REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT LGBT PRIDE MONTH RECEPTION

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Hello, hello, hello. (Applause.) Hey! Good to see you. (Applause.) I'm waiting for FLOTUS here. FLOTUS always politics more than POTUS.

MRS. OBAMA: No, you move too slow. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: It is great to see everybody here today and they're just -- I've got a lot of friends in the room, but there are some people I want to especially acknowledge. First of all, somebody who helped ensure that we are in the White House, Steve Hildebrand. Please give Steve a big round of applause. (Applause.) Where's Steve? He's around here somewhere. (Applause.)

The new chair of the Export-Import Bank, Fred Hochberg. (Applause.) Where's Fred? There's Fred. Good to see you, Fred. Our Director of the Institute of Education Sciences at DOE, John Easton. Where's John? (Applause.) A couple of special friends -- Bishop Gene Robinson. Where's Gene? (Applause.) Hey, Gene. Ambassador Michael Guest is here. (Applause.) Ambassador Jim Hormel is here. (Applause.) Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown is here. (Applause.)

All of you are here. (Laughter and applause.) Welcome to your White House. (Applause.) So --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Somebody asked from the Lincoln Bedroom here. (Laughter.) You knew I was from Chicago too. (Laughter.)

It's good to see so many friends and familiar faces, and I deeply appreciate the support I've received from so many of you. Michelle appreciates it and I want you to know that you have our support, as well. (Applause.) And you have my thanks for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard and care about their communities -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made. There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking.

And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make but also by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community. And that's important, and I'm glad that so many LGBT families could join us today. (Applause.) For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts. And that real, transformative change never begins in Washington.

(Cell phone "quacks.")

Whose duck is back there? (Laughter.)

MRS. OBAMA: It's a duck.

THE PRESIDENT: There's a duck quacking in there somewhere. (Laughter.) Where do you guys get these ring tones, by the way? (Laughter.) I'm just curious. (Laughter.)

Indeed, that's the story of the movement for fairness and equality -- not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It's the story of progress sought by those who started off with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion and courage and sometimes defiance wherever and whenever they could.

That's the story of a civil rights pioneer who's here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired -- (applause.) Frank was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership. (Applause.)

It's the story of the Stonewall protests, which took place 40 years ago this week, when a group of citizens -- with few options, and fewer supporters -- decided they'd had enough and refused to accept a policy of wanton discrimination. And two men who were at those protests are here today. Imagine the journey that they've travelled.

It's the story of an epidemic that decimated a community -- and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need -- that we all share the capacity to love.

So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality. (Applause.) We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.

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. And by the time you receive -- (applause.) 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. (Applause.)

Now, while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes we've already put in place since coming into office. I've signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as current law allows. And these are benefits that will make a real difference for federal employees and Foreign Service Officers, who are so often treated as if their families don't exist. And I'd like to note that one of the key voices in helping us develop this policy is John Berry, our director of the Office of Personnel Management, who is here today. And I want to thank John Berry. (Applause.)

I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination -- (applause) -- to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I've made that clear.

I'm also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children. (Applause.) My administration is also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we're making progress on both fronts. (Applause.) Judy and Dennis Shepard, as well as their son Logan, are here today. I met with Judy in the Oval Office in May -- (applause) -- and I assured her and I assured all of you that we are going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill into law, a bill named for their son Matthew. (Applause.)

In addition, my administration is committed to rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The Office of Management and Budget just concluded a review of a proposal to repeal this entry ban, which is a first and very big step towards ending this policy. And we all know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. And that's why this past Saturday, on National HIV Testing Day, I was proud once again to encourage all Americans to know their status and get tested the way Michelle and I know our status and got tested. (Applause.)

And finally, I want to say a word about "don't ask, don't tell." As I said before -- I'll say it again -- I believe "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't contribute to our national security. (Applause.) In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security. (Applause.)

Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.

Someday, I'm confident, we'll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term. That's why I've asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal.

I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy -- patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of training and who've served this country well. But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.

Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet.

That's why I've spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences -- in front of African American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes. And that's what I'll continue to do so. That's how we'll shift attitudes. That's how we'll honor the legacy of leaders like Frank and many others who have refused to accept anything less than full and equal citizenship.

Now, 40 years ago, in the heart of New York City at a place called the Stonewall Inn, a group of citizens, including a few who are here today, as I said, defied an unjust policy and awakened a nascent movement.

It was the middle of the night. The police stormed the bar, which was known for being one of the few spots where it was safe to be gay in New York. Now, raids like this were entirely ordinary. Because it was considered obscene and illegal to be gay, no establishments for gays and lesbians could get licenses to operate. The nature of these businesses, combined with the vulnerability of the gay community itself, meant places like Stonewall, and the patrons inside, were often the victims of corruption and blackmail.

Now, ordinarily, the raid would come and the customers would disperse. But on this night, something was different. There are many accounts of what happened, and much has been lost to history, but what we do know is this: People didn't leave. They stood their ground. And over the course of several nights they declared that they had seen enough injustice in their time. This was an outpouring against not just what they experienced that night, but what they had experienced their whole lives. And as with so many movements, it was also something more: It was at this defining moment that these folks who had been marginalized rose up to challenge not just how the world saw them, but also how they saw themselves.

As we've seen so many times in history, once that spirit takes hold there is little that can stand in its way. (Applause.) And the riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day. It continues when a partner fights for her right to sit at the hospital bedside of a woman she loves. It continues when a teenager is called a name for being different and says, "So what if I am?" It continues in your work and in your activism, in your fight to freely live your lives to the fullest.

In one year after the protests, a few hundred gays and lesbians and their supporters gathered at the Stonewall Inn to lead a historic march for equality. But when they reached Central Park, the few hundred that began the march had swelled to 5,000. Something had changed, and it would never change back.

The truth is when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you -- or, for that matter, I -- (laughter) -- would be standing here today. (Applause.) So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress -- step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you.

Thanks very much, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.) Thank you. It's a little stuffed in here. We're going to open -- we opened up that door. We're going to walk this way, and then we're going to come around and we'll see some of you over there, all right? (Laughter.) But out there. (Laughter.)

But thank you very much, all, for being here. Enjoy the White House. Thank you. (Applause.)


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-LGBT-Pride-Month-Reception/

was one of the best heartfelt, heartwarming speeches I've heard and there's been quite a few.

I'm so saddened by people on DU. So many would flock a thread if the President did anything they thought was wrong (even if was proven to be false) and yet for the good stuff. Barely any recognition except by the same old crowd.

Where are the recs? What the hell? It's almost as if people want the President to prove them right about going back on his promises since they've spent so much time naysaying him and predicting he'll fail the GLBT community.

:wtf:

give people a flipping chance to see the text, what? did you expect everyone to read it within just hours of it being posted? Plus, don't expect people to rush in and say, "oh his speech was fantastic, it's all okay now!".

They are very nice remarks by the President, but that is what they are for now - remarks. I am hopeful and look forward to telling him, "well done" after he's done with his terms, and I attend the nearest function I hear he'll be at. He is a good man and I hope he is a president of action, the likes we've never seen.

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

But this is America after all.

:kick: :kick: :kick:

I liked "the so called Defense of Marriage Act" very much. Reviews from the event say it was good live as well.

Thanks for posting this, PT!

I'm on dialup so I never get to watch the videos. The occassional transcripts are a gift. So, thanks again!

Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold - but so does a hard-boiled egg. ~Author Unknown

http://www.quotegarden.com/action.html

THE PRESIDENT: It is great to see everybody here today and they're just -- I've got a lot of friends in the room, but there are some people I want to especially acknowledge. First of all, somebody who helped ensure that we are in the White House, Steve Hildebrand. Please give Steve a big round of applause. (Applause.) Where's Steve? He's around here somewhere. (Applause.)
The new chair of the Export-Import Bank, Fred Hochberg. (Applause.) Where's Fred? There's Fred. Good to see you, Fred. Our Director of the Institute of Education Sciences at DOE, John Easton. Where's John? (Applause.) A couple of special friends -- Bishop Gene Robinson. Where's Gene? (Applause.) Hey, Gene. Ambassador Michael Guest is here. (Applause.) Ambassador Jim Hormel is here. (Applause.) Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown is here. (Applause.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obviously he couldn't have appointed the Oregon Sec of State or the Bishop, but the rest? Are they POTUS appointees? are they gay?

The ONLY reason I ask this is the amount of anguished electrons expended here over Obama's failure to appoint gays to high-level front-office positions. How is that situation looking now? Is it okay? Still not good enough? or what?

Hekate

from a bi who loves his boyfriend.

and Lt Col. Fehrenbach (who was standing right there during the speech) is still losing his job and pension.

Would it NOT have been a great opportunity for BHO to announce he was ordering the military to stop enforcing DADT (which I believe everyone agrees he can do while waiting for Congress to repeal DADT)

he does give a great speech though

Peace

A great many people think that ordering the military to stop enforcement of a law is overstepping his authority. And even if he DID order them to stop enforcement, there would be no way to legally enforce the order - that is, if despite being ordered to not enforce the law a commanding officer enforced it anyway, how can he be reprimanded for enforcing the law? All it would do would be to undermine the president's authority.

Thank you for posting!

...whitehouse.gov when Bush was president.

It is so nice to have a Democrat in office.

That makes a pleasant change from all the folks on here who like to claim Obama's anti-gay just because the man can't snap his fingers and fix everything in the blink of an eye.

I don't think so. I was gratified by his comments on DADT, to the effect that he is working on "how we'll go about ending this policy."

I also liked his comments about families.

A big K&R! Thanks for posting.

The way I read the statute is that he can prevent a particular discharge if he "finds" that the discharge would hurt national security.

I think many people who have commented on this, suggesting he can immediately use this provision, have not addressed the issue of presidential "findings."

I think -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that he would have to turn to the national security staff or Pentagon to develop a "finding." Since it's the Pentagon that's dragging its feet in the first place, I doubt that they would "find" a national security exception.

:eyes:

Or is your only purpose in this subthread to throw around insults about others being on a "script"?

Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

you are declaring yourself part of the problem.

Your creative writing exercises don't interest me.

As I read 10 USC 654, Sec b:

the "finding" has to be made by the Secretary of Defense in order to initiate the "separation" of a "member of the armed forces".

And therein lies the power for the CIC to suspend all "separations". Simply sign an executive order staying all investigations, under 10 USC 654, which are the prelude to the "findings"... pending Congressional address of HR 1283... which I think Obama should explicitly endorse... and in no time Congress can get HR 1283 passed and:

will become un-law... and progressives can commence with a toast, followed by a "finding" that Evangelical Christians are, all too often, asshats...

The provision had to do with the president's ability to override a dismissal because of a finding, not the SoD's finding that the member had violated the policy.

DADT is law, and iirc, the only exemption for application of the statute was when the president "finds" that the dismissal should not go forward for national security reasons.

That's the provision that so many have been quoting as authority for the idea that the president can simply suspend the policy. Obviously, he can't simply ignore the law, but the law had a provision for its non-application if there was a finding on national security grounds.

Semi-expertly done sir.

You are, of course, referring to 10 USC 12305. Specifically, section a:


As you can see, you do not, in fact, RC. There is no specification of a need for a finding. "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States."

I can see how you might wish to change the subject back to this section of law, as it is the section that Bush used to "back door draft" soldiers for service in Iraq... and thus it is distasteful for many to use it to justify using as a stop gap measure to stem the hemorrhaging of qualified soldiers being discharged under 10 USC 654 (DADT). A wily rhetorical trick, sir. However, it is for precisely that reason that, and I reiterate... under the authority of 10 USC 654 the President can suspend all investigations preliminary to findings of a violation of 10 USC 654, thus suspending any separations under said code... and the suspensions of investigations can even be explicitly tied to Congressional review of and voting upon HR 1283. Much as a judge might stay the enforcement of a law that has been challenged as to Constitutionality...

This approach has the appeal of 1: Not discharging any military personnel while 10 USC 654 (DADT) is "reviewed" (in the form of HR 1283 review). 2: Giving Congress time to review HR 1283 without concern over "separations" in the meantime, and without the need to drop any work being done on Healthcare reform, Financial Regulation reform, etc. 3: Implicitly putting Presidential popularity/support behind HR 1283, which could sway some of the more skittish Congress people.

Hence... your digression to a discussion of the merits of your faulty recall of 10 USC 12305 is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. 10 USC 654 gives the President all the authority he needs to suspend separations... and HR 1283, authored by Ellen Tauscher and co-sponsored by:
Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Ms. MATSUI, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR of Arizona, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUSH, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SESTAK, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIRES, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. STARK, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WELCH, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. WU...
is the Congressional Legislation that the President and Mr. Gibbs say they have been waiting on.

Time to act.

that such person "is essential to the national security of the United States."

So it's a determination rather than a finding. It still means that the president can't simply "make stuff up" to decide not to allow the process to proceed. In other words, if we want the president to obey the law (something I hope we all want after 8 lawless years), then he has to determine that national security is at stake.

In most cases, it actually isn't.

He would have to break the law and issue a fake determination in order to halt these personnel processes.

Why you think this is a change of subject is beyond me. You might want to check the post at the top of this subthread. Everything I've discussed is exactly on point.

http://www.palmcenter.org/

Maybe that cookie store owner who wouldn't hire me to make cookie dough for him, but rather told me to go to law school, was right after all.

10 USC 654, or 10 USC 12305... either can be used to stop the "separations"... and now that Tauscher has authored HR 1283... there isn't even any justification for the "Congress needs to deal with it" defense for inaction. All that's left to explain inaction is sheer political cowardice on LGBT rights issues (maybe Rahm Emanuel has some lingering PTSD from '93 when he was part of the Clinton administration that tried to allow LGBT service in the military, and wound up with DADT, and the '94 midterms... ?)

The overwhelming majority of Americans agree - allow gays to serve openly and humanely, repeal DADT and there is little capital to be lost on this.

Much of what I said elsewhere in this thread applies to the analysis presented here: for the president to unilaterally suspend DADT would require a determination that a set of circumstances exist that actually don't exist.

It is a stretch to say that the suspension of any particular DADT process is "essential to the national security". Similarly, the idea that the DoD could simply not make a finding wouldn't work in a case such as Choi, since Choi made public statements about his identity.

I think reasonable people can disagree about what the president can and can't do by administrative action, but it seems pretty clear to me that the only way out is by legislative action.

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

Did you forget your sarcasm smilie ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=110423&mesg_id=110480

Oh wait. From your post at the bottom of this thread, you're actually serious? You can't discuss the technical interpretation of a statute without resorting to name calling against a person who disagrees with you about statutory interpretation but shares the same ultimate goal?

"Pentagon findings"... I'm not even sure what that means... that's definitely a new script... :+

**shakes head**

Clinton's inclusion of gays in his inauguration in 1992--SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO--was far more radical than any lovely words Obama could spin now. Now our struggle is mainstream--thanks to LGBT people and allies who struggled, and no thanks to any US political party.

These pretty words couldn't be safer.

But your overall GLBT grade is still a D. Talk is cheap, Mr. President, and freely available to all. It's actions that speak louder than words.

in concluded you will likely love this man. It won't be as quickly as many of us here would like but he will be the first president ever to actually make major decisions that clear the way for real gay equal rights. I do not believe this man has a prejudice bone in his body. In the end he will do what is just and right. It is going to be a happy ending. Keep the faith.

Most people knew that already. The question is what's different today compared to yesterday? Nothing, but some people sure are easily quelled.

I can't count how many times people have whined because they say Obama hasn't spoke out about GLBT issues enough. When he does, they still whine. Oh well, what can you do?

Donnie McClurkin: Thanks Obama! Message received loud and clear. What's that you say? Marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why thank you sir. Let me bend over and have some more!

For instance, ruggerson has elsewhere pointed out HR1283. If Obama were to give one of his brilliant speeches to endorse HR1283, rather than to just say something vague about working with the Pentagon and some members of Congress... I think he would at least wash away the stench of inaction that the LGBT detects about his person... and a stop gap Executive Order to suspend investigations preliminary to separation proceedings under 10 USC 654 might even win him some approval from the LGBT community.

The question, of course, is whether or not Obama is willing to risk the support of those that the McGlurkins of the country represent, simply to gain the support of the LGBT community. In this case... he can't have both.

I'm pissed off about him being a triangulating phony who talks outside both sides of his mouth and doesn't do a damn thing for anyone except bankers and his Harvard cronies.

It's reassuring to hear the commitments spoken again. I'll be looking forward to the actions that go along with the words. :)

But it was a lovely speech designed to get teh gays off his back.

I'll give him that.

I hope you will join me in doing so.

delete

surprisingly, more of the LGBT community seems to be in support of the President then not. How sad for you that you sit here day in and day out pissing on any thread that shows Obama trying to accomplish something?

Ever heard of Congress? Judging by your posts I'd say you haven't. But they're the ones who need to get off their asses and do something for a change. Obama said from day one he can't do it alone. And by that he doesn't mean oh poor me posts on a message board slamming the man for not curing all the worlds ills in 5 months.

But I guess for some, sitting behind a keyboard and slamming just makes it easier for them than to actually pick up a phone and call their Congressmen/women.

And sadly, Cheney is better than Obama on LGBT issues.

You know, the process IS slow on all fronts.... having patience is not easy, and I'm not surprised that "the political game" requires a kind of forward-backward tango. Thank god the Prez and Hilary and others understand how that game works because I surely don't--so I'm not really in a position to offer critique.

All I can say is, I sure don't get bullshit vibes from the President and never have. As I observe incremental results, it seems that he continues to do his best to deliver the goods.


PS...I haven't read the whole thread, but I wonder if any of the DU folks who habitually rip apart the President for his "gay hate", and rip apart anyone who doesn't join their melodramatic outbursts have shown up to offer apologies for their premature hostility? Do they Ever?

He can't.

The "finding" is done on a case by case basis.

So EACH PERSON that is being kicked out of the military because of DADT, must have his/her case individually reviewed by the President and then President Obama would have to issue a "finding" requesting a stay just for that person.

In that finding, the President would have to state specifically why removing this particular person would weaken national security. What vital skills and talents does this particular person possess that makes the country less secure if they are no longer in the military?

How many people per year are kicked out of the military because of DADT? About 1200? That's what, 100 per month.

You want the President to review and individually write 100 Presidential findings per month?

He would then be spending almost all his time doing nothing but these, and would be ignoring the economy, healthcare reform, climate change reform, dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and everything else he campaigned on.

Instead, President Obama wants Congress to pass new leglislation overturning DADT and DOMA. Then he'll sign that leglislation.

Eminently doable with some help from staff.

http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt

Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach

What about all the hundreds of Privates and Corporals who are kicked out because of DADT?

What reason, what national security reason, what talents or skills does each one of them possess that makes them vital for national security reasons?

give as required by him when he issues the finding?

He can only issue a finding if he determines that removing the person from service would be harming national security. That's how he can prevent DADT from being applied in that particular case for that particular person.

What reason(s) could he give on the person's import to national security? Reason(s) that would stand up to any possible challenge from someone who may disagree?

The cases of Lt. Dan Choi and the Air Force Lt. Colonel are specific and provide clear examples of people having great, learned, talents, skills, and training which are of great use to the military. So, in their cases it can be easily argued by the President that having them in the military, against DADT, is in national security interest.

Now, what about the hundreds of Privates and Corporals that may not have all that training, but are still kicked out for being gay? What reason could the President give to keep them in the military, against DADT? What skills or talents do they possess that the President could credibly cite that would stand up to any possible legal challege?

Jesus. And yet the Armed Services is letting in white supremacists and other trash while they fire gay soldiers who have served with honor and bravery. :mad:

as part of the reason for delay. There has been a lot written about far right wing (rrw) infiltration in the military - yeah, compare Col. Fahrenbacks honorable service to those who spout bigotry on the far right and pressure against gays serving without persecution.

That's comes out to about 1250 per year on average.

And the reaction I've gotten is that nobody's asking for it all right NOW, they just don't like the "direction Obama's heading."

Well, this is a perfect example of Obama heading in the RIGHT DIRECTION. This speech and this event are something no President has done before him. Certainly not within recent memory.

Yet there are those here who obviously don't care about that.

So, please, don't give me the usual "we aren't asking for it now" script. That's exactly what you're asking for. On a number of issues, not just this one. And, unfortunately, that's just not how the world works. EVERYTHING is a compromise. There isn't a politician alive who hasn't had to find a compromise on every issue he or she has tackled.

Things in Washington move slowly. They will always move slowly. And it has nothing to do with who can change what with a stroke of the pen. There are a hundred different factors a President has to consider before he uses that pen. Creating change is always a delicate balancing act.

But from what I can tell, Obama is MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. Certainly in a much better direction than the previous guy.

And Clinton first talked lovely about us in 1992. That's SEVENTEEN YEARS ago. Excuse us for being underwhelmed by Obama's eloquent speech to an LGBT audience on LGBT history. Especially when his Justice Dept. just set us back worse than any Republican DOJ and equated our relationships to incest and pedophilia.

Democrats have not won us a single legislative victory in over 40 years.

...but, unfortunately, we're dealing with reality here. Social change comes slowly. Very slowly. Always has, always will.

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

Then we will follow a simple rule of thumb:

Donate only to politicians who support our rights 100 percent. Donate on a local level or to races that are pivotal to our cause.

Anybody else does not deserve our money "now."

And I never underestimate the power of symbols. I believe President Obama will keep his promises.

I watched an interview with Nathaniel Frank, the author of Unfriendly Fire - How the gay ban undermines the military and weakens America a book about the consequences of DADT to our military and the discharge of over 12,000 military members, many of whom were considered “mission critical” personnel, since this ill conceived law went into effect.

It was the most appalling thing I had heard in a while. After discharging hundreds of Arab speakers and translators who were outed as gay as a result of DADT, the US intelligence intercepted a message from Al Queda on September 10, 2001 and it read, “tomorrow is zero hour.”

Due to the shortage of Arabic speakers, even as gay Arabic speakers were being discharged to create that shortage, the message was not translated until September 12, 2001.

Frank also said, that many of top brass who were involved in that policy making admitted that the data to support DADT wasn't there and they were acting on their own beliefs ( insert: prejudices) and now regret it.

The policy also destroyed unit cohesion by forcing members to live a lie and then further damaging cohesion when they were yanked out of their unit for discharge.

The words "feel" better, really! I am someone who always wants to use words to mean precisely what I want to communicate and try to hold others to their words. As an older gay man, who has struggled with coming out for many, many years, likely since I was five, or less, with this self-awareness, I "feel" these words intensely as I honor those at Stonewall and all the other places people, groups and individuals stood their ground and said I am who I am and I will not accept any mistreatment for me and my sisters and brothers!

At 57, I attended my first Pride Parade on Sunday! First! Why did it take me so long, one who has stood for the rights of many - union workers, African-Americans, Mexican/Latin farmworkers, women, seniors, children - but not so openly until this past weekend did I make an affirmative stand or walk actually - first with the Lesbian March Sat night and then the stood along the parade group and at times walked along side the paraders on Sunday? It felt right and about time, for me!

I have been no hero in this, I have been a victim of the internalized oppression that has kept me from openly declaring, and living fully who I am. I have for a number of years been out to myself and a very small circle of people, but not to all that I want to know me better. This weekend is a major step in that process. Standing on the shoulders of the many far more courageous GLBT people, I wondered watching the younger people in the parades if they had a sense of what it took the older generations that laid the groundwork for the openness that we all now have - with much more to do obviously, as Mr President Obama so eloquently stated in his speech the other day.

And, while I voted for Obama, largely based on his words, I have been very disapointed by his actions or lack of actions in office on so many critical issues, including GLBT rights. I do not have patience for waiting, many steps can be taken now! But, I will stop being overly critical of the President, but will actively join the chorous until the Change We Can Believe In becomes reality!

Thanks to all who have taken such stands. My life is far better for your efforts. Now my time to give back for others who follow!
Peace!

Thank you so much for posting that bit of your life's history and being happy to be yourself now. I am so happy for you.

I will stop being overly critical of the President, but will actively join the chorous until the Change We Can Believe In becomes reality!

Fantastic! :)

If it were YOUR rights being deliberately withheld, you wouldn't be satisfied with yet more empty words.

Jesus christ you people make me sick to my stomach. Bad enough that you have absolutely NO empathy for gay people, you delight in using any excuse to kick us when we're down.

If there was any justice in this world, all of you apologists would spend the rest of your lives as second-class citizens.

The only words even approaching truth spoken at this empty photo op were spoken by Michelle Obama: "No, you move too slow." Of course, that assumes you believe Obama actually intends to DO anything about equality, as opposed to just speechify.

They've waited for 40 years. It's time.