Comments on: So much for Obama’s evolution

By: Lane Hudson

Lane Hudson — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:19:00 +0000

I think you’re confusing who needs to ‘man up’. Please take a look at a President who has promised multiple times to use executive power to ensure LGBT people are protected in their jobs, yet refuses to actually do it.

By: Michael Bedwell

Michael Bedwell — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:41:51 +0000

After three years [five if one counts the 2007-8 primaries] of seeing Obambots jump through hoops of disingenuousness, leap talk buildings of irrationality, and turn themselves inside out with factual distortions, “Jack” deserves some kind of gold medal for outdoing them all by implying that somehow private citizen Lane Hudson COULD have done as much for LGBT equality as President of the United States Obama if he’d only WANTED TO/TRIED. One does not know whether to laugh or weep.

By: Lane Hudson

Lane Hudson — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:59:04 +0000

Hi Jack. Prior to pursuing repeal of DADT, the President issued an executive order making it more difficult to discharge soldiers. Issuing this executive order now, requiring that sexual orientation be added to existing nondiscrimination policies for federal contractors is a comparable action to take. It’s also worth noting that a recent ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made gender identity and gender expression protectable under Title VII, meaning that this no longer needs to be included in the EO that we are seeking. It makes it even more inexcusable that the President has broken this promise from the campaign in 2008 and reiterated in meetings during the transition.

By: Lane Hudson

Lane Hudson — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:55:19 +0000

Hi Andy Tobias! Now I know you’re feeling the heat when you recycle the same talking points on list serves, Advocate opeds and comments here at the Blade. You sure are keeping perspective!

By: Christopher di Spirito

Christopher di Spirito — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:08:09 +0000

Ah, DOMA has NOT been repealed and other than weak-as-water, courtesy remarks from Obama on the issue, this president has NOT lifted a finger to use his influence to get repeal legislation written and on his desk to sign.

By: Jack

Jack — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:29:54 +0000

Just because Lane Hudson doesn’t agree with the administration’s strategy for LGBT equality, or perhaps doesn’t understand, this doesn’t by itself mean that President Obama is wrong. To the contrary, President Obama has done more for LGBT equality than most anyone, certainly he has done more than Mr. Hudson. President Obama is correct to point out the role for Congress in enacting the Employment Non Discrimination Act. Hudson needs to do the same, especially in light of last week’s public allegations of discrimination in employment at the Library of Congress. We need for Hudson to man-up on this, lest Blade readers confuse Romney as an alternative for full equality.

By: Doctor Whom

Doctor Whom — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:30:12 +0000

Consider the successful political movements: They attach a political cost to denying their wishes, and if attaching that political cost means sacrificing a pawn now to achieve checkmate later, then that pawn is going to get sacrificed. Showing either side that you will support it wholeheartedly, no matter what, means that you will attach no political cost to being sold out, which in turn means that you are on the express train to political irrelevance.

By: Rebecca Juro

Rebecca Juro — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:25:11 +0000

Rewarding politicians for throwing us under the bus and then using rationales like yours to continue supporting them is exactly why we see the kind of partisan political games being played with our basic civil rights that we’re seeing right now. It’s because Obama and the Democrats don’t believe they actually need to earn our votes that they’re comfortable throwing us under the bus and playing the same shell game with our civil rights they’ve been playing for the last three and a half years.

The only way it will stop is if we make it stop, if we demonstrate to this President and this Party that if we can’t count on them, then they can’t count on us. While I hesitate to quote Bush, it does ring true in this situation: They’re either with us or against us.

There is no middle ground on protecting basic America civil rights. It’s time we taught the Democrats that there’s a price for failing to keep your promises to persecuted minorities. In the end, it will always be true: The same-sex marriage advocates may have the money, but the working class always have the numbers. It’s time to prove that to these people beyond the shadow of a doubt in the clearest way possible. It’s the only way things will ever change.

By: Bruce Majors

Bruce Majors — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:09:01 +0000

DADT was about to be tossed out by the courts, because of a Log Cabin Republican law suit. the Democrats finally repealed it only when it was about to be ended by the SCOTUS and would no long have been a wedge issue they could use to tap the GayTm

By: Keeping Perspective

Keeping Perspective — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 16:22:49 +0000

You dismiss passage of hate crimes, repeal of DADT, non-defense of DOMA, and all the rest, as “baby steps,” yet characterize the decision not to do the executive order before the election as “a giant leap backwards.”

In your admirable passion, you have lost all perspective.

You are 100% right we deserve full equality. We will come much closer to that goal, much faster, with President Obama than with President Romney. Thus your statement that “I am considering not lifting a finger to help Obama win re-election” works +against+ our drive for full equality (and +against+ health coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, and +against+ choice, +against+ sensible regulation, and so much else).