While a sitting Illinois senator, Barack Obama voted for the D.C. Voting Rights Act. During his campaign for the White House, Obama overwhelmingly won the District of Columbia presidential primary and he received all 15 votes at the Colorado convention.

In November 2008, Obama received the District’s three electoral votes, continuing the District’s perfect record of never casting its presidential votes for the Republican Party since it was first granted those rights in 1964 via the 23rd Amendment.

Mayor Adrian Fenty proclaimed that a President Obama would work hard to obtain our voting rights and threw his support behind him. Since then, our mayor does get invited to some wonderful events at the White House and takes the president to Ben’s Chili Bowl. I wish the mayor had the sense to ask the president to pass our voting rights bill while asking him to pass the mustard!

Meanwhile, back on the Hill, Eleanor Holmes Norton toils away and gets what appears to be zero support from the White House on her quest for voting rights. At one point the president says his plate is too full with other matters. I will grant him that war and health care and the economy do take the president’s time. But let’s get real! Would it have taken him any time to order someone to change his car fleet’s license tags to the one that most of us have on our cars? A concerted effort was made to ask him for a one-liner in the State of the Union urging passage of the D.C. voting right bill. His response was a resounding “no.”

I am on DC Vote’s board of directors. During a gathering of some of my fellow directors, I theorized that one of the reasons for Obama’s lack of support was the administration’s internalized racism or fear of being perceived as too controlled by the African-American community. Judging from the looks on some of their faces, they thought I was drinking the water from the Anacostia River.

Our city, the capital of a nation that fights wars for democracy and human rights, has a chief executive not willing to spend any political capital to put an end to the plantation mentality on the Hill. Is our president afraid that since this District of Columbia is a majority black city that the right would accuse him of selling out? As always, actions speak louder than words and our president disappoints those who welcomed him to Washington. —John Klenert

Re: “Mayor promises greater visibility in LGBT community” (news, Aug. 19)

Visibility — after four years? Funny how politicians get religion right around re-election time. At present, isn’t the front-and-center issue for the D.C. gay community that of safety? We get the kind of government we demand. Are you satisfied? —Bill

Less than one month and the Prince of Pennsylvania Avenue FINALLY realizes he has problems beyond attending the High Heel Race and Pride? Thanks, but no thanks. You have lost my vote! —DC John

Keep up the great work mayor! The farther we get away from the past dark days of Marion Barry and the giveaways, the better off we, the citizens of this city, will be. —Frankie James

While his recent comments are disappointing, it is important to point out that Gov. O’Malley has a long history of supporting our community. As mayor of Baltimore, he signed into law anti-discrimination protections on the basis of gender identity or expression in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations. As governor, he has signed several relationship recognition bills into law, as well as a bill specifically protecting LGBT students.

Recently, O’Malley directed state agencies to comply with Attorney General Doug Gansler’s opinion recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages and has made multiple public statements in support of the opinion. The governor has also publicly committed to signing a marriage equality bill when it passes.

We certainly can and should expect that our governor is in stride with the current times and the growing momentum behind equal protections in both his words and his actions. The funny thing is that if O’Malley openly and unequivocally claimed all that he has done on behalf of the LGBT community, this would be a very different conversation.

Without access to civil marriage equality here at home and comprehensive statewide anti-discrimination laws, a large number of Marylanders are not being treated fairly under the law.

The election is less than six months away and we must continue to thank those who have stood by our side in the past, including Gov. O’Malley, while also pushing them to continue to work with us to realize true and lasting equality for all of Maryland’s families.

— Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director, Equality Maryland

Gov. Martin O’Malley deserves support from Maryland’s LGBT community.

As we approach the gubernatorial election of 2010, I believe the LGBT community needs to assess the progress that has been made during O’Malley’s term as governor and support him for his re-election bid:

O’Malley signed domestic partner bills into law in 2008 and 2009. Without these bills, LGBT Marylanders would be without important relationship protections. Also, a bill specifically protecting LGBT students was signed into law by O’Malley in 2008.

Maryland state employees were provided with domestic partner Benefits in FY 2010 by regulatory changes implemented by the O’Malley administration.

In addition, O’Malley has directed Maryland state agencies to respect and implement Attorney General Doug Gansler’s recent opinion that state law should recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages.

And through an executive order, O’Malley reaffirmed employment protections to Maryland state employees based upon sexual orientation and extended employment protections based upon gender identity for the first time.

I ask LGBT Marylanders to review the advances made under Gov. O’Malley’s administration and support his bid for re-election in 2010. —Judd Vickers, Cambridge, Md.

Re: “’Precious’ deserves praise from LGBT groups” (op-ed by Julie Enszer, April 16)

It was with hesitation that I went with my husband to see the movie “Precious.” My hesitation, based on reviews and synopses that I read, was my belief that the film would be too depressing and negative. The only reason I agreed to see it is that my husband wanted to see it and since I love my husband I went along.

What I found was a movie that certainly had its depressing and negative aspects, but that was ultimately very positive and uplifting in its portrayal of this intelligent and marginalized young woman seeking to escape from her situation and make something better of her life. One flaw, in my opinion, is the scene in which it was revealed that Precious’ teacher is a lesbian. My reaction was that this scene was totally gratuitous, reeked of political correctness, and could have been deleted without taking anything away from the film.

I disagree with Enszer’s conclusion that “racism, pure and simple” is the reason that those associated with “Precious” are not recognized by our national LGBT organizations. Personally I don’t have such a definitive conclusion for this lack of recognition but I leave open the possibility that racism may be a factor.

However, I do believe that your conclusion in and of itself is just too “pure and simple” and that the real reason for this lack of recognition is much more nuanced, with perhaps one factor being the criticism that “Precious” received from some quarters that the film was racist due to its very limited and negative portrayal of African-American life. That type of criticism may just make “Precious” too hot to handle for some LGBT organizations.

Overall I enjoyed the film “Precious,” if you can use the word “enjoy” for such a disturbing piece, and recommend that people make the effort to see it. Perhaps then they can draw their own conclusions regarding the lack of national LGBT group recognition of this film and its associates. —Charles Gravitz, Silver Spring, Md.

Re: “The guiding hand in winning marriage equality” (viewpoint by Lane Hudson, March 5)

I appreciate the accolades from Lane Hudson in the DC Agenda. I’m extremely pleased with our success in achieving marriage equality. There were quite a large number of people who contributed to our win and we can all take some credit.

I do have a different recollection of how our effort progressed. At the founding meeting of DC for Marriage, I presented the on-going incremental plan that I had been working on for several years, at first while representing the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance (GLAA) and later in concert with them, especially Rick Rosendall, who was critical to the success of marriage equality in the District.

The assembled group seemed very pleased with my legislative plan and the criteria that I outlined for when the Congress would not interfere with us and how we could deal with an initiative. They also agreed that the time to move a bill hadn’t arrived, but we could do a lot to prepare for that day.

DC for Marriage’s embrace of my general strategy was quite a relief. I had worried that they were going to push for a marriage bill right away, or pull some other stunt that would delay or harm our efforts. Under Michael Crawford’s direction, DC for Marriage worked to create the public support we needed for our win. Michael created a social media and traditional media campaign, a direct contact and pledge effort, and other outreach that resulted in thousands and thousands of supporters. Countless other people found ways to make a difference and grow support for marriage equality.

A legislative, judicial or ballot loss could have set us back a decade or more. Going too soon would mean that we would be delayed in getting marriage equality. There would be a time when all the pieces came together and we would need to be prepared.

GLAA, the Gertrude Stein Club, and DC for Marriage leaders all agreed in January 2009 that the time for a marriage equality bill was not right. By April, we all agreed that the time had come for the marriage recognition bill and by summer we all agreed that it was time for the final bill, the Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality Act.

The careful incremental strategy didn’t rush us forward, but it moved us forward with deliberate steps. Each legislative victory carefully changed the laws that could have been used against us while increasing the rights of couples. In the end, everyone was on board and recognized that the moment had arrived and we were ready for it. — Bob Summersgill

Re: “3 arrested at White House protest” (news story by Lou Chibbaro Jr., March 18)

Funny how these rich self-congratulating queens, who do nothing for the cause themselves, apart from attending $1,000 a plate dinners, have the nerve to criticize those who are actually willing to put it all on the line. “Politically unsophisticated,” look who’s talking! These rich sellouts are telling us to mindlessly stand by President Obama and the Dems in Congress when they haven’t done jack for us for over a decade. It really is time for us to demand our rights, and tell President Obama and the Dems in no uncertain terms that if they don’t deliver on their promises to the LGBT community, they can forget about us volunteering for their campaigns, giving them money or showing up for them on Election Day, because true enough, that is what they understand. We must insist that they pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, ENDA, and repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” this year, before the election. — Tim

American history was largely made by people who, under that standard, were “politically unsophisticated beyond belief.” — Doctor Whom

Obama never would have come to HRC’s dinner if Robin McGehee hadn’t organized the march on Washington. What will this direct activism generate? McGehee is becoming a genuine LGBT hero. — Joe

I applaud Lt. Choi. It is an incredibly gutsy thing to chain yourself to the White House fence while in uniform. This is one president who might actually take notice. We need more gay servicemen and women to take similar action so that the president, Congress and the rest of America can’t continue to ignore this deplorable situation. — Lee H

Way to go! If everyone did their part in spotlighting this issue it would be passed speedily. Certain people, like Lt. Choi, are lighting rods that can be used like today. As far as the “gay activist” Phil Attey, to each their own. You shouldn’t be negative toward others means of expression. Your way isn’t the only right way to progress the topic no matter what opinion you might have! Yes, Congress is where laws are made but the passion of the people cannot be contained in a bill. We must be vocal! We must be steadfast and use the media to remind Obama of his promise. — Michael A

Phil Attey may no longer work for HRC, but he sure as hell still thinks like someone getting a paycheck from them. The folks who need educating are the executives, board members and staffers at HRC, and what they need to be educated about is that a big portion of the gay community is fed up with being told to wait.

In the spring of 1993, before President Clinton proposed DADT, Tim McFeeley of HRCF and Tonya Domi of NGLTF organized a lift-the-ban rally. Guess where it was held? Freedom Plaza! Now, 17 years later, HRC takes us back there, but this time, the rally was turned into a march — to the White House.

Bravo to all who took action over HRC’s “wait and let’s put on some more gala dinners” approach today. — MPetrelis

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

Re: “Prop 8 trial begins Monday”

In bringing Prop. 8 to trial, we should remember the old Chinese proverb, “Be careful what you wish for.”

While I feel as strongly as most readers here about the need for marriage to be available to us, I cannot help but think that it will hurt us if we try to bully the will of the people through legal tricks. Consider the abortion issue as an example. It was getting close to being made legal in some places and situations with general support when the courts intervened and made an edict. Now it remains a chasm in our public thought. If abortion laws had changed in most places through legislative action, and bills to change them failed several times it would be considered a dead issue in the political world. Only the “gadflies” would be pushing it.

Public opinion is evolving in our favor now that more people are out of the closet, and thus more people understand us as just regular harmless folks who care about their loved ones and their country.

Even basic rights for us, such as employment non-discrimination have gone from about 20 percent public support in the 1980s to 80 percent today. Almost every poll shows stronger support for our rights from younger people in both parties and of many religious traditions.

We need to build on this trend and educate people and we need to be examples of solid couples and good citizens so this can all get resolved in our favor democratically. — Sam Brown

Re: “Two more D.C. ballot measures proposed to ban same-sex marriage”

I had my suspicions so I went back in THOMAS and looked it up. Sure enough, there were three House signers on the amicus brief who were in office in 1993 when the D.C. statehood bill was voted on: Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Jack Kingston (Ga.), and Don Manzullo (Ill.) All voted NO in 1993 on the HR.51.

So much for their commitment to D.C. residents getting the right to vote on important matters. — Don

I find it amusing that there is at least one not-so-closeted gay Republican who signed this amicus brief and that all but one voted against giving D.C. residents a real congressional seat in the voting rights bill. The so-called GOP Big Tent continues to smell of its own elephant dung! — DC John

Re: “D.C. Jail guards accused of beating gay inmate”

Let me see if I understand this. An inmate of the D.C. Jail, injured in an altercation with guards on December 17, is being held in “protective custody” and is not able to have visitors (or one presumes be seen or have his injuries seen or photographed) “until Jan. 27 at the earliest”?

Excuse me? I don’t care if this guy is a hustler, a drug addict, a thief or whatever. We fought to put an end to this sort of thing decades ago. It seems to me that in a lot of ways, things are going backwards rather than forwards in the District. — Michael

No matter what someone’s past is or what they are in jail for this does not give them the right to beat someone. No matter what he did in the jail or to the guards once he was restrained that should have been the end of it. You do not get to break the law just because you are a prison guard. They [allegedly] did this because John is white and gay, this was a hate crime. — Dee

Re: “Arrest warrant sought in lesbian parental custody dispute”

Maggie Gallagher: You are deluded to think that you control the levers of a supernatural universe, as is anyone else who believes a single word from your lying mouth. Then, you meddle with the lives of innocent children like Isabella, forever helping to screw with their secure future and a loving parent.

Then, you put visions of demons and fairy-tales of made-up gay conspiracies in the heads of people who don’t know any better (because they don’t know any gay people). And how is it that you and NOM claim to know more about gay issues and families, than all the gay people who say you’re full of it, like me? Could never figure that one out. — Peter the Saint

Maggie Gallagher talking about unjust laws is a scream! She is one of the preeminent instigators of unjust laws against the LGBTI community. — Mykelb

Re: “Two Senate retirements means two losses for LGBT people”

It will be easier to have someone who is pro-LGBT in the seat without Chris Dodd running, which would have handed the seat to a heterosexist Republican. — libhomo

Re: “D.C. Council passes marriage bill”

This is a great day! Now to contact my representative and senators to tell them to let it be. Congratulations D.C.!! — Duane Snodgrass

Bishop Harry Jackson should be more concerned with the “back-sliding sinner heterosexuals” and their high divorce rate. Preach to your own congregation, sir. Bravo, D.C. City Council. At least some legislative work can be done in this city. — Frank

This to me is a non-issue. If you don’t agree with marriage equality, don’t marry someone of the same sex! As a schoolteacher, I don’t ever recall reading/citing the words “with liberty and justice for ALL” and seeing the word, “except.” Separate but equal does not, has not and should not work! We cannot “eenie meenie miney moe” through our neighborhoods and point to who is allowed marriage or not. — Stephanie K.

Re: “D.C. marriage bill signing” photos

Great news! Kudos to David Catania and our community and its friends for this oh so major accomplishment! 
Let the 30-day congressional legislative review begin! — DC John

Re: “Gay business group hires director”

I think Mark is the perfect person to do this job. The Chamber has a real and expanding role in the life of the metro area and Mark can help to bring that role to fruition. Congratulations to both Mark and the Chamber for taking this step. — Peter Rosenstein

Re: “Senate panel approves DP bill, takes OPM to task”

John Berry spoke at the Out & Equal Conference in Orlando this year — and went on, at length, about how the Obama Administration was passionate about “real” equality for LGBT people in terms of employment. He also admitted that the federal government is woefully behind in implementing LGBT-inclusive policies and practices. What’s pretty clear is 1) they’re really rather clueless about putting together the numbers and the business case (something covered in the LGBT 101 presentations), and 2) there’s apparently little incentive to work on these issues from the administration’s perspective. — Mike in Houston

Make no mistake about it: The Obama administration will work behind the scenes to ensure this will not see the light of day. Read his administration’s briefs and read what they told the California court judge about domestic benefits. Wake up gay people, we are turning toward Uganda. That is where the Republicans, conservatives, Christians, Muslims and most Democrats want this country to go. — Brian

Re: “Calif. man could become first openly gay dad in Congress”

You identified Steve Pougnet’s husband as his “partner” in your article about him. They were married in Palm Springs when it was still legal in California. And Steve married my husband Al and me in his capacity as mayor. Perhaps if you start referring to married gays as husbands and wives, it will catch on. The word partner has always sounded more like a business relationship than a lifelong commitment. — Larry Deitz