I’m guessing that Jonathan Capehart’s piece in this morning’s Post is a part of the WH pressure.

From the top and bottom of the piece: “Obama has only himself to blame for this . . . [but LGBTs] should focus their fire where it belongs: on Congress.”

Funny, but I don’t recall Congress reaching out to the LGBT community for money and votes during the 2008 elections, nor do I recall Congress promising to be a “fierce advocate” for LGBTs. I do, however, remember Obama doing both of these things.

My question is “How many degrees of separation on this are there between Capehart and Rahm?” It stinks to high heaven of someone at the WH saying “get these people off my back.” It also reeks of someone who can’t tell (or chooses not to see) the difference between after-the-fact damage control and pro-active setting of the policy agenda.

Thanks Jane. And, it might not surprise folks, but I disagree vehemently with Jonathan Capehart’s essay suggesting that we accept the crumbs Obama is offering us – I wrote about it this morning here:

http://www.americablog.com/200…..ffice.html

Under normal circumstances, a Democratic president in the year 2009, who was himself the product of a forbidden union in some parts of the country, who won in a landslide, who had a great approval rating, whose party had control over the House and the Senate, wouldn’t slowly-slowly start backing away from his commitments to a minority, as if that minority were somehow a diseased pariah. Under normal circumstances, that president wouldn’t have compared that minority to incest and pedophilia. Under normal circumstances, he wouldn’t defend a law that he’d called abhorrent, that he said he’d help repeal. Under normal circumstances, he’d have at least issued a stop-loss order to cease the two-discharges a day that are ruining the lives of patriotic gay service members. (Obama just defended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in court too: “The bar on gays serving openly is ‘rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.’ “)

Yes, under normal circumstances, if you give me a quarter, I’ll say thank you. But if you kick me in the balls and then give me a quarter, don’t expect a goodnight kiss.

The baffling part is why? Why hasn’t he kept his word on this issue? I can understand his waffling on some other issues but this one’s a no-brainer. I honestly don’t understand what he’s thinking.

Three-quarters of Americans think military service should be open to all who qualify regardless of sexual orientation.

Three-quarters of Americans want a government-run health plan option.

Two-thirds of American think same-sex unions deserve some recognition from the government, split evenly between supporters of marriage equality and civil unions.

Why won’t the President get at the front of these three parades and look like the leader we elected?

The time to talk about this was the South Carolina primary. Better late than never, but pardon me if I can’t take Aravosis seriously.

Book Salon up at the Mothership with Frank Schaeffer’s Crazy for God hosted by Peterr

an ongoing effort to legally label you as akin to pedophilia and incest

That is a major overstatement – the DOJ doc referred to examines the legal ramifications of differences between states related to the age at which people can legally marry, or whether they can or cannot legally marry their first cousins.

the White House hopes that a little champagne and fancy food will convince the A-listers to throw the rest of you overboard

Great point.

We Black people had a term for folks like this.

It began with “House”…

Not to defend Aravosis, as I’m sure he can take care of himself, but I remember Obama campaigning with Feingold in Wisconsin and pledged not to vote for any bill that gave retro-active amnesty for telecoms. How did that work out. No, Obama’s recent actions on several issues are in direct contrast to his campaign platform. Consistent and merciless brute force from the electorate is needed to keep him on the course he charted as candidate to be elected as President. After all, his political power was generated from that very same electoral brute force.

As did/do Native Americans with the term “hang around the fort Indians.”

I received a pledge reminder from the DNC, saying they were waiting for the (paltry) $15 I had committed to. Maybe I forgot?

I wrote on the reply “I AM WAITING TOO! I AM WAITING FOR REPEAL OF DOMA AND DODT. GET BACK TO ME WHEN YOU TAKE CARE OF THAT!”

Wonder if that will get through to anyone.

Aravosis’ take on things has irritated even Alex Blaze, a gay critic of the DoJ memo:

I was originally going to do a post trying to respond to a few of the misleading statements AMERICAblog has been making about the DOJ DOMA brief, because even though I agree that the brief is offensive and homophobic, misrepresenting it and criticizing the fact that it was even written (when the DOJ, with a few, exceedingly rare exceptions, has to defend standing law) cheapens the entire discussion and makes it easy to dismiss.

So I went over to see their latest posts on DOMA, and here are a few headlines I found on the front page as I write this last night:

Barney Frank throws us under the bus. Lauds incest brief. Says language was appropriate.

They’re lying about DOMA too

HRC’s Solmonese attends Obama’s benefits signing

President Obama betrays the gay community

Gibbs: President stands behind incest/pedophilia brief

When Republicans are better than Democrats on gay rights, the Democratic Party had better take notice

Show Obama you mean business. Donate to AMERICAblog.

Well, actually that last one explains a lot.

So it doesn’t seem worth it to actually respond to anything going on there as if it were a reasoned argument. Instead, Aravosis and his crew are the leaders of a sector of the gay community that’s simply lost its mind over the past week. And if we think that losing our heads is going to make any of our battles easier, we’re sadly mistaken.

Rallying the troops is well and good. Using somebody’s bogus frames to do so, not so much — in fact, as Blaze points out, it hurts your credibility and makes it easier for the people you want to influence to dismiss you.

Just who the hell are the “A-list gays”?

Ellen?

Elton John?

Barney Frank?

I just don’t know.

Gee, is the White House throwing Freakers Ball, a la Dr Hook and the Medicine show hit? Great idea, where can I sign up?

If not, how about a counter Freakers Ball to drain the WH party goers?

Freakin’ At The Freaker’s Ball was actually Shel Silverstein before Dr Hook

It is not a major overstatement at all. States have a legal right to refuse to recognize marriages involving under age participants because an underage participant isn’t legally recognized to be able to understand the contract they are entering into. A marriage between one adult and one underage person would be a relationship of pedophila.
States also have a legal right to not recognize the marriage between close relatives (incest) because the children resulting fom such a marriage are much more likely to have medical problems through the closeness of the gene pool. The case cited was between an uncle and his niece.
To cite these cases, you are saying they are analagous. What is the analogy between two types of marriages that are able to be legally denied for compelling reason that are in the interest of the state and for denying recognition of same-sex marriage? Because the brief is arguing that same-sex marriage falls into the same category of legal deniability as pedophila and incest. And, before you answer what the state’s compelling interest might be, please remember that despite what President Obama thinks, God is not legally allowed to be in the mix of a civil matter. So, religious beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion.

Thanks, John. Great post.

That’s the $64.00 question, isn’t it. These issues are not controversial to the vast majority of Americans, which is to say that they are not considered partisan, and the solutions are not hard to sort out either. It’s a mystery why Obama would not seize the day and lead on these three issues. So unless he was dissembling throughout the campaign, who would advise him not to lead on these issues and why would he ever accept his/her/their counsel?

If it isn’t clear to Obama yet that not leading on these and other issues throws into question his commitment to keeping his campaign promises, and that that weakens him unnecessarily without gaining him anything from those other voters who are not pre-disposed to look upon him favorably in the first instance, then I don’t know if it will ever be clear to him.

This is simply bad politics, and if Obama has an advisor who thinks otherwise then he or she really ought to be fired forthwith for the good of the country. This is very bad politics for a guy who ran on the mantle of change. It’s so elementary that my head is spinning, although that might just be from the Mount Gay rum and tonics I’ve been drinking.

Not buying it. John may be aggressive but there are plenty of other lawyers who have agreed with his reading of the memo. Having read it myself (but with no legal expertise) I side with John and Joe. And the fact that John and Joe raise money (as does this blog) by appealing to their readers based on their work is below the belt insult. They quite openly tell their readers that this is how they make their living. The phrasing you quote shows the emptiness of Blaze’s arguments against AMERICAblog when he reduces it to a personal attack and implies they are doing what they do for profit only. Too low. Aren’t we beyond this type of personal attack in the progressive blogosphere?

I’ve spent 30 years with the appeasement crowd of the NGLTF, HRC, and various and sundry other groups undermining everything I’ve done as an activist. They screamed about the tactics of ACT-UP and Queer Nation yet those 2 groups achieved more positive change in a few years with next to no money than the “A-list” groups have achieved in a generation with millions and millions of dollars.

No, we won’t be accepted if we act more “normal” or smile as we are being denied equality. No, the Democratic Party will NOT treat us any better than they have before unless we demand it and back up our demands with our money. I’ve suffered 2nd class citizenship all of my adult life due to these groups who claimed they could make progress from the “inside” who haven’t actually achieved squat besides being invited to DC cocktail parties.

I stand with the admonitions of Frederick Douglass on this one:

“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.

and

“It is not light that we need, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake.”

and, finally,:

“If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will.”

i stopped reading Americablog during the last ENDA fight. I found John’s posts arrogant and so dismissive of the trans community that I felt I could not even support the other good writers on his site by giving them a click. And during this debate I am seeing the same tendency. It’s difficult to read him. It’s like being bludgeoned. Discussion doesn’t seem to be an option. I’ll get my info from Pam and Andy thank you.
And to be clear, I did not support Obama during the primaries because of his waffling stance on gay rights. There were too many red flags.

He’s too nervous to go out on a limb for gays. He already has the religious groups all upset with him about abortion. He’s trying to be as careful as possible. There are more religious supporters than gay rights supporters so he has to stay as neutral as possible. pink laptops

Can we call Obama a “House” president?

We raise money around issues we care about all the time. The idea that everything you do has to be done for free or it’s valueless means only the well-to-do can be activists.

“…the White House hopes that a little champagne and fancy food will convince the A-listers to throw the rest of you overboard”.

You mean like Queen John threw all of the transgendered Americans overboard over ENDA last year? Damn Jane, I thought you of all people wouldn’t cite a bigoted asshole like John Aravosis.

I would like to speak in John Aravosis’ defense (not that he needs it from me).

I had been very active in glbt issues from about 93-03. In the past 5 years I chose to focus on more Progressive issues with a different net presence. I decided it was time to return to my roots because, as a former active Obama supporter, I have felt thrown under the bus by his administration in Obama’s ongoing quest to appeal to the GOP. He makes a sacrificial lamb of the glbt community, to appear to be more moderate. I couldn’t watch that happen in silence.

A big part of the reason I stopped my glbt activity was disillusionment with the so-called leaders of glbt politics. It seemed so insincere, so concerned with access. For me, the final straw was that the community could make a cause celebre out of the killing of one gay man, but couldn’t muster outrage for a 15 year-old black lesbian brutally murdered in Newark, or a gay man in his later 20s who was stomped to death because he allegedly made a pass at teenagers (which the jurors didn’t buy for a minute). This trial was covered nationally, but where were the gay advocacy groups? Did they really believe the defense of his killers that the man was somehow a pedophile? We couldn’t rally together in anger after an African-American gay man was murdered, having been dragged behind a pickup truck. And forget about being concerned about violence against the transgendered. Sure, there may have been press releases. But not much more.

So, I was attracted to John’s site because I know him to be more of a squeaky wheel.

To the people being so harsh on him, I just want to remind you of the following:

In 1969, it was the rowdy transgendered that made Stonewall and ignited a movement. It was not those who were very obedient and staged protests that would not offend. Although, I will state that anyone who came out in those days was courageous for that alone.

Similarly, I question what might have happened had ACT UP not been in everyone’s face during the early years of AIDS. Certainly they kept the message in the public eye.

There has to be a venue, and a voice for vocal pro-glbt advocacy. It can’t always be ‘patience’ and ‘wait our turn.’

After Proposition 8, things changed. And not just for Californians. We were reminded that any civil rights gains we have made could be removed by a simple majority vote, if we are not careful. The fact that the U.S is virtually last among Western nations on glbt issues has become harder and harder to take. This was the time that things were going to change and….

And Obama has been an incredible letdown.

Sometimes we need to sound off. We need to make our statement.

I just feel Americablog is a good rallying point for those of us in the glbt community who want our anger to be heard.

That doesn’t mean necessarily over-the-top rhetoric. It combines the voicing of one’s anger with a specific action (the witholding of funds) with the purpose of finally getting heard.

To this point, Obama has rendered us invisible.

Just my 2 cents.

While I wouldn’t go that far, I certainly would say I’ve found him extremely disappointing on gay rights issues to date.

What’s bogus is Alex Blaze> Ooooo he’s “a gay critic”! That must mean he can be trusted, right?

HE’S A KAPO!!!!!!!

I’d rather see the issues discussed than personal attacks on Aravosis — or anyone else.

Blaze disagrees with John. Glenn Greenwald shares his concerns. I don’t see how concern trolling and ad hominum attacks on John further anything.

There’s a real problem here — Obama is not fulfilling his promise to end DOMA and DADT. John’s doing something about that. If someone thinks the President’s inaction on his promises is acceptable, let’s argue that.

Because aside from the fact that I like John and respect what he’s doing here, people’s personal opinions of him for issues unrelated to the one at hand are really inconsequential to the much larger concerns of DOMA and DODT.

Jane, it’s not my “personal opinion” of Aravosis that he threw my community overboard last year. That is FACT. He even wrote a screed about how bad we were for the LGB movement, (that’s right, no “T”), that was published in Salon. Ad Hominum attacks are one thing, what Aravosis did was an ad hominum attack on me and many others, all over a bill that stood zero chance of being signed by George W Bush.
I’m happy that you like John. I’ll bet your house that you wouldn’t if you were transgendered.

Margaret, I was not on John’s forum when this incident that you referred to went down, in regards to the alleged dissing of the transgendered community. Therefor, I cannot really speak to it.

I am one activist who has always emphasized that the glbt is just that, g-l-b and t. We do ourselves a disservice when we diminish one part of our community.

If I were to ever see that sentiment expressed, I would forcefully speak out against it. I am not a shy guy, by any means.

The best I can say is that I do post on that site, and I will passionately speak out on behalf of the transgendered, if called for.

I can understand your anger…a lot of us are angry about many things in the glbt sphere, at present.

I guess I am just asking that we try to work through whatever differences we have, in an attempt to work together. Maybe I am being naive, and maybe it is easier said than done. All I can say is that I do think John means well for the community in what he is trying to do right now.

I got sickened with glbt politics, years ago, as I stated. What I didn’t state was that, while I had pretty good dialogue with most all of the people I dealt with, there were some nasty, personal attacks from a couple of others, that I found to be very disturbing. And I saw firsthand how eating our own was self-defeatist and debilitating.

For the record, I have no vested, personal or business, connection with Americablog, I just think it is a very useful site for galvanizing reaction against the status quo, on glbt issues. I have my own activist history, and now, my own blog.

I hope that there is some way for all of us to move together jointly.