07/10/2009
Naked: An EXCLUSIVE Interview with Gay Hero Daniel Choi
When President Obama took office, he did so with the high expectations of his supporters in the LGBT community...and with the equally low expectations of his detractors among us. While the acknowledgment he has given to our issues may have surpassed that of previous presidents, it's fallen short (so far) of satisfying any of his major LGBT campaign promises. Worse, a number of questionable signals have been sent, the most controversial being the Department of Justice memo on same-sex marriage, which has been widely interpreted to compare marriage equality with incest in its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Perhaps most surprisingly, President Obama has shown a troubling lack of resolve in repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell—he insists it is something he wants gone, but also insists that it be done via a bill that arrives on his desk from Congress, refusing to exercise his apparent authority as Commander-in-Chief to put a stop to any expulsions while the law is being reviewed and eventually, we presume, rescinded.
If it sometimes feels like you're either a Kool-Aid drinking apologist about to be excommunicated from the LGBT ranks (a literal ex-gay) or a histrionic, tantrum-throwing child with no regard for the president's full plate—you're not alone. The middle ground is rapidly disappearing.
But what will matter to all of us is if the president fails to make progress on our issues, because that will be not only his failure, it will be ours if we allow it to happen.
For Dan, it's simply about telling the truth.
When I first called him, I was a bit nervous. I don't know too many army guys and this one has become a gay hero for bucking a wildly unpopular policy and a wildly popular president, all in the name of what is right. The first thing he told me is that he was naked, which broke the ice (shattered it, really), but which later seemed so appropriate to me even if it was a joke, because at no time during our interview did I get the impression that he was feeding me talking points or that he had any agenda outside of the one that all of us, the nutty Obama lovers and the nutty Obama haters, should embrace come what may: It's wrong to discriminate against LGBT people, and it has to stop.
With a grace the Obama haters should study, a resolve the Obama lovers should adopt and with a surprising sense of humor, Dan spent just over 40 minutes making nothing but sense.
I've uploaded my interview to YouTube in 18 separate files so you can hear Dan in his own voice as I heard him earlier today. He tells a great story about coming out to his West Point roommate, stresses he's coming out "for the next guy," says he's not angry at the military, wonders aloud where he's going to live and speaks of how his first real relationship taught him the importance of doing what he's been doing for the past several months.
All of Matthew Rettenmund's interview after the jump...
1 What drew you to a career in the military?
2 Did 9/11 strengthen your resolve to serve?
3 Dan's emphasis: The truth.
4 Why is it important for gay people to be honest about who they are?
5 How do you react to being called a hero?
6 Son of a minister, Asian-American, military...not a recipe for an easy coming-out?
7 Why would a gay person join the military under DADT?
8 You had a religious upbringing...what do you tell religious, anti-gay people?
9 Do you mind my asking if you voted for President Obama?
10 How do you react to the "let's give it time" argument?
11 Where are YOU with this president right now?
12 What did you think of the White House Stonewall event?
13 "We're going to get this done"...encouraging, or hollow?
14 How does DADT hurt military preparedness?
15 What did you make of Defense Secretary Gates's "humane" DADT comment?
16 Is there a "generational gap" in the military brass?
17 Have you considered running for office?
18 Does your "heartthrob" status give you helpful visibility?
Posted 7:30 PM EST by Matthew Rettenmund in Dan Choi, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Rachel Maddow | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Actually, Ernie, what I said was " Those who have called out Obama consistently are made out as being only concerned about getting the "last laugh". That's the problem, Obama supporters just REFUSE to admit that they were wrong." Many Obama supporters to admi refuse to admit that they were wrong about those of us who spoke out against Obama. And I don't want to make a federal case about it, but I have to take issue with Matthew's last statement "...at this point Obama could suck a white cock in the town square and they'd still say, "...but he didn't look like he ENJOYED it." What does "white" cock have to do with it? Once again, the implication is that if you speak out against Obama on gay issues, you are somehow racist. With this type of attitude, why should anyone be surprised that many within the LGBT community feel that those who share this view are part and parcel to the problem?
Posted by: Wayne | Jul 11, 2009 4:45:28 PM
Please do not equate angry and upset gays--who are JUSTIFIABLY UPSET because of the president's broken promises and lies on upholding and advancing gay rights--to angry and upset rightwing nutjobs. They're in two different leagues. One comes from justifiable anger. The other one is bigoted, irrational anger.
In fact, to equate those two is offensive.
Please be more careful when "equating" two groups that have nothing in common.
Posted by: Justin | Jul 11, 2009 7:05:24 PM
Wayne, OK, how were those of us who supported Obama wrong, even about those who spoke out against him? Not all those who "spoke out against him" did so in the same way. Many of us complained, even the HRC complained about McClurkin, and the result was adding a gay preacher to the mix, which probably wasn't very popular in SC, where those events took place.
You attach McClurkin to Obama in much the same way Palin et al. attached Ayers to Obama. I don't think they ever met, and they were never on stage together, so it's a bit of an exaggeration to call Obama a bigot and a backstabber and mention his "BS" from the very beginning. The fact is, no other viable candidate at the time was anywhere near as good, period.
Yes, it's taking time, but he is certainly still promising action on DOMA and DADT, and his first year is only half over. He is President. If he was really a backstabber, he could set us back somehow, but I haven't noticed a single right taken away as a result of Obama's presidency.
Matthew and Ernie are FOR speaking out against Obama, for holding his feet to the fire, for urging him to keep his promises. But that doesn't mean we think he is a backstabbing bigot whose every word is BS.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jul 11, 2009 7:11:26 PM
Wayne, OK, how were those of us who supported Obama wrong, even about those who spoke out against him? Not all those who "spoke out against him" did so in the same way. Many of us complained, even the HRC complained about McClurkin, and the result was adding a gay preacher to the mix, which probably wasn't very popular in SC, where those events took place.
You attach McClurkin to Obama in much the same way Palin et al. attached Ayers to Obama. I don't think they ever met, and they were never on stage together, so it's a bit of an exaggeration to call Obama a bigot and a backstabber and mention his "BS" from the very beginning. The fact is, no other viable candidate at the time was anywhere near as good, period.
Yes, it's taking time, but he is certainly still promising action on DOMA and DADT, and his first year is only half over. He is President. If he was really a backstabber, he could set us back somehow, but I haven't noticed a single right taken away as a result of Obama's presidency.
Matthew and Ernie are FOR speaking out against Obama, for holding his feet to the fire, for urging him to keep his promises. But that doesn't mean we think he is a backstabbing bigot whose every word is BS.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jul 11, 2009 7:11:26 PM
First, let's clear up that hogwash about how Obama allegedly redeemed using Donnie "Gays are trying to kill our children" McClurkin to...in the words of BLACK lesbian pastor Irene Monroe...attract black homophobe voters in South Carolina.
Obama REFUSED to use any of the BLACK gay-friendly ministers suggested by HRC and the National BLACK Justice Coalition. Instead, his peeps dug up the Rev. Andy Siddens, a WHITE gay minister. In the words of well-known BLACK lesbian blogger Pam Spauding: “It boggles the mind that the Obama campaign would select a white pastor to deal with a situation that is awash in black homophobia." Monroe added, “Obama’s choice reinforced two myths many black evangelicals hold: homosexuals are white and homosexuality is an abomination.”
On top of that, Siddens was rolled out to give an opening prayer when the hall was still half empty and so noisy few heard him. He left the stage never to be seen again that night, but what was seen was McClurkin stomping the stage simultaneously denying that he was a homophobe and reinforcing it, and a video from Obama saying that the performers that night [which included other documented homophobes besides McClurkin] were “among some of Michelle’s and my favorites.”
And if you already haven’t made the connection between how Siddens was employed so early that night that he had no effect and Bishop Robinson’s mysteriously being left out of the live broadcast of the Lincoln Memorial pre-Inaugural concert in January, there’s no hope for you.
As for the “where’s the harm” claims— if you don't get that his DOJ's rabidly homophobic briefs defending DOMA ...AND....DADT …"set us back" ...were a "stab in the back" then you are willfully blind.
Mr. Full Plate found time to do THAT. His military finds time to discharge Dan Choi and Lt. Tsao and roughly three hundred others since he was sworn in...which, by the way was exactly when HE said he would start to ACTIVELY FIGHT FOR DADT's REPEAL..."when I take office." NOT six months after; NOT a year after; NOT "if Congress don't want to"; NOT "if the generals don't wanna."
He could hold that full plate in one hand and sign an ENTIRELY LEGAL and NOT unprecedented FREEZE order in SECONDS with the other. WHY ISN'T HE IF HE CARES SO MUCH?
The DOJ in HIS name, told the Supremes that DADT and DOMA were JUSTIFIED in the SAME homophobic terms that Congress used to pass them in the first place. IF he ever DOES get off his ass, what's he suppposed to tell Congress in order to convince them to repeal, "Oooops, guys, we didn't mean it."
In addition, they introduced some brand NEW nonsense. Don't believe me? How about Jon Davidson, the Legal Director at Lambda Legal:
"Whether or not the administration felt a need to defend, there are many ways one can defend. The administration could have rested on the first two arguments raised in their papers (jurisdiction and standing) that these plaintiffs were not entitled to sue without arguing at this point that DOMA is constitutional. Doing that would not have waived those arguments. What they need to be asked is why they gratuitously went out of their way to make the outrageous arguments they unnecessarily included such as that DOMA does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or that the right at issue is not marriage but an unestablished right to 'same-sex marriage' or that DOMA is somehow justified in order to protect taxpayers who don't want their tax dollars used to support lesbian and gay couples (while it's apparently fine to make lesbians and gay men pay the same taxes but be denied the benefits provided heterosexual couples). Their public statements about the filing try to sidestep these points. They absolutely knew they did not need to make these additional arguments, especially at this time and consciously decided to do so. I am seething mad."
I don't know who Davidson supported in the primaries, but since I smelled something phony in Obama early, and, apparently am considered incapable of being objective anyway since I'm white...what do you say to BLACK Stampp Corbin who is a longtime FAMILY FRIEND of Obama and was COCHAIR of the LGBT national committee for his campaign. Here's some of what Corbin's said recently:
"I ask, “Mr. President how can you argue for the legality of DOMA, when you are for its repeal?”
You really are talking out of both sides of your mouth and my community knows it.
The Administration’s specious argument was extolled in a press release “As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”
Oh really, so can I expect the same response when your brief is filed in a Massachusetts federal case on June 29th? I certainly hope not. Mr. President make a different choice. Choose to lead.
Both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton filed legal briefs arguing against existing law. The president says he is a “fierce advocate” for LGBT rights. Really? I don’t think comparing a marriage to my partner, to marrying my niece or sister, is being my fierce advocate. I expect the president will try to distance himself from the brief and even the press statement, but it is too late. If how I feel, as one of the president’s most ardent supporters, is any indication, Obama is in for a world of trouble over the next year with the LGBT community.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest LGBT rights organization, rightfully condemned Obama for the filing of the government’s DOMA brief. I could not agree more with the leadership of HRC. President Obama, your legal brief was clearly a mistake, a big mistake. After Prop 8, my partner and I feel we are playing a tragic game of Wipeout. Traveling through an obstacle course that we must master to get our rights; making it to the end in California, only to be told by voters that heat didn’t count. I expected obstacles to be placed in our path by our enemies; I just didn’t expect it from the President. I thought he was on our side; I still want to believe that.
Unfortunately, I will see everything that the Obama administration does for LGBT Americans through the lens of the DOMA brief. Meaning, I will be waiting for the other proverbial shoe to drop, while praying President Obama delivers on his promises.
Mr. President, your DOMA mistake awakened a sleeping giant. He is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore. You better get LGBT affirming legislation moving quickly or the coffers of the LGBT community will be slammed shut on the fingers of your administration and the DNC. You and the DNC may find themselves asking about our donations “if not now, when” as we have been asking about our rights for the last few months."
AND AFTER HE ATTENDED O's Gay Tea Party:
"Mr. President, there are millions of LGBT Americans who are willing to put the pressure on to make you respond to our issues. Clearly, you heard and felt our anger about the lack of speed you have exhibited to address LGBT inequality. That will be child’s play compared to the response you will be getting from us over the next several months. You want us to put the pressure on? We hear you loud and clear. We will be expecting substantial results quickly and will not go quietly back to our corners because of a lovely event.
Mr. President, expect the LGBT community to be out in full force, holding you to your promises and celebrating results, not speeches. You want pressure? We’ll give it to you in spades."
Well, SOME of us will.
Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jul 11, 2009 8:05:34 PM
Wayne: I guess your issue is with Matthew, then. I certainly wouldn't say you or anyone else is "wrong" or racist (Matthew's cock analogy struck me as a witticism not quite hitting the right target--so I'm not defending it) for speaking out against Obama. I've spoken out against Obama. He's said and done indefensible things. I don't know of many gay people who think he hasn't made mistakes, big ones. There seems to be a perception among those most angry at Obama (some of whom were never supporters--so their "disappointment" seems disingenuous--and whose comments, yes, can veer towards racism) that it's impossible to be critical of him while still being happy that he is our president. I'm both. No gay people I know plan to let him off the hook if he does nothing on gay rights, but not all of us are ready to write off his presidency less than a year in. Ultimately, our personal opinions of Obama--love, hate, or somewhere in between--don't much matter. He's our president. What matters is taking action to influence him to do the right thing, which is what people like Dan Choi--and many less celebrated--are doing. If anger leads people to act constructively, I'm all for it. I know I should be doing more. It's easy to get caught up in the trivialities of who's right on a blog while losing sight of the big picture which is best served by unity for our common good.
Posted by: Ernie | Jul 11, 2009 8:31:40 PM
It's time to put down that cocktail & pick up your 2nd amendment rights. Don't you think?
Posted by: mike shackleford | Jul 12, 2009 12:44:39 AM
Michael@LeonardMatlovich.com is so right!
Does Matthew R. have a response to that?
Clearly, the Obama administration is going to do NOTHING until we turn up the heat to boiling. It was only after the anger was bubbling over from the DOJ brief that Obama finally paid us any attention at all. You guys that want to 'play nice' so we can get our agenda passed are living in some alternative universe. Playing nice is just what they want you to do so that they can ignore you. Making sure Obama knows we are mad as hell is going to get some results.
Honestly, do you think if 'the gays' get too 'uppity' that that is going to give Obama license to say "hey, they are too angry, I am not going to help them after all." Don't be daft. Hell, even if he did we would be no farther behind than we are now.
If he truly believes in equal rights for all citizens, it doesn't really matter how angry we are, now does it? It is still the proper thing to do. Equality is not guaranteed by our constitution only for those who play nice. It is for ALL.
Look at the history of rioting by African Americans on many different occasions including Watts and the Rodney King verdict.
The political response is not "those people are too angry, they don't deserve to be treated equally!"
No. The overwhelming response has been "those people are incredibly angry and frustrated. Something must be terribly wrong. What can we do to address their concerns?"
If anything, maybe we should be more angry and rioting in the streets.
But instead we hear "Give him more time." "Cut him a break." "Give him the benefit of the doubt." "What he really means is___." "Play nice." "Full plate." "You're just Obama Haters!" "Don't rock the boat."
Pathetic.
Posted by: Jeffrey | Jul 12, 2009 12:52:08 AM
Dan Choi is a hero. As is the heterosexual Patrick Murphy, fighting for fairness. Thank goodness we have some great people with us at a time when most gay "leaders" seem like BarneyFuddleFrank.
Posted by: Let'sFaceIt | Jul 12, 2009 1:53:07 AM
P.S. - Ironic how the guys living in safe lilly-white Vermont are always the first to scream "racism" at others.
Posted by: Let'sFaceIt | Jul 12, 2009 5:10:26 AM
I see that Michael@LeonardMatlovich.com has repsonded to some of my letter's critics in an iformative fashion, so I don't need to. Though I would still like to hear from Matthew as to why he inserted "white" cock into his diatribe against those who speak out against Obama for his betrayal of his campaign promises. What does "white" cock have to do with it? Once again, as is so often the case,the implication is that if you speak out against Obama on gay issues, you are somehow racist.
Posted by: Wayne | Jul 12, 2009 6:17:37 AM
God you guys are tedious...did no one do English at school?
He inserted 'white' because SO MANY of the posters are really really hate Obama, have been veering on fucking racism and oh, Wayne et al, YOU'RE not reading his posts so if Matt had one brain cell, I'd get out of thie mental blogsphere now and keep doing the good job that he is by being a journalist and question what Obama is doing.
Matt said in his response "street hustler from Chicago" as giving an example of the racist shit that hs come out against Obama...now wtf does being half white to a mother from Hawaii and hlaf black to a Kenya father who went to Harvard and was in the Kenyan govt got to do with being a fucking hustler in chicago??
Obama has more WHITE AMERICAN then ANY black american!? Doh! I've been to Kenya and they are NOTHING like African American's oh jeez, that is EAST AFRICA! And those black slaves were taken from drum roll.....WEST AFRICA!! I mean it's like saying eastern Russians are JUST like the spanish! Big ol Continent that is diverse being Europe and Africa!
So since most of you desp need a histoy lesson we can stop there.
So Wayne, using that wonderful and powerful thing called a brain to progress into complex and open minded thinking...those mental racists Obama haters who keep on saying sly comments like the above, if god forbid they even got to catch Obama sucking a white mans cock, you'd STILL see them find an excuse that it's not happening because they are soo FUNDAMENTAL in thought and action, that even something as glaring as a him sucking a white mans cock, they would still find something to hate him.
So this means that, these posters have an ulterior motive and they were never going to like Obama and this situation has given them room to become even more over zealous like all the religous right who hate them for being f*gs.
Now Wayne if you and your buds who felt it was more important to insult Matt and Obama, then respectfully comment on what Dan is doing, feel that it was aimed at you cause he's saying YOUR racist, then that says a lot about YOU and YOUR buds, then it says about him.
I didn't see Matt mentione any names?? Did he mention YOUR name in relation to the nutty posters?
Are you claiming that they're NO nutty posters AT ALL?? Are you clinically INSANE?
and to michael @ leonard blah blah..
Big deal! You deserve a phd in investigative journalism! Or quantative research!
Wow!
Again, WHO is saying Obama hasn't done these things?? And again, are you such a depressed and horrid person that you can't comment on Dan but instead decide to go and on and on about Obama!!??
Damn, you guys are so sweet, reasonable and great strategists.
Hopefully you're doing something like Matt, Dan etc in trying to change this irrational and fucked up world that we live in, instead of just going on and on and on about how EVIL Obama is.
Also, can anyone find old links on Towleroad when Bush was pres? I'm interested to see what these posters were reacting or saying...
Posted by: Rowan | Jul 12, 2009 10:51:08 AM
Also minorities (blacks, gays, women, democrats), will always hate each other more, therefore FIGHT within themselves the powerful majority, (ruling white, rich, straight, conservatives and males)
Which ahem, is why they are the majority!
Posted by: Rowan | Jul 12, 2009 10:55:40 AM
"I didn't see Matt mentione any names?? Did he mention YOUR name in relation to the nutty posters?" -- Actually, Rowan, Matthew did address this to me. He said in his very first comment "I think those who are now saying my piece had thinly-veiled anything are so hate-addled at this point Obama could suck a white cock in the town square and they'd still say, "...but he didn't look like he ENJOYED it." -- I was the one who made the thinly veiled comment. And he implied that he believes anyone who speaks out against Obama has racist motivations. Which is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE (but it is a constant sheild that Obama supporters use to deflect from having to discuss Obama's open support of anti-gay bigots during his campaign).
Posted by: Wayne | Jul 12, 2009 11:59:45 AM
Letsfaceit: what are you talking about? I don't think anyone from Vermont has mentioned racism, much less "screamed" it.
Michael: don't read the long posts, though I have no problem with reading War and Peace in Russian.
Blogs are like editorial letters. If you can't get to the point concisely, you lose your audience.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jul 12, 2009 1:37:36 PM
@ Wayne..
Ok..I didn't know that it was pointed at you..
I apologise..
If so that is really kneejerk of him...not proffesional but this is politics and I'm cutting a little slack, simply due to what he's been saying is trying to do...
But I don't condone man...it's uncalled for..
Posted by: Rowan | Jul 12, 2009 2:24:52 PM
Sorry, have been away from the board.
My joke about the white cock is because, as I pointed out, I truly believe that the diatribes of the most irrational O-haters (not people with strong, reasonable criticisms) are akin to, if not actually drenched in, racial hatred. It's at THAT LEVEL of hatred. It knows no bounds.
If you (and that means anyone reading) have not been seething with hatred over Obama's existence and littering boards with comments about him being the Dear Leader and a bigot and a closet Evangelical, then you'll probably understand what I am saying.
Obama's approach to gay issues so far has been WEAK or it has been callously strategic (and if so, WEAKLY so). I don't see how anyone can rah-rah about his efforts so far, even while appreciating the few positive things we've gotten to this date, but I think anyone who's still screaming about the fact that he used McClurkin (a STOOPID thing to do) and Warren (ditto) means he's a homophobe is someone who will never, ever live to see a president un-homophobic enough for them and will be less of an asset to our struggle than the so-called Obama Kool-Aid drinkers.
We have to work with people we don't agree with. I personally don't want anything to do with anyone I think is a bigot, but I think it's a fantasy that Obama is an enemy of gay people. He may be a very lame friend at the moment and I'll never forget the stupidity of that DOJ memo and his non-reaction to it, but he's not going to try to remove rights from us, he's not going to refuse to sign bills that benefit us, he's not going to use his power to strip anything gay out of anything the government endorses or approves.
I guess the basic argument we have is about where the line is drawn between our side and their side. For too many gay people, I feel that the line is draw between "give me my rights today" and everything and everyone else, which makes those of us who don't despise Obama but who do think he's been a gay-rights weakling feel like we're seen as no better than Anita Bryant.
If my saying I'd vote "approve" overall for Obama in a job-approval poll that doesn't allow for any options on specific issues means I'm seen as a crazy Kool-Aid-drinking devotee, if that is what makes you comfortable with your own beliefs, I say enjoy. I know that I think things through much more so than most, so I'm not ready to worry that I'm transforming into a zombie just yet.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Jul 12, 2009 3:12:25 PM
P.S. Wayne: Yes, looking back you did use "thinly-veiled" but another poster said something about my article being biased; I did and do believe it says something about one's perspective if reading my subjective, opinionated essay could lead one to say it had thinly-veiled anything or was pretending to be unbiased. Nothing is unbiased, and when news purports to be unbiased and is not, it's dangerous. In my piece, I clearly identified myself as an Obama supporter who is upset with his moves on gay issues, yet I talked about the rapidly polarizing points of view and I made the point that in speaking with Dan it was exciting to me to find someone who is taking a completely different, almost apolitical approach.
Hope that clears things up.
Someone said something else about the right-wing nutjobs being totally separate from the gay Obama haters. I don't agree. I would say that Obama's gay critics are totally separate from the gay Obama haters, but that some of the gay Obama haters have LOTS in common with the right-wing nutjobs and yes, both of those groups do have a racist core, explicit and implicit. It's surprising to me that gay people of any political stripe are racist, but they are out there. (There is so much to say about that.)
But again, to clear up any misconceptions, I wasn't attempting to say all Obama criticism and outrage over his actions = racism.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Jul 12, 2009 3:27:25 PM
"in speaking with Dan it was exciting to me to find someone who is taking a completely different, almost apolitical approach"????
Excuse me?
Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jul 12, 2009 3:35:43 PM
Michael: Most commenters on blogs, who for the past few months have said things about "I'm leaving the Democratic party," "boycott the DNC," "you're a rich A gay if you lift a cocktail in the White House," etc., all very political comments (albeit driven by gay rights). And Dan wouldn't converse in that way. Unlike the gay battle that's been raging on the blogs, it isn't even about pro- vs. anti-Obama. It's not "give him time" vs. "he lied, admit it." It's not about Obama at all. In fact, he clarified continually that his statements about holding feet to the fire applied to others, not just elected officials. Anyway, if that offends or confuses, it's gonna have to rest there. Thanks again everyone for engaging in the debate. I'm at matthewrettenmund@gmail.com if anyone wants to keep going (I'm done for the week, so I'm going to detach from the device on Towleroad that automatically lets me know when comments post is what I mean).
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Jul 12, 2009 3:55:22 PM
michael@ leonard etc
Chill dude.
Why are you so uptight? and ready to fight? at ANYTHING?
I just went through your site and the whole premise is about being kind and non judgemental to gays in the miliatary but your subjective comments here...
Woah.
Easy and peace.
Posted by: Rowan | Jul 12, 2009 4:38:47 PM
"P.S. - Ironic how the guys living in safe lilly-white Vermont are always the first to scream "racism" at others."
First to scream racism? Huh? If those of us who live in a mostly white state are ill-equipped to ever mention racism (I haven't heard any screaming but some hear differently than others), then, by that logic, civilians have no business objecting to DADT because it involves the military, and heterosexuals not living in a gay ghetto have no right to speak out against Prop 8?
Posted by: Ernie | Jul 12, 2009 4:58:48 PM
"But again, to clear up any misconceptions, I wasn't attempting to say all Obama criticism and outrage over his actions = racism" -- Well, I will have to take you on your word, but your rant about white cock maybe wasn't the best way to convey that. And I disagree with you, and sadly far too many of Obama's supporters who casually disregard Obama's use of the bigot Donnie McClurkin, it's something Obama CONTINUED to do with the likes of Rick Warren as well as his "YES on Prop 8" advocates he had shilling for him during his "Faith Tours". A politician that will (repeatedly) use anti-gay bigotry and hatred to garner votes is beyond contempt. Period. There is no getting around that in a casual manner for me. But we just disagree. It has everything to do with homophobia, opportunism, bigotry and political expedience, not racism.
Posted by: Wayne | Jul 12, 2009 5:44:20 PM
"apolitical"?? "It's not about Obama at all"???
Gee, I guess Choi said that he had "a message for President Obama" at that demonstration outside the DNC fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in May because maybe the hotel's beds were uncomfortable or its food was bad and Choi thought Obama ran the hotel?
And I guess he thought the interviewer on MSNBC on July 1st was talking about a DIFFERENT President than Obama with the question:
"What's your reaction to the President?"
CHOI: "It's a big slap in the face to me."
Perhaps Mr. Rettenmund should spend less time eroticizing Lt. Choi, less time trying to cherry pick what he says [unfamiliarity with the names of formal political organizations is not the same as being "apolitical"] so that he can try to shoe horn him in to Rettunmund's ruby slipper with the Obama Nation logo on it and more time reporting reality.
Of course, Choi addresses members of Congress, too. We all should and I do.
But NEITHER I NOR ANY OTHER GAY PERSON FIRST declared that Obama is THE PERSON MOST RESPONSIBLE for the elimination of DADT. Barack Obama, HIMSELF, declared that would be HIS RESPONSIBILITY if elected in a November 2007 statement released to the LGBT community which anyone can see here:
http://www.leonardmatlovich.com/images/783_Obama-DADT-Promise-redlined.jpg
Finally, for anyone to imagine that one can separate ANY gay issue from "politics" is childish at best.
Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jul 12, 2009 6:42:58 PM
The Obots are wrong. There is no excuse for Obamas now open bigotry. None at all. The problem is that Obama is a Clinton clone.
Michael (Bedwell), noting the growing disillusilnment with Obama
wants to run Hillary up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes. He's thinking comeback in 2012.
That, to put it mildly, is delusional. But not unexpected for someone whose politics are expressed as idolatry.
The Clintons are losers. And not just because Obama rubbed their faces in it. Because of their record.
Fact. Bill Clinton the bigot signed and enforced DADT.
Fact. Bill Clinton the bigot championed DOMA and boasted about signing it. He's not spineless, he's a spineless bigot. Time Magazine noted that
"By the time Clinton arrived in Chicago for his party's convention in August, nothing that hinted at liberalism was left hanging on him. When the President, who had begun his term advocating the rights of gays in the military, came around to supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition for gay and lesbian unions, Dole was wide-eyed. "Is there anything we're for that he won't jump on?" Dole asked. The answer, essentially, was nothing..."
Fact. Bill Clinton championed NAFTA and deregulation, laying the groundwork for the loss of millions and millions of jobs in the last year or so.
Fact. Bill Clinton ordered the murder of nearly half a million Iraqi children by embargoing medical, sanitary and food supplies. This awful infanticide was defended by Clintons UN Ambassador and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, darling of the liberals. Here is a partial transcript of that interview.
"Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
Fact. Hillary Clinton sat malevolently on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart, the most anti-worker corporation in the US, as they busted unions and cut wages.
Fact. Wal-Mart was one of the leading beneficiaries of NAFTA which Bill Clinton rammed through Congress.
Fact. Hillary Clinton tried as hard as Obama did to pander to bigoted christers, but Obama was unquestionably sleazier and better at it.
Fact. Hillary Clinton takes the same bigoted view as Obama, Biden, McCain, Warren, and etc. She opposes SSM and thinks were second class citizens who don't deserve the right to marry.
The Clintons betrayed so many people that they became the ultimate political losers and remain so to this day.
More and more Bill Clinton just accepts that most of us consider him a bigot. He unashamedly crossed a trade union/GLBT picket line to speak at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego on Feb. 15. Cleve Jones and other trade union/LGBT activists tried to present him a petition with hastily collected 30,000 names demanding that he the honor thir boycott. He simply ignored them.
For bigots on the make, money comes first.
Posted by: Bill Perdue | Jul 13, 2009 9:44:21 AM