The Dish

It’s a daily struggle:

The Californian Republican gives out-of-state marriages the full force of civil unions and signs the Harvey Milk Day legislation. He has more of a record on gay rights than Obama. And no one is telling him they can wait till 2017.

A child denied a legal family at the Equality March yesterday. A hilarious picket after the jump (the gays are the only minority group to ironize their own movement).

 

Many more here.

A reader writes:

As a gay professional, I caucused for Obama in Iowa because I thought he not only understood and cared about the LGBT community, but also because he would not suffer from the "Clinton caution" malaise on gay issues. I voted for Obama in the general election because the Palin wing of the Republican party continued to rile up the base by

demonizing gays.  Now, I have to ask myself, how is Obama any better

than John McCain? 

To paraphrase the great Pragmatist, William James, a difference, to be a difference, must make a difference.  Frankly, I can't see any difference in how gay rights issues would have been handled had McCain been elected.  McCain is no gay rights champion, but he has never been a cultural warrior, either.  I suspect McCain would have, at worst, treated gay issues with benign neglect.  Frankly, McCain might have been persuaded by his daughter to support the repeal of DADT (or at least to enter an order suspending it due to personnel needs for the wars), and he would have had the credentials to get it done.  Also, McCain might have been reachable about repealing DOMA as a states' rights matter.  But even assuming McCain flatly refused to address gay rights issues at all, how is Obama any different?  If my President is going to ignore gay rights issues, it doesn't much matter to me if he does it with a snarl or a smile.

Sadly, McCain proved in the campaign that he was a tool of the Christianist right and a slave to Rovianism. He had a chance to pick another course but chose not to. I think he would have done by now what Obama has done, which is, strictly speaking, next to nothing.

Dan Choi fights for the right to serve his country:

Cynthia Nixon argues for marriage equality after the jump:

Ambers notes the major blowback.

Do you stick to your anonymous quote or not?

A reader writes:

I admire your rage. I wish I had more of it or any at all. I know you are angry and that DADT and gay rights are life and death to you, literally. However, I am concerned about the incendiary bent your recent comments have taken. I understand why Obama's speech on Friday night angers you.  However, he did something in that speech that I

thought was pretty remarkable.

In it, he referred to a young man, scared and alone knowing he was gay for as long as he could remember.  For our president to unequivocally acknowledge that a gay person would know he was gay for as long as he could remember leaves no room for the ridiculous notion that being gay is a choice or a "lifestyle." I choked up because if I had heard my president on a Friday night on a major news channel say that when I was ten years old my adolescence and college life might have been entirely different. 

I am not saying cool down, don't, but remember we have someone here who has a shot at doing the right thing. To take him to task so brutally when he has promised to do more than any other president seems unfair.  You are more enraged at the guy who might/will do something than Bush who did nothing. Nothing. You know these things are not as easy a swipe of a pen.  Make him do it but don't take him down in the process.

Another writes:

The absolute DUMBEST thing in the whole entire world that Obama could do right now, at this very moment as President is to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or involve himself in the same sex marriage statewide issues or other gay rights issues that you wish him to tackle, in the present, highly volatile, nasty political climate, while this Aftghan war is escalating, (41 killed in Pakistan just this morning), jobs are being lost in record numbers, and with Healthcare Reform, something that Obama has made crystal clear is a mandate for his first term as President, is still on the table being negotiated. And President Obama is NOT dumb!

That is just the reality of the situation, Andrew, pure and simple. I think that you are much too emotionally involved in this issue Andrew, and as with all of us, when our emotions are in control, we become irrational. I say this out of tremendous respect and admiration for you.

My record of rage against Bush's FMA is easily found. I don't know many Republicans who'd say I was easier on Bush on these matters. I don't give a damn who the president is; and a civil rights movement shouldn't rest its foundation on any single party or politician. In this, of course, I am wearing my "activist" hat. But when a situation is about this kind of injustice, as on torture, I see no distinction between being a writer and an activist. There are times when you just have to stand up and say what's right. It is not my job to enable the continued persecution of my gay brothers and sisters. I never have and never will.

I have, of course, no intention of "taking this president down", even if I had any such power. I do have every intention of doing what I can to keep him to his word and letting the Democratic party poobahs know that we actually mean it when we say this is a civil right, and we will not tolerate the persecution of servicemembers in the line of fire any more. We went through this sixteen years ago and we did not support Obama and work round the clock to elect him only to repeat the charade.

End the ban now.

They get it; they will never lose it; and it’s time that Washington understood it:

As the Democrats treat us with the usual contempt, a reader writes:

Here's a local NY perspective: The campaign for gay marriage in the state is funded primarily by wealthy donors with GOP ties. The former majority leader of the Senate, Joe Bruno, is Republican and has urged lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage. Certainly, more Democrats than Republicans are supportive in the State Senate, but it's the Democrats, who received more than $1M from the gay rights community, who are stonewalling on the bill because they fear it will cause lose them to lose their majority. At least in New York, it's not so black and white.

For years I've said that the gay rights movement should rid itself of victimology and one-party reliance. The major obstacle has been the GOP itself.

The ideals of small government, individual freedom, fiscal sanity and prudent foreign policy are appealing to many gays – a third of whom voted for McCain last time around. But Rove and Bush used us as a wedge to build a fundamentalist coalition, a coalition that has inevitably now become a rump. 

How long before Ted Olson's view manages to make its way back to the center of the GOP? The news of the HRC sell-out reveals just how important that now is for the future of civil rights. And if the GOP had any idea how to get back to the center, they'd do in America what the Tories have in Britain and outflank interest group politics by embracing civil rights for all individuals, regardless of any identity, as non-negotiable. That's an inclusive conservatism I and many others can