.