You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘homophobia’ tag.
As if appealing 3 times a court ruling to end DADT didn’t send the message – today we get new clues
ources on the Hill are telling me a big reason DADT repeal isn’t moving faster comes right from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Despite President Obama’s public support for repeal, with DADT stacked up against the START nuclear arms reduction treaty that Obama carefully brokered with the Russians earlier this year, the White House is putting its legislative push behind START.
I believe Carl Levin said it on TV during last weekend, but this came as 61 votes for the repeal already exist.
The article still maintains the illusion Obama wants DADT, and it’s just a priority issue
No one questions that Obama wants to see DADT end, or that he wants to see it end this year. The concern is over the priorities: Obama, it seems, wants START to come first. And with the White House pushing START (in daily phone calls from top White House officials, according to one source on the Hill), Obama could end up standing in the way of DADT getting done.
“The White House has been crystal clear that their number one priority in this lame duck session is START,” said one Senior Democratic aide.
Of course, if he does want the DADT so damn much, the question is: why does it have to be one or the other? Can’t he bother the Rs with two damn items?
Or as Gibbs put it
“There’s an effort to get this done if we have time to do it,” Gibbs said.
Yeah. They’ll trade it for START – rescuing yet another hostage..
As the story spreads, Jack Tapper weighs in on it
Some new points are made as raised my the advocacy group Servicemembers United
Despite the explanatory statement at the beginning of one section of the survey that “gay or lesbian” and homosexual” are used interchangeably, the group asserts that “it is a well established fact that the use of the term ‘homosexual’ induces bias in survey research. Use of this clinical term is also considered offensive to gays and lesbians.”
though the White House has repeatedly declared that DADT will be repealed — and the only question is when that will happen — the survey repeatedly phrases its questions in terms of “if” the repeal happens.
It almost suggests to the biggots that it’s up to them to derail this.
Also, what makes this a push poll is that
In questions about how the belief that a coworker was gay or lesbian impacted the unit’s morale, the “question and its accompanying answer choices assume and suggest a negative impact on
morale. No options are given to express a belief in a positive impact on morale.”
Other examples of offensive questions are given.
In B0botland, someone proposed a truce
He is the Commander in Chief. Whatever happens in the military, or because of the military is his responsibility. He must renounce this survey for the bigoted hatchet job on gay people that it is.
If by Close of Business on Monday, July 12th, he has not renounced this bullshit survey, then don’t come to me and tell me he’s just “playing chess” or “dancing nuance” or whatever excuse you’ve come up with this week.
All kind of responses including “can’t the man spend a weekend with his family”?
but the one that takes the cake is – seems to have been deleted since – but I saved it earlier
112. You have ego the size of the deficit
giving deadlines? did you send the memo to David Axelrod?LOL LOL LOL!!!!!! LOL!!!!!! LOLO!!!!!!!
wow, some of you really live in your own fantasy world. keep setting up and moving the goal posts. He’s gotta say this and do this and mention this and if he doesn’t OMG!!!!!! i’m finished.
GET OVER YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ironically, the handle of the poster is IOKYAL which is probably “It’s OK if you are a Liberal” a twist of the old IOKYAR
I suppose the moderators thought gloating was premature.
Nice, dignified survey, Mr. President.
For clarity, I put this in the body of the entry
The exact question is on page 26
If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities with an open bay shower that someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member also used, which are you most likely to do?
and the possible choices
“Take no action”
“Use the shower at a different time than the Service member I thought to be gay or lesbian”
“Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves”
“Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation”
“Talk to a leader to see if I had other options”
There are more pearls in there – pages 25 to 27 are extremely good. A peak:
We already know his administration is going to appeal the decision striking DOMA but who knew they were working so damn hard to mess the implementation of DADT?
At the original link you can find B0bot reactions that run the gamut from “not his survey” to “you changed a word in the quote”
78. Would having a gay man in DC see a picture of you shirtless impact your ability to be President?
Itd only make sense to cleanse DC of homosexuals…what if our politicians get seen in a sauna by them
64. My tax dollars helped pay for this bigoted shit
The Commander in Chief should be ashamed of himself. Someone should read this exact quote to him at his next press conference and make him defend it publicly in front of millions of people.
t | Permalink
An orange Cheeto (and Bobotland) attempts to exonerate Obama from this by blaming the corporation that was contracted to make the survey.
.One good comment (of several)
if Obama didn’t know the contents of a survey
With this much national attention being paid to it,
and given the nations history re: institutional bigotry –
then he is a boob.
Maybe even an incompetent bigoted boob.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell refuted the claims, saying, “Absolutely, unequivocally, I reject (the accusations of bias) as nonsense.”
Morrell cited concerns expressed by troops and said, “We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn’t address these kinds of (privacy-related) questions.”
and the obvious question for Obama’s cheerleaders: NOW does he know about it?
There was a lot of relevant, good stuff written about Elena Kagan – I‘ll just refer you to the Big Pink for those.
I’ll just limit myself to the “STFU GLBT, you got all you were even going to get from us” angle.
In picking an openly gay candidate, Obama didn’t intend to make a statement of support of gay rights. We know this from the way they attacked a blogger and CBS for chronicling the fact that Kagan was openly gay
A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said he complained to CBS because the column “made false charges.”
That was awkward enough that a highly publicized empty gesture – a memorandum about gay couples hospital visitation was quickly devised.
The Obama media quickly ran with the meme accusing the “R”s of spreading the rumors
Leading gay rights group are accusing Republicans of trying to rile up their conservative base by launching a whisper campaign against potential Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan — suggesting the current Solicitor General is a closeted lesbian even though she’s not.
Considering that she actually is a lesbian, and not at all closeted, the question remains – why does the White House consider that being gay is a “charge”?
We are going to defend the nominee that the president has chosen,” Gibbs said when asked if he thinks the rumors will be brought up during the confirmation process.When asked what the White House was defending Kagan from, Gibbs said: “That’s just a broad answer.”
So, we don’t think she committed the crime of being gay, but if you’ll say it we’ll defend her, much as we don’t even know what that is….
Which brings me to the shocker of the day: Andrew Sullivan makes sense.
Yes, I know, the baby Bristol alien plot Sullivan, like the proverbial broken clock figured it out.
His title is trying to cut through the hypocrisy
.and his conclusion (formulated as a question since he hearts Obama so much) is right
To put it another way: Is Obama actually going to use a Supreme Court nominee to advance the cause of the closet (as well as kill any court imposition of marriage equality)? And can we have a clear, factual statement as to the truth? In a free society in the 21st Century, it is not illegitimate to ask. And it is cowardly not to tell.
Well, Andrew, way to late to figure it out, but yes, Virginia, that’s precisely what Kagan is meant to do.
Just like Hispanics are supposed to swallow the immigration ID card because they have Sottomayor.
Just like women are supposed to enjoy Jane Crow because they have two women in SCOTUS.
And on this note this just in
Kagan means STFU GLBT – or as you put it – advancing the cause of the closet.
The story is not over – with the White House still “defending Kagan on unspecified charges”.
Here’s the White House bristling at a Wall Street cover yesterday
.To the protests that this is an allusion to her sexuality, the WSJ editors responded
“If you turn the photo upside down, reverse the pixilation and simultaneously listen to Abbey Road backwards, while reading Roland Barthes, you will indeed find a very subtle hidden message,” said Journal spokeswoman Ashley Huston.
and gays and lesbians on the other side of the political spectru, had fun with this too
“I fully expect the White House to push back and claim Kagan never played softball and that it’s a smear to insinuate she did,” emailed a founder of the conservative gay group GOProud, Chris Barron.
So Politico follows “the fight” with another salvo
with a Seinfeldesque “not that’s anything wrong with that”
But Kagan’s friends’ desire to “out” her as straight has been complicated by their hope to avoid offending gay friends by implying that there would be any problem if she were a lesbian.
A bit late after the White House fought so hard against the “charges”
The third is that she is a highly cautious political lesbian who has drawn a line around her real life in order to prevent her orientation being used against her – especially by the Christianist right.
So what if the third option is correct and Obama is actually being extremely shrewd?
And so his jujitsu becomes a triumph for gay rights, and his nominee, who I suspect is far more left-liberal than anyone now believes, helps shape the court for a generation.
So we’re back to multi-dimensional chess. OK, Sullivan, I withdraw my compliment from yesterday, as you withdrew your glimmer of lucidity.
I was pleasantly surprised to see this morning on the cover of WaPo and Obama Times news of this progressive order.
At The Confluence, MIQ2xu reinforced my own suspicions
It was not until I went to B0botland that I found the fly in the ointment
Someone posted the text of the EO rrrr Memorandum. The last paragraph
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
So, first of all, this is NOT an executive order. Like say the Jane Crow Executive Order. This is what Obama uses when he wants something to take effect. Such as the very conscience rules that will render this “memorandum” ineffective.
But this is a “memorandum” which is barely a step up from propaganda/campaign promise/speech. Hence the last paragraph.
Great, another grand gesture that really does not mean shit.
Because we gays just love those grand gestures. It’s still “separate but equal,” which as we all know, is NOT EQUAL. It’s just a small bone to throw to the LGBT citizens. It sounds good, but in reality, how enforceable is it? Does it really address the law?
And all you nice straight folks out there just giddy over this “token acknowledgment” of us Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered persons as full citizens with full rights: what if the shoe were on the other foot?
“This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”
Good to see some are sharp and awake.
Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues, said that while the memorandum on its own did not grant any new rights, it did “draw attention to the very real and tragic situations many gays and lesbians face when a partner is hospitalized.”
As to why this empty gesture now? Besides the upcoming elections some good guesses at the Confluence. Apparently there was a kerfluffe with CBS which reported Elena Kahan, possible SCOTUS choice might me gay. In fighting this, the White House staff let their homophobia show
A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said he complained to CBS because the column “made false charges.”
Indeed! The horrible, horrible charges! So, the empty visitation memorandum might be just damage control. It was sudden enough to make the story plausible.