More Stuff on Obama and the Gays

Perusing the internet, there's lots and lots and lots of interesting stuff out there to read about Obama and the LGBTQ rights movement. Here's exactly four to look over. :-) Good morning, Cincinnati! Wish me luck on my two finals today!

From the Washington Post yesterday:

Obama's memorandum, designed to be both incremental and pragmatic, typifies the cautious way he has approached gay issues since taking office five months ago. Although he has appointed gays to prominent positions in his administration -- including John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management -- the memorandum marked his first official foray into the issue as president, a delay that has angered gay supporters.

A number of other constituencies have likewise been disappointed by Obama's pace in addressing their issues, as he has focused much of his attention on the economic crisis and foreign policy initiatives. Hispanic groups have expressed frustration that he has yet to take up comprehensive immigration reform, for example, and human rights and civil liberties organizations have criticized his opposition to the release of detainee abuse photos and his adherence to other aspects of the Bush administration's national security policies.

"We are working on a large amount of things," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday.

Poor press guy Gibbs -- that man has not been able to catch a break, and I don't think his boss has been helping him out all that much. What a weak answer. But, again, you can't build Rome in a day. Is that the quote?

From the Huffington Post, entitled "Will Gays Divorce the Democrats?"

What does this mean for 2010? Who knows. But the sheen is off the Dream Machine known as Barack Obama. And Congress and the DNC -- well, Tim Kaine is no Howard Dean -- he's made no real effort to reach out to LGBTs outside the Beltway. And that Obama for America online money pitch for the DNC may also dry up.

My answer: not bloody likely. Which is better, people who give you lip service and do a few things here and there, or people who run on an anti-queer platform? Seriously, though I have long argued that most gays would be Republicans if the GOP went libertarian (seriously, I know at least one Republican reads my blog).

From Stampp Corbin, via the San Diego News Network (the what?!):

Last Thursday, the Attorney General filed a legal brief in a California federal case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that made arguments that compared same sex marriage to incest. Thursday, President Obama announced the extension of some benefits to LGBT federal employees; just not the most coveted ones, like health care and pension benefits. Oh that’s right, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents that and you just wrote a legal brief defending it. When I wake up each morning, I feel a bit schizophrenic myself, “I love Obama, I hate Obama, I am ambivalent about Obama.” It’s maddening.

Someone get me a Prozac.

I ask, “Mr. President how can you argue for the legality of DOMA, when you are for its repeal?”

You really are talking out of both sides of your mouth and my community knows it.

Whoa, dude. There's some seriousness going on out there. I just think it's way too much.

On another note, my school has blocked all blogger.com websites (except for blogger itself) and wordpress.com websites (except for wordpress.com itself). I have no idea what's going on. Absurdities. Apparently, this counts as "social networking."

Demands for Obama to Act Grow

Three things on the web this weekend have caught my eye that feed into the "Obama needs to say something" line growing around the blogosphere.

First, a Washington Post editorial by Eugene Robinson asks about the semantics of marriage. He takes politicians (and Obama) to task for the language games they are playing:

Obama took the "civil unions" route during last year's campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation -- that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates -- I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what are they?

It seems to me that equality means equality, and either you're for it or you're not. I believe gay marriage should be legal, and it's hard for me to imagine how any "fierce advocate of equality" could think otherwise...

Does Obama's stance in favor of repeal [of DOMA] mean that he believes the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages? Does he also believe that, say, the state of Alabama should recognize a gay marriage performed in Iowa? If so, what is the practical difference between this position and just saying in plain language that gay marriages ought to be legal and recognized in all 50 states?

Second, a POZ online poll shows that 60% of the readers of that site don't feel that the Obama administration has made HIV/AIDS a high enough priority. As of right now, I cannot think of a major thing the Obama administration has done except to get his act together, put a couple of people into positions, and offered to expand PEPFAR (which there's some controversy over an unfunded mandate there).

Third, there's the Lt. Dan Choi situation. Choi came out on the Rachel Maddow show and was then sent a letter from his employer stating that he would be terminated. "Obama to fire gay soldier" is the headline developing. But Obama has to go through Congress to change the law, you might say. Or, he could put a stop on discharges pending review of the law.

Look, I still support the man. I still believe that he has our best interests at heart, and I honestly believe that, 100 days in, we can't be so quick to judge his actions. And he has even assured Joe Solmonese of the HRC enough to say, "They have a vision. They have a plan." As little as I like the HRC, I'm going to take his word for it. Let's see how the next 100 days go, let's see what happens with the Matthew Shepard Act, let's see what happened in NH...

...I just hope I'm not saying "well, let's see" all the way to 2012. 

Utah Rep. Trying to Stop DC Marriage Recognition

I was right!

A far-right Representative (from Utah) named Jason Chaffetz is trying to intercede in Washington, DC Council's decision to recognize out-of-district same-sex marriages. Chaffetz is a freshman Represenative -- elected for the first time in 2008 -- and, get this, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee. Wow. They were really stretched thin for leadership, there.

From the Washington Post, this is what he said:

"Some things are worth fighting for, and this is one of them. It's not something I can let go softly into the night. . . . I recognize the Democrats are in the majority, but I represent the majority of Americans on this issue."

Why does it matter? Thank goodness for his Twitter account, and the Washington City Paper, we get to find out: "Why am I involved? Congress is set up to oversee the affairs of D.C. I am one of the Members on the relevant committee."

Oh, OK. That explains it.

For the record, Mr. Chaffetz is also against DC representation in Congress -- believing, instead, that the District should be retroceded (is that the word?) into Maryland, despite the Constitutional mandate for an independent District to house the capital.

Local Blogger Makes National News!

Julie Niesen, of long-time friend of this blog, Wine Me Dine Me Cincinnati, was quoted in a recent Washington Post article about Cincinnati chili:

"If you think of it as chili, you'll be disappointed," said local food blogger Julie Niesen over a meal consisting of four varieties of Coney and one plate of maxed-out chili at Dixie Chili & Deli, on the Cincinnati border in Kentucky. "If you think of it as meat sauce, you'll be less disappointed."

Oh, goodness, the love of my life and the bane of my waistline -- Cincinnati chili.

I don't like spicy chili, nor do I really like chili from anywhere else. The first time I sat down to Skyline in Oxford for a three-way, I though, "Ewwww..." The second time, I thought, "Well this isn't so bad" -- I was introduced to a coney, that time. Finally, on the third try, I was hooked.

My family from other parts of the country does not get my love of Cincinnati chili, nor do they understand why I persist in calling it chili at all, except for my sister in Chicago who spent some time in Lexington and thinks its a cute local thing that's awfully good to put into nacho cheese.

*shrug* Their loss, IMHO.

I had seen this on Twitter, but thanks to Stacked for reminding me to post it!