January 29, 2010 at 2:54 am EST | by Kevin Naff
Feedback: Jan. 22 to 29, 2010

The following comments were posted to www.washingtonblade.com.

Re: “Rewind: Week of Jan. 22

(photo courtesy of Facebook)


(blog post by Erwin de Leon)

Thank you for such a useful reminder about the progress and challenges we face. It subsumes the point that we are generally taking two steps forward for each step back, rather than the other way around.

If anything, the election of Scott Brown will help us. This is true in two ways. Directly, he favors civil unions and has a position very similar to that of President Obama on our relationships. While Brown has not been a leader in gay rights issues (nor has Obama), it is clear that he accepts us and the idea that we have rights as citizens. This helps move the Republican Party in the right direction, since his success will point up the advantages of nominating moderate and decent people.

Indirectly it helps because it brings back balance to the political system, eliminating a one-party stranglehold on power. It is precisely this effect that will increase the chances of sensible legislation that can strengthen the nation in which we all live, gay or straight.

It was a very good week for us! — Sam Brown

Thanks Sam — but no cigar! Brown has a terrible history regarding gay issues in Massachusetts. Further, this week’s Supreme Court decision is beyond comprehension — Democracy as we know it is over — it was just sold to the highest bidder! — Bill

Re: “D.C. police add 23 ‘affiliate’ officers to gay liaison unit

(Photo courtesy of Metro D.C. Police)


(news story by Lou Chibbaro Jr.)

I think the overall idea behind decentralizing the liaison units is good. You won’t have them only in the “gayborhood.” I agree that the new plan should have been in place before the old one was abandoned though. — Duane Snodgrass

There is no one I know that doesn’t agree with the concept of expanding the Liaison Units across the District. I am pleased that so many officers have agreed to become affiliates of the GLLU and other units.

The issue still remains that they will need additional training and that they will need to have regular meetings with the GLBT community and the other communities they serve to discuss the issues facing the community and so they will understand what is happening in the community.

The argument that many including myself had with this plan was that it was ill thought out and no real discussion with the community was held before it was put into operation. There is an arrogance to doing things this way, which generates distrust and skepticism. That is sad because it can usually be avoided by a little bit of trust — and that trust has to be a two-way street and it is generated by ongoing communication.  — Peter Rosenstein

Re: “Democrat introduces anti-gay bill in Md.

(news story by Harley Dennett)

When will the LBGT people of Baltimore rise up, say “enough” and run one of our own more qualified candidates against this bigot!? — DJ John

Re: “State of the Union expectations

(blog post by Kevin Naff)

While it is great that he has appointed so many openly gay folks, he has failed to deliver on our legislative agenda. Hate crimes wasn’t his. — Bill

I, for one, had no illusions that Obama would be our fierce advocate. — Doctor Whom

Let’s hope he also discusses HIV/AIDS in the United States. — Carl Schmid

Re: “Secret project seeks to advance pro-LGBT policy changes

(news story by Chris Johnson)

So what. There’s nothing here except more duplication of efforts. There’s no STRATEGY or PLAN to actually WIN full equality. With all of our efforts dedicated to the numerous well-funded LGBT advocacy groups not a single one of them can say HOW and WHEN we will achieve our full equality. Sadly, it’s been that way for decades. WHEN will we learn? — Andrew W.

Re: “Hill insiders say Mass. election won’t derail D.C. marriage bill

(news story by Lou Chibbaro Jr.)

1. Approval of the LGBT groups’ agenda was not front and center in recent elections, either, so the default position is not that their agenda has been approved by voters.

Impose that agenda and there will be resistance aka Obamacare. That is a lesson learned, surely.

2. According to Coakley’s campaign statement about Brown and the LGBT groups’ agenda, same-sex marriage was indeed an issue in the election.
Congress has every right to deal directly with the D.C. Council’s odd marriage legislation. And elected representatives ought to be expected to make a stand, one way or the other, by voting up or down on it.

After all, Obama, the Democratic Party and Democrats in the Senate and House claim to be about transparency. And Brown’s election — in the state that local LGBT groups have called “the birthplace of same-sex marriage” — was certainly very much about popular dissatisfaction with the identity politics and machine politics of Beacon Hill and the Massachusetts Democratic contingency in the U.S. House and Senate.

Surely more lessons learned — or maybe you want to double-down. — Chairm

Kevin Naff is the editor and a co-owner of the Washington Blade, the nation’s oldest and most acclaimed LGBT news publication, founded in 1969.

Comments are closed
© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2018. All rights reserved.
Blade Blast

Get the latest LGBTQ news to your inbox every Thursday!