Why this particular gay man is irate at this point with both Obama and our Senate

[dsc]

First, I don't deny that Obama has done some positive steps toward gays. I give him major props for sticking by Kenneth Jennings as his under seceretary of Education in charge of school safety. To the extent Duncan deserves credit for this, and I think he deserves some, it is one of the few good things about Duncan. I am glad he has hired the first transgendered employees of the US Government in history. I am glad to see the Hate Crimes bill pass and that he signed it (only good thing the Senate has done for us so yea Senate as well). He also deserves credit, provided there are teeth, in his forcing hospitals to honor the POA of same sex couples even if they don't wish to (provided they accept Medicaid and Medicare as virtually all hospitals do). All of those are good things.

So what is the problem? With the exception of Hate Crimes (which we hope we never avail ourselves of) and the hospital provisions, the rest of what he did was not of general benefit to gays. Yes, they are symbolic and symbols are important, but for most gays with the exception of those two provisions, Obama hasn't helped us at all in our daily lives. Even if DADT is repealed, and I honestly have my doubts that we will have the votes in the lame duck session. We have five seats up that if we lose, we lose immediately. CO, IL, WV, NY, and DE all of which are appointees whose terms will end on election day. Our chances of keeping all five seats (according to Silver) is just over 8%. Each one we lose is yet another certain no vote for repealing DADT. So I figure we are at best about 50/50 in seeing DADT gone. Even if DADT is repealed, it is still largely symbolic for the majority of gays. Yes, a hugely important and powerful symbol, but still a symbol. So for the average gay person we will see nothing that actually applies to us. We should have seen ENDA which would have been a huge improvement for the typical gay person in many states. In all of the following states, and some others, gays can be fired simply for being gay or even thought to be gay, by their employees (TX, OK, LA, AR, MO, MI, AL, TN, GA, FL, SC, NC, VA, KY, PA, OH, IN, WV, ND, SD, NE, KS, CO, UT). Yes, we have had success at the state level and with many corporations, but government employees in all of those states are at the mercy of their employers. ENDA would end that problem forever. Yet we have no chance at all of seeing ENDA in this Congress or the rest of Obama's current term. That is very upsetting to say the least. The fault for this lies squarely at both Obama's and this Senate's feet. ENDA is supported by over 3/4 of the American public and a majority of both Republicans and Conservatives yet it won't pass. There is literally a 0% chance of it passing before 2013. I actually have a better chance of seeing my state pass those protections (NC) than seeing the US pass it before 2013. That is just insane.

I don't feel that Obama is entirely at fault here, but I do feel that he had far less fierceness about this issue than he promised he would. We are an exceptionally loyal group to Democrats (third behind Jews and African Americans) and we didn't even get a measure that would help our lives and has supermajority support, passed in a Senate in which we had either 58, 59, or 60 seats for two years. Gay school teachers stay in the closet because of ENDA. Gay policemen stay in the closet because of ENDA. So do gay firefighers, medics and a whole host of others. That makes all of our lives poorer. It also, is part of the reason why gay kids kill themselves due to feeling so alone. They get bullied in high school and see role models living in the closet because bullies will fire them. Why would those kids think things would ever get better?

We had nearly or 60 seats for two years, and we are likely to have seen one law passed for our benefit. Wouldn't you be angry, at least a little?

both edits are for grammar.

[RandomThoughts]

1. If it does not accomplish, it does educate.

So either way it improves.

And some good things were done.

[davidinalameda]

2. how dare you be angry

sit down and shut up

:sarcasm:

[Unvanguard]

3. There is no excuse for the failure to push harder on passing ENDA.

None whatsoever.

[DeSwiss]

4. K&R n/t

[ruggerson]

5. and don't forget - the compromise version of DADT that is now on the table

merely repeals the current statute, so that we are back at square one legally - 1992. The military will presumably write new regulations, the President will sign off on it - but they won't be codified.

There WAS strong anti-discrimination language in the March, 2010 bill that was introduced into the Senate, but it got completely stripped out as part of the compromise with the military and the administration.

The new, compromise bill, has no anti-discrimination language at all.

I'm not arguing that this bill shouldn't be passed and signed into law. It should be. I know that progress is incremental - even when the issue is basic human rights. But the fear and the lack of political courage that has driven this entire process is discouraging, to say the least.

k/r

[metapunditedgy]

18. Makes you wonder if the military is in charge of the President, or the other way around.

You hear about countries where the military runs things and you think how lucky you are to be living in America. But....

[awoke_in_2003]

30. the country is run by Wall Street...

and they control the military.

[rhett o rick]

6. The president has a number of options besides repeal. Let's hope he chooses one. nm

[TheWraith]

7. Okay, I have to disagree with you on three points.

"I am glad he has hired the first transgendered employees of the US Government in history."

I'm quite sure he has NOT, but simply hired the first ones that people NOTICED.

"Yet we have no chance at all of seeing ENDA in this Congress or the rest of Obama's current term. That is very upsetting to say the least. The fault for this lies squarely at both Obama's and this Senate's feet. ENDA is supported by over 3/4 of the American public and a majority of both Republicans and Conservatives yet it won't pass. There is literally a 0% chance of it passing before 2013."

I disagree that there's no chance before 2013.

And lastly, what would you have Obama or the Senate Dems do? No 60 votes = no cloture = no bill. If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it. There's certainly some blame to be shared with the handful of conservaDems who helped hold things up, but the real blame lies with the Republicans. Their level of stonewalling is unprecedented in history--no other president has faced as much absolute hard-line opposition even with members on the other side who support what he's doing. When they refuse to even allow a single one of their members to support an up or down vote, how do we expect to govern?

[dionysus]

10. +1

[Unvanguard]

12. ENDA was never brought to the floor of either house of Congress.

It was not pushed for by Obama--he did make some effort on DADT, but we got effectively nothing on ENDA. There never even seemed to be a plan of how to pass ENDA, an approach to bringing in line recalcitrant Democrats, even some real information on who needed to be lobbied; just an endless series of delays and broken promises.

It would be one thing if ENDA were in the same place as the DISCLOSE Act, pushed far for but repeatedly filibustered. But it is not.

[TheWraith]

17. What would/should the plan be?

The only way we've won anything is persistence. That's been the means to win some battles, including some huge ones like HCR, the stimulus, Wall Street reform, etcetera. But ironically the smaller bills are more easily shot down than the big stuff. It's easier for them to get away with blocking ENDA than it is Wall Street reform.

[Unvanguard]

25. They didn't have to block ENDA

because it was never brought to a vote.

THAT is the problem. Again, if they had meaningfully tried and failed, matters would be different.

[TheWraith]

26. There's a lot of things we never brought up for a vote.

The idea that fighting and getting beaten is better than not fighting may be a romantic one, but it's one which does not adapt well to politics.

[Unvanguard]

29. The problem is that we have no idea whether or not ENDA would have lost.

Because it was never brought to a vote, and because it was never even close enough to see how many recalcitrant Democrats could be swayed (as they were reluctantly swayed on DADT earlier this year.)

I wish I could trust the Democratic leadership enough to believe that the only reason they wouldn't push hard for ENDA is if they were convinced that it couldn't pass. But I don't. And I have no reason to.

[dsc]

20. He should have brought it up when we had 60 Senators

even the worthless Arkansas senators support ENDA.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. Thanks for this. I don't understand why people just can't be patient and allow things to work

how they're meant to work, given the horribly volatile political climate that we're currently in.

I understand the anger. I don't understand the impatience.

Note: I have gays/lesbians in my family and in the military, so I understand the frustration. I don't, however, understand the blame directed at Obama for not getting things done as fast as we demand they ought to be with everything going on.

Again, I understand the anger. Not the impatience.

I believe in my heart that ENDA, DOMA, and DADT will be completely abolished before Obama's second term.

Patience is key. The problem is the Senate. 60 votes DOES NOT = a majority, not when you have Pryor, Lincoln, Nelson, Landrieau and other conservative Democrats. We never really had a majority in the Senate! We need more progressives in the Senate, getting rid of Benedict Arnolds like Ben Nelson, who seems to have it in for Democrats because he didn't get what he wanted during the health care reform debate. Get rid of LIEberman, as he has been a thorn in our side for years.

We never really had a majority in the Senate. Never!!!

[dsc]

22. all of the people mentioned in your post, with the possible exception of Nelson

are on record as supporting ENDA. So are the Maine women and Brown. ENDA got 49 votes in 96, a much more GOP Senate. ENDA is actually an easier lift than DADT. But once we lose the House it is game over. We won't have the House for the rest of Obama's term.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. Exactly, so how is that Obama's fault? Bottom line: we need to get better Democrats.

Correction: I do blame Obama for backing Blanche Lincoln. I think the White House should stay out of local politics. That stunt he pulled really pissed me off, as it did in Colorado and Pennsylvania. He needs to stay the fuck out of local politics and allow the people to decide who they want representing them.

At any rate, the problem has always been with the Senate. And how that we are in danger of losing the House, I agree that things will get worse. That's no cause to just give up. We have to implore our friends and family to please vote, vote, and vote again! Unless we want KKKarl Rove to win. I don't think we do.

We cannot give up.

When it's all said and done, I believe in this president. Even if we lose the House and/or Senate, when Election 2012 comes along, we have to work harder to get better Democrats elected. LIEberman, Pryor, and Ben Nelson's respective terms will be over. They need to be replaced by better Democrats. It is up to us to push Obama in the right direction, not just sit back and throw our hands up. We have to keep working to hold him accountable in areas where he could be pushed to do better.

Democrats are suffering because they don't have a spine. I truly believe that those Democrats in the Senate (Boxer, Feingold, etc.) will win their seats because they fought for us. I believe that those spineless, milquetoast, cowards in our party need to go. The only way to do that is to keep working hard at the local levels to get good Democrats elected.

I'll give an example: for many years, Al Wynn here in Maryland was a spineless, corporate conservative Democrat. The grassroots Democratic Party, fed up with Wynn, ran a brilliant, young progressive named Donna Edwards to run at the local level. She fought her way and lost several times, but didn't give up. She ran against Al Wynn for the congressional seat in 2006 and barely lost. We were devastated. Many years of putting up with Wynn only to have him back in. But we didn't give up. We ran her again in 2008 and she destroyed Wynn by nearly 60 points! That's how you do it.

We need more progressives in BOTH chambers of Congress. I hear you. I am so sick and tired of cowards in our party. And the saddest thing is that those who fought hard, like Nancy Pelosi and other stalwarts in the party, may be punished because the entire Democratic Party has been brandished as cowards. It's not true. Not all of them are. And we cannot give up no matter what!

[dsc]

24. We had the votes for ENDA if Obama had merely pressed it

and that is what aggrivates me. This was a chip shot. And frankly I don't see a way at all this will happen before 2013 and probably 2017.

[TheWraith]

27. No, we didn't.

Snowe and Collins would have backstabbed us. Simply look at the DADT vote if you need proof. They're still Republicans, and that means party over principle. They WILL vote against things they believe in, just to try and stay in the good graces of the Republican establishment.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Exactly. n/t

[dsc]

36. actually we have no idea since we didn't even try

though I think we likely would have gotten a GOP vote or two.

[mitchtv]

28. PATIENCE??????? wtf ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

that is the comment of the privileged class, You've got a lot of nerve

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. Yeah, I'm the privileged (SARCASM). And yes, I do have nerve. I also have an opinion.

I find it very interesting that Clinton got 8 years, many of his policies taking us to the place where we are now.

I find it very interesting that Bush got 8 years, many of his policies taking us to the place where we are now.

But, Obama can't get two years. Not even two years?

Why is that? Why?

[ruggerson]

34. I've always thought you were pretty levelheaded

and I'm sure you've seen situations countless times in your life when white privilege has raised its ugly head. Unfortunately, it's alive and well and thriving. The same holds true for heterosexual privilege. It's so deeply ingrained in our culture that a lot of straight people, understandably, don't recognize it all the time. But it's there. Just like white people take so many things for granted in this country, so do heterosexuals. Most white people, including myself, don't spot white privilege, because we are the ones benefitting from it. I can't stand in your shoes. You deeply understand the meaning and the deep well of white privilege you face in ways that I will never comprehend. I understand that you mean well, when you counsel patience, but we're over here on the other side of othe divide, with almost no statutory recourse, and for us the time for patience has long, long passed.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. I am. I'm a pragmatist. And, perhaps it is because I live in D.C. that I see how the game is

played. I see the cards that are dealt. And, being a black woman, a daughter of the American South, and the child of a black, gay man, I totally understand. I do understand the anger and frustration. But, the wins that we got during the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement of the 1960's never occurred overnight. It was a slow process. It was gradual with many setbacks and losses.

But, I do believe that the younger generations will show us the way. I think the mindset is changing. I see it in my own family where noses aren't turned up when my father introduces a boyfriend to the family. That change took time. It was gradual. It didn't come overnight.

The point of my post was not that people should simply disregard their anger and frustration. My point was to plead with people to understand the realities of the very divisive, nasty disgusting political environment that we find ourselves in.

The point of my post was not to suggest that Obama has done 100% right by the gay community. Of course he hasn't. But his administration has done some good things. At the same time, it has done some deplorable things. But, our job is to continue to push him in the right direction. And there is some good news. Elizabeth Warren is IN. Larry Summers is out. Rahm Emmanuel is out. Peter Orzag is out. (No pun intended.)

I just think it's going to take some time to get this thing right.

And if Obama screws up. If he lets us down, we hold him accountable.

You talk about being reasonable and level-headed. I just think it's unreasonable to expect change in less than 2 years. I think it's unreasonable to expect one man to do everything, especially in the current political environment. I think it's unreasonable to expect all these things overnight.

The goal may be to keep exposing people to the truth. Keep pushing for grassroots candidates to replace the insiders and challenge the Corporate Establishment.

That's all I was stating in my post.

[ruggerson]

37. I remember

you telling me about your father a few years ago and thinking that he sounded like a very courageous man. And I totally agree with you that change comes gradually and incrementally, when one looks at the long history of humanity and the various movements to extend full human rights to all citizens of the planet. But history is also full of tipping points, where after years of a steady drip, the dam breaks and change comes like an unstoppable tide.

The modern day gay rights movement can trace its roots back to the early fifties when the Mattachine Society was founded in Los Angeles by a gentleman named Harry Hay. (If we want to get technical there was an even earlier one - in 1924, the Society For Human Rights). At around the same time, the first organized lesbian political group, the Daughters of Bilitis, was born. We have been fighting this fight, as a political movement, for sixty years plus. And of course the history of gays in America goes back to the beginning of our nation - the General that Washtington hired to make soldiers out of his ragtag army was, by many accounts, a gay man.

By comparison, the woman's suffrage movement went from its organized inception in 1848 to success, with the nineteenth amendment in 1920 - a period of seventy years. So, if we are to examine this simply chronologically, the gay rights movement is as mature in age as the suffrage movement was when the vote for women was finally secured.

We all voted for Obama. He has been instrumental in getting some good things done in regards to human rights. We all know he faces a recalcitrant, ugly opposition party. But a human rights movement is not concerned with the political considerations of an individual politician. They are concerned with, in this case, codifying as many statutes as we can get accomplished while the party that is more friendly to our goals is in power. The President knows and understands this. Remember, he is the one who told gays and lesbians to hold his feet to the fire - "I agree with you, now make me do it."

The gay equality movement in the US is reaching that tipping point mentioned above. While the pressure that many put on Obama can seem irascible at times, even confrontational and ugly, it's because he has the political muscle and the will, when he decides to use them, to really achieve historical breakthroughs for the gay and lesbian community. The loud voices we hear directed at Obama are loud because he needs us to push him and at the same time create a consensus in the country (as we've done over many years with DADT and we are now doing with marriage equality) so that when he acts on our behalf, it is seen as the will of the people and not some radical, partisan exercise. Our party, while lightyears ahead of the opposition, is very timid when it comes to these issues. They are behind the American public and the rock that is their timidity needs to be slowly and determinedly and unrelentingly rolled up the hill, banging at it all the way.

As we all acknowledge, the President has a lot on his plate. I certainly donn't expect gay issues to take priority over healthcare or climate change or war. But I expect it to be equally as important. If we can't address our human rights inequities, then we have failed the original debate that founded our nation.

President Obama and the Democratic Congress are the vessels by which hopefully much of this can be achieved. If we are harsh on him at times, it doesn't come from a place of ill will, it comes from a place of impatience, anger and hope. They have the power to change all of our lives for the better. And we have the moral right to hold them to their potential and their promise.

[LonePirate]

8. You're mighty brave for speaking out against Obama. People around here think he walks on water.

[dionysus]

9. !!!

:rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray::rofl:spray:

[depakid]

13. Illustrative of why things are shaping up like this:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[VMI Dem]

11. Rec.

[boppers]

14. Tell me when we had even 50 pro-GLBTQ senators.

"We had nearly or 60 seats for two years, and we are likely to have seen one law passed for our benefit."

Nearly 60 pro-GLBTQ senators? Or 60 nominal "Democrats"?

As long as we keep electing people like Reid (yes, he's House, not Senate, but hear me out), we'll keep seeing marginalization in the House *and* Senate of our rights.

[Lyric]

15. Actually Reid IS in the Senate, not the House.

He's the Majority Leader of the Senate. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

[boppers]

16. Holy crap, my bad.

The top senate Democrat is a frickin' Mormon, a church with a racist, and homophobic, history.

I have no words.

(and I say that as somebody who grew up Mormon).

[awoke_in_2003]

31. cannot pay attention to minor details like that...

it interferes with the pep rally.

[Smarmie Doofus]

19. Yes, yes , yes and yes. Esp. re. ENDA:

>>>Yet we have no chance at all of seeing ENDA in this Congress or the rest of Obama's current term. That is very upsetting to say the least. The fault for this lies squarely at both Obama's and this Senate's feet. ENDA is supported by over 3/4 of the American public and a majority of both Republicans and Conservatives yet it won't pass. There is literally a 0% chance of it passing before 2013. I actually have a better chance of seeing my state pass those protections (NC) than seeing the US pass it before 2013. That is just insane. >>>>>


And *insanity* is exactly what those of us that were trekking around battleground states ( where we didn't live, but were trekking around ANYWAY) in Oct of 2008, were trying to prevent.