Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Participants Still Dropping out of DNC Fundraiser

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 12:52 PM
Original message
Participants Still Dropping out of DNC Fundraiser

The latest on the flailing gay DNC fundraiser as more attendees drop out
by: Pam Spaulding
Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 06:24:44 AM EDT

I've been out of the loop for the last 24+ hours, so a lot has happened regarding 1) the blowback on the DOMA brief, and 2) the meltdown of the gay DNC fundraiser next week, as the list of those bailing on the gala hosted by Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis featuring VP Joe Biden.

Here are a few links for you (and me, since I have to catch up):

* Jared Polis, to his credit, turned down an invitation to attend the Obama dog-and-pony signing ceremony.

* Journalist Karen Ocamb has a piece worth the click at Huff Post, "Will Gays Divorce the Democrats?"

* Sean Bugg also supports a boycott of the fundraiser -- see "Obama's small first step"


Lots more at the link: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11559/the-latest-on-the-flailing-gay-dnc-fundraiser-as-more-attendees-drop-out

Even Andrew Sullivan is expressing some displeasure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. recommend -- if we want to get their attention -- this is how. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Money is the language of the political class. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. truer words were never spoken. it's also the language, vehicle, engine of change
we can belive in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. As we see here, and in the healthcare "reform" it all comes down to money...
...and if that's what it takes to get their attention, so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. One could argue that divide and conquer is working nicely for the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. Bravo
Until we stop accepting crumbs and excuses we'll only get crumbs and excuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. The behavior of national political party organizations echoes that of corporations
Edited on Fri Jun-19-09 03:22 PM by RufusTFirefly
(Gee, what a shock.)

The truth is that they don't really care about serving you or your needs. They care about making money and convincing you to go with them instead of "the other leading brand." It's just business. Nothing personal.

The only thing other than losing money that frightens them is bad PR, which, if it isn't squelched, could ultimately result in losing money.

This may prove embarrassing to the DNC and they may feel compelled to send out their flacks to convince the GLBT community that they aren't actually "anti-gay." I'd be really surprised if they did something substantive. Look for hollow gestures. But even those may be enough to win back some folks who aren't sticklers for detail.

I should hasten to add that I am talking about the party machinery, not individual representatives, some of whom truly care about helping to make America and the world a better place. But alas, these folks rarely operate the levers of power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. All of my friends are LIVID.
I can't see the Dems shaking a dime out of them for a long, long time. If ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-20-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. It makes little sense.
The tide of history is changing when we find that 69% of people support the rpeal of DADT and yet - they do nothing.

When six States have marriage equality on their books - yet, there is silence about those victories.

When one party is in power in the House, Senate and the Whte House - they make token gestures.

When House bill 1283 is written and ready to go to repeal DADT - it's shelved somewhere in committee since April.


"Many top employers in the private sector already offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees; those companies recognize that offering partner benefits helps them compete for and retain the brightest and most talented employees. The Federal Government is at a disadvantage on that score right now, and change is long overdue.

"As Americans, we are all affected when our promises of equality go unfulfilled. Through measures like the Presidential Memorandum I am issuing today and the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, we will advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded and continue to perfect our Union." - President Barrack Obama.

So, where is the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, that was mentioned on world wide media last week, where was the stampede of Congress Creatures advocating for this bill? - they did nothing.

It's gotta be hard writting a bill for a status that does not really exist, except as some watered down version of marriage, all because the term "civil marriage" is denied same sex couples under law in many States...as a State's right to restrict equality for a minority, but then, we know the drill we read the DOJ brief.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2517

H.R. 2517:
111th CongressThis is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the House of Representatives ("H.R."). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.

Bill numbers restart from 1 every two years. Each two-year cycle is called a session of Congress. This bill was created in the 111th Congress, in 2009-2010.

2009-2010 Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009

To provide certain benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2517

HR 2517 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2517
To provide certain benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 20, 2009
Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HOLT, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NADLER of New York, Ms. NORTON, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. WU, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. WEINER, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. PASTOR of Arizona, Mr. WELCH, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. STARK, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. FARR, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. MICHAUD, Mrs. LOWEY, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. FILNER, Mr. CLYBURN, and Mr. QUIGLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To provide certain benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. BENEFITS TO DOMESTIC PARTNERS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

(a) In General- An employee who has a domestic partner and the domestic partner of the employee shall be entitled to benefits available to, and shall be subject to obligations imposed upon, a married employee and the spouse of the employee.
(b) Certification of Eligibility- In order to obtain benefits and assume obligations under this Act, an employee shall file an affidavit of eligibility for benefits and obligations with the Office of Personnel Management identifying the domestic partner of the employee and certifying that the employee and the domestic partner of the employee--

(1) are each other’s sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely;
(2) have a common residence, and intend to continue the arrangement;
(3) are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to consent to contract;
(4) share responsibility for a significant measure of each other’s common welfare and financial obligations;
(5) are not married to or domestic partners with anyone else;
(6) are same sex domestic partners, and not related in a way that, if the two were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside; and
(7) understand that willful falsification of information within the affidavit may lead to disciplinary action and the recovery of the cost of benefits received related to such falsification and may constitute a criminal violation.
(c) Dissolution of Partnership-

(1) IN GENERAL- An employee or domestic partner of an employee who obtains benefits under this Act shall file a statement of dissolution of the domestic partnership with the Office of Personnel Management not later than 30 days after the death of the employee or the domestic partner or the date of dissolution of the domestic partnership.
(2) DEATH OF EMPLOYEE- In a case in which an employee dies, the domestic partner of the employee at the time of death shall receive under this Act such benefits as would be received by the widow or widower of an employee.
(3) OTHER DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP-

(A) IN GENERAL- In a case in which a domestic partnership dissolves by a method other than death of the employee or domestic partner of the employee, any benefits received by the domestic partner as a result of this Act shall terminate.
(B) EXCEPTION- In a case in which a domestic partnership dissolves by a method other than death of the employee or domestic partner of the employee, the former domestic partner of the employee shall be entitled to benefits available to, and shall be subject to obligations imposed upon, a former spouse.
(d) Stepchildren- For purposes of affording benefits under this Act, any natural or adopted child of a domestic partner of an employee shall be deemed a stepchild of the employee.
(e) Confidentiality- Any information submitted to the Office of Personnel Management under subsection (b) shall be used solely for the purpose of certifying an individual’s eligibility for benefits under subsection (a).
(f) Regulations and Orders-

(1) OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Office of Personnel Management shall promulgate regulations to implement subsections (b) and (c).
(2) OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH REGULATIONS- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the President or designees of the President shall promulgate regulations to implement this Act with respect to benefits and obligations administered by agencies or other entities of the executive branch.
(3) OTHER REGULATIONS AND ORDERS- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, each agency or other entity or official not within the executive branch that administers a program providing benefits or imposing obligations shall promulgate regulations or orders to implement this Act with respect to the program.
(4) PROCEDURE- Regulations and orders required under this subsection shall be promulgated after notice to interested persons and an opportunity for comment.
(g) Definitions- In this Act:

(1) BENEFITS- The term ‘benefits’ means--

(A) health insurance and enhanced dental and vision benefits, as provided under chapters 89, 89A, and 89B of title 5, United States Code;
(B) retirement and disability benefits and plans, as provided under--

(i) chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code;
(ii) chapter 8 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4041 et seq.); and
(iii) the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (50 U.S.C. chapter 38);
(C) family, medical, and emergency leave, as provided under--

(i) subchapters III, IV, and V of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code;
(ii) the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), insofar as that Act applies to the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress;
(iii) section 202 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1312); and
(iv) section 412 of title 3, United States Code;
(D) Federal group life insurance, as provided under chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code;
(E) long-term care insurance, as provided under chapter 90 of title 5, United States Code;
(F) compensation for work injuries, as provided under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code;
(G) benefits for disability, death, or captivity, as provided under--

(i) sections 5569 and 5570 of title 5, United States Code;
(ii) section 413 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3973);
(iii) part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.), insofar as that part applies to any employee; and
(H) travel, transportation, and related payments and benefits, as provided under--

(i) chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code;
(ii) chapter 9 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081 et seq.); and
(iii) section 1599b of title 10, United States Code; and
(I) any other benefit similar to a benefit described under subparagraphs (A) through (H) provided by or on behalf of the United States to any employee.
(2) DOMESTIC PARTNER- The term ‘domestic partner’ means an adult unmarried person living with another adult unmarried person of the same sex in a committed, intimate relationship.
(3) EMPLOYEE- The term ‘employee’--

(A) means an officer or employee of the United States or of any department, agency, or other entity of the United States, including the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge; and
(B) shall not include a member of the uniformed services.
(4) OBLIGATIONS- The term ‘obligations’ means any duties or responsibilities with respect to Federal employment that would be incurred by a married employee or by the spouse of an employee.
(5) UNIFORMED SERVICES- The term ‘uniformed services’ has the meaning given under section 2101(3) of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act including the amendments made by this Act shall--

(1) with respect to the provision of benefits and obligations, take effect 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) apply to any individual who is employed as an employee on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

This bill is very large, and loading it may cause your web browser to perform sluggishly, or even freeze. This is especially true for old and/or bad browsers. As an alternative you can download the PDF of the bill or read the text on THOMAS.

Continue on to the bill...







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. I think Obama thought we were stupid -- and that a stupid memo would restart the cash flow
LOL looks like a "misunderestimation" on his part!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. They said, 'we don't have to do anything, because where are they going to go, hahaha?'
I guess karma can be a bitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MNBrewer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. Ocamb's piece is great!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Grant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. I blocked email and unsubscribed from a few political websites.
Not one more dime. Twenty plus years worth of volunteerism, donations, advocacy. Pffft! Is it too much to ask for visionary leadership? Articulate arguments? Reciprocity? Do unto others...?

Well, I'm done. And it really started with me when Obama wouldn't comment on Iowa.

I ain't playing with you no more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanr516 Donating Member (823 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-20-09 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. I just hung up on a DCCC fundraising call
Told them not to call back until the LGBT community has the same rights as I do. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-20-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. Your request is being ignored in the order in which it was received.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-ocamb/will-gays-divorce-the-dem_b_217613.html

Karen OcambPosted: June 18, 2009

There's a fierce debate in the LGBT community over Barack Obama's signing the Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination Wednesday.

<snip>

Others think that's bull and are angrier than ever at the man they believed in, worked hard to elect and now feel betrayed by.

<snip>

Even Obama -- a constitutional scholar and former community organizer -- noted at the end of the four-minute signing ceremony that LGBT Americans are official second- class citizens:

"It's a day that marks a historic step towards the changes we seek, but I think we all have to acknowledge this is only one step. Among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it.


We've got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally; to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms; and to bring about that more perfect union. I'm committed to these efforts, and I pledge to work tirelessly on behalf of these issues in the months and years to come."

<snip>

Two problems: 1) after the Department of Justice filed a brief supporting DOMA, LGBT people are having a very hard time believing Barack Obama anymore. His flip flop from full support for marriage equality as a candidate in 1996 to his opposition in 2008 doesn't help; and 2) Obama kicked us over to Congress, which is still cowed by threats from right wing Republicans. A new CBS News poll, for instance, finds that 63% of Americans support some form of legal recognition for same sex couples -- but about one third oppose such recognition. Guess which percentage wins in Congress.

We remain an easily dismissed "social issue" to be dealt with at some more convenient time -- rather than real flesh and blood human beings whose very inequality is a blight on the promise of America.

And now the president says the only way for LGBT people to secure the everyday rights granted to heterosexuals is through Congress.

We're screwed. The Democratically-controlled Congress talks a good game to get LGBT votes and money -- but they don't have much to show for LGBT loyalty.

<snip>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC