1. Marcito says

    Excellent orator. Persuasive. Cool poise. This new year, I only hope President Obama’s backbone will be as strong as the tone & tenor of his words tonight. The ship has sailed on DADT.
    Meanwhile, HD makes the dull & the dead in the chamber look human. The First Lady never looked more beautiful than she did tonight.

  2. chad says

    The speech as a whole sounds more like something that would be given at a Shriner’s convention or similar event.

    I agree with @marcito, Mrs. Obama looks beautiful tonight.

  3. Boxerdad says

    For the first time in years I simply couldn’t bring myself to watch it. I am too sick and tired of talk that is not supported by action. I’ll rely on ya’ll to let me know if I missed anything.

  4. says


    When Obama brought up the whole ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ bit, was there actually a shot of Tim Geithner applauding enthusiastically in support? If I didn’t imagine that, then that was certainly the most interesting aspect to the whole speech.

  5. Bosie says

    Gosh…Old queens…keep your faith on change…he can’t do your job so get out and help him. I’m sure when the 1st GAY pride parade in NY after Stonewall happened…Change didn’t come right away…it took time, it was organic…look at us now..a few set backs but we are still going strong and WE WILL BE EQUAL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

    I just volunteer at my local LGBT center and i plan to see where else i can help.

    *I thought his speech was very inspiring. He reminded me why I voted and why I’m on this ride…I won’t give my faith up.

  6. Michael says

    Lip service is right IMHO. More like throwing us a bone (no pun intended). How is it we are worthy enough to fight in wars in foreign lands but not worthy enough to marry the ones we love?

  7. The Realist says

    “I will WORK to repeal” not ” I WILL”. two very different statements. i will wait and see. I will not let up until i see progress and final repeal.

  8. says

    Lip service is a site that dismisses the most important LGBT announcement of the past 10 years.

    This is our moment as well as the President’s.

    I challenge you, Andy Towle, to do your part to ensure the Pres. abides by his promise rather than merely dismissing it with cynicism.

    Our REAL enemies will be hard at work to take this proposition down. Please do not enable them.

  9. thedevlin says

    He is an amazing orator but I kind of felt like I was listening to a campaign speach again. He could have stated loud and clear that he was issuing an executive order to immediately stay DADT till they had killed it democratically as it is the “right thing to do”. I want to trust him i really really do and he is the best option out there but I just feel like he really is not doing all he can. He is, after all, a politician.

  10. elcamino says

    That was one for the history books; it was sober and – frankly – wise. Tonally, at times it was unprecedented; it was refreshingly high on specifics too. I’m very satisfied with his aims.

    Re: us. He needs to act decisively and soon.

    It must be said though, the man’s brilliant and far sighted. That’s not just rhetoric, he is showing leadership.

  11. says

    Some of Obama’s toughest critics use the argument that his lack of verbal support for certain issues is a huge problem. Re DADT specifically, I’ve heard it said time and again that his lack of direction on it, his silence, has been part of the problem. So when he forcefully states he wants it repealed this year, that should be considered good news and a correction of the kind of MIA status they were criticizing.

    “It’s only words,” too many people say. Words do matter, and choosing to utter those words during his SOTU matters a lot.

    That said, WE have to use this to keep momentum going and bug Congress about it.

    Other aspects: I found the derisive laughter over climate change so infuriating…it reminded me of the people on the upside-down Poseidon scoffing at trying to escape the ballroom. I had to groan when Reid yawned early on. I had wanted more of a specific directive on health care, but I liked that he said he wasn’t running away.

    Overall, Indies should love this speech.

    I thought it dragged at times, but it really ended powerfully. “We don’t quit. I DON’T QUIT.”

    Then I had to listen to the immediate reactions on NBC analyzing how many BlackBerries they saw or didn’t see…

  12. TANK says

    Why was that interesting, LITTERBURY? LOL! Obama talked tonight of increasing transparency between lobbyists and businessmen alike and his administration and members of congress. Timmy’s basically a glorified lobbyist for the banking industry. If he wanted real transparency and regulatory reform that isn’t the joke he alluded to that passed the house, he needs to clean up his administration by telling timmy to take a walk. And larry and the rest of the rubinite apparatchiks responsible for the era of deregulation that realized its ascendancy during the Clinton presidency. Not to mention several other administration insiders/douchebags like Rahm Emanuel.

    DADT repeal is as good as dead, and the usual queers that are too busy singing his praise to comprehend it are eating up the rhetoric like catnip, as per usual.

  13. Grimmlok says

    “I will work with people this year to get DADT repealed at some undefined point in the future”

    Uh huh. Just like the issue had to be sent “for indefinite study” a year back, despite there having already been 20 studies done on it saying the same thing.. right..

    Let me know when it actually happens. We’ve already heard this shit before.

    Stop talking and fucking DO SOMETHING. Till you do, you’ve EARNED the cynicism you’re receiving.

  14. Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says

    As a conservative and a ‘small-business’ Republican business-owner, I just wish he had given this speech 12-months ago…rather than wasting a year on health-care and propping-up Wall Street.

  15. ichabod says

    Very inspiring speech, the man still has the gift of being an inspiring speaker. Now if only those grand words would help push through this agenda. Sadly, there are many that want him to fail for all manner of reasons, which makes so many of the goals he outlined a real uphill battle at best and, unfortunately, puts the greater good of the country out to pasture.

    Still, I enjoyed hearing him stick it to the SCOTUS over their horrifying decision last week on campaign spending (especially as they were sitting right there in front of them, though the main offenders didn’t seem to be present). I appreciate the proclamation on DADT (though it still seems like incremental foot-dragging –why not an Executive Order like the on for the bi-partisan Fiscal Commission?) And yes, Mrs. Obama was radiant…

  16. Steve says

    Sorry, David Kaufman and Matthew Rettenmund, but I think you’re being quite naive. As the realist correctly points out, there was no real pledge in the statement. He said he will WORK to repeal the law. Plenty of wiggle room there. As for the burden on us, you’re wrong. The next step is something none of us can accomplish: having the top brass in the Pentagon endorse repeal. Only the President can do that, and when we were all working so hard in 2008, we thought we were electing a President who would direct the top brass in the Pentagon to accept repeal. The ball is NOT in Congress’s court. Congress does not typically override the top brass in the Pentagon. Saying the ball is in Congress’s court is the White House’s way of dodging responsibility. The principal responsibility is getting the joint chiefs on board. What is the President doing to accomplish that? NOTHING so far as any of us can tell. NOTHING. Until the Pentagon moves, Congress won’t. Wake up. Or maybe I should say stop cutting and pasting White House spin into comments here.

  17. Steve says

    Aaron Rowland, the President has statutory authority to issue a stop-loss order tomorrow. He refuses to do it. Did we elect a President or a shrinking violet?

  18. Michael says

    Obama could easily sign an executive order telling all that DADT will no longer be enforced. It has been a year and he has not done so. I am very disappointed in the President I voted for.

  19. says


    You might not want to get advice on constitutional law from press releases by progressive advocacy groups. They serve a great purpose, but not that.

    Think I’m wrong? Pick up the phone tomorrow and call any constitutional law professor at an Ivy or otherwise reputable law school. I can assure you that you won’t find a single person who will tell you that a president can just ignore a congressional order.

    I know it’s a shock, but you can’t believe everything you read online.

  20. says

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pushing the President to fulfill the promises he campaigned on. I think he expects it. And when the White House asks Congress, as it was reported, to postpone DADT hearings until after the SOTU speech I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect something more than the same sentence he has used over and over.

    On the whole I thought it was an excellent speech given the position he’s in right now with the economy, health care, etc.

  21. Morpheus says

    The bone’s been thrown, people. Start chewing!

    He said:

    “This year, I WILL WORK with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right…….”


    “This year, I, Congress and our military will finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right……….”

  22. Jfanyc says

    Our country is in the toilet and there was A LOT to cover tonight so give the guy a break on the LGBT issues gaining huge spotlight in the speech. The fact that he mentioned a commitment to repeal DADT a move in the right direction. Let’s be grateful to be making progress and keep working at it.

    Agreed, the Republican laughing at the mention of climate change being agreed upon by the global scientific community was sickening.

  23. jjasonham says


    It is truly pathetic when you are so embittered that you will dissect every word and every action of every single minute to absolutely prove to yourself that you were “right” about Obama turning his back on the gay community. It is very simple to sit back and criticize. It is much harder to come up with solutions. For me, giving up on our President, and taking every minute that passes without action as a broken promise is not productive at all. Think about it…your logic is: No Full Gay Rights Right NOW = Actively broken promises. That says more about the state of Americans’ instant gratification syndrome that was developed through “easy living” than it says about our president. I’m extremely interested to see the demographics of this blog.

  24. johnny says

    I’m Tired of Talk. I want to see ACTION dammit! I vowed months ago to never listen to another speech by the POTUS until I see some of the change I voted for. And this one was included. I don’t care what he says, I care about what he DOES. So, DO something already!

  25. Gianpiero says

    Look, if he hadn’t said he would work with the military, the opponents would say he was ignoring them. If he hadn’t said he would work with congress, they would say he’s abusing his authority. It’s the responsibility of ALL of them to end DADT, and “finally end” and “It’s the right thing to do” are pretty strong statements. I’ll give him credit for them (but for no longer than the year he said it would take).

    I also agree that his taking SCOTUS to task “with all due respect” was a pretty dramatic moment. Most of the justices (rightly) sat there impassively, but Alito made an ass of himself by shaking his head.

  26. says

    I am sick and tired of incremental change Obama apologist types pretending like this president has any balls. At least GWB stood up to his enemies and fought back, this guy has not done a fucking thing for us and people act like he should be treated like the second coming of christ.

    I am done with hope…this man ain’t ever gonna do a thang for us you silly queers. The sooner we wake up to that reality the better.

  27. nhuixnhuix says

    As a previous commenter said, the “this year” is VERY significant in Washington speak.

    And the reason he said “I will work to repeal” rather than “I will repeal” is that HE can’t repeal it himself. Congress needs to go along. It will undoubtedly but saying “I will” would have been unconstitutionally presumptuous.

    The skepticism is warranted by a terrible first year on gay rights compared to what was expected but this is a small light at the end of the tunnel on that issue.

  28. TANK says


    You might not want to get advice on constitutional law from press releases by progressive advocacy groups.”

    That’s neither an argument against the case made, nor is it an indictment of the source.

    “They serve a great purpose, but not that.”

    This is meaningless drivel. It is that. Nathanial Frank, who works for the Palm Center, has authored one of the most comprehensive books arguing for DADT’s repeal. He has proven point by point that it is within the executive perview to issue a stop loss.

    Maybe you should get his book, and educate yourself about the issue before bloviating…

    here’s a link:

    “Think I’m wrong? Pick up the phone tomorrow and call any constitutional law professor at an Ivy or otherwise reputable law school.”

    Are you saying that no constitutional law professor would concur with Dr. Frank? I think you’re full of shit. Elizabeth Hillman thinks it’s perfectly constitutional, and she’s a professor of constitutional law and a specialist on DADT having served in the military. How about Harvard Law, though? Do you think any constitutional law professors who specialize in DADT think it’s unconstitional? I think you’re full of shit.

    “I can assure you that you won’t find a single person who will tell you that a president can just ignore a congressional order.”

    Well, that’s false. And demonstrably false. You have no argument. You have a false APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.

    “I know it’s a shock, but you can’t believe everything you read online.”

    Obviously not, because you’re full of shit. You don’t understand constitutional law because you’re not a constitutional law specialist nor a specialist on dadt…you’re basically just spouting an opinion, and backing it up with a false assertion that no constitutional law professor would back up the stop loss when that’s just false. LOL! Educate yourself–you’re ignorant.

  29. Randy says

    I would give it maybe 8 out of 10. I particularly liked how he nailed down where the deficit actually came from, and how he shamed the Supreme Court right in their face for their stupidest decision in centuries. I thought it was telling that Obama mentioned no business by name, but his Republican counterpart did.

    However, frankly, based on last year, I don’t believe any of it. I need to see action.

  30. John says

    This is his best statement on DADT yet. Although the bar was admittedly very low, since all his previous statements as president has been ridiculously vague, insincere, and evasive. You can tell that’s Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emmanuel talking. Obama probably didn’t even read it before he started spouting it off the Tele-Prompter.

    Tonight was different and it shows.

    I think he spent more time polishing the speech than usual.

    He said DADT will be gone this year rather than after the mid-terms. He tied DADT directly to employment discrimination for the first time. Which is what he should have done from the beginning and did not do for some reason. It isn’t some special policy initiative unique to the military; it is discrimination. And he used the word “repeal” instead of Gibbs and Rahm’s preferred phrase “change.”

    And now the bad…

    Obama has still not articulated a specific way to move the legislation forward. The most obvious route for DADT repeal is through the DOD authorization bill. But he clearly hasn’t committed himself to that. He also needs to push the notion that many generals and admirals are fine with repeal. The homophobic top brass are always loud and abrasive, while the ones who do not fear change are largely silent. Obama has to change that by bringing out the war heroes. This will send McCain into a rage and help him push the notion that the Republicans are simply irrational bigots.

  31. jjasonham says


    Of course the president expects us to press him to fulfill the promises he campaigned on. However,

    1. These issues we want solutions to are not happening in a vaccum. There is an delicate context that the president must work within. He is not a dictator that issues the laws of the land….how easily we forget.
    2. Why in the world would he put an extemely specific and limiting time frame on something like a repeal? Something that must be done through congress. What if he had said Healthcare reform will be done by September 2009? Assuming everything played out exactly as it has, it wouldn’t have happened, and would that have help or hurt the progressive cause?

    Please, please, someone, direct me to the quotes from Obama that gave a specific time frame of what was supposed to be done by when. If you can’t do that, then judgment should be reserved, and constructive criticism given, until the end of this term. I kind of liken the Obama administration and it’s relationship to the Gay community (along with many other communities) to Apple’s new iPad, launched today. A revolutionary step has been taken in the technological world, but most of it has been met with a collective “meh”. Why? Not because it isn’t revolutionary or important (especially in the context of everything that came before it and it’s future potential). It’s because of the hype and unrealistic expectations projected upon it by those talking heads, that not even something as groundbreaking as it is could ever live up to it. (BTW…i’m not an apple fan boy or hater)

  32. says


    Yes. Nathaniel Frank is wrong. I’ve read his book. Great in parts, unresearched in others. He has a PHD in History, but no education in constitutional law. Accuse me of bloviating all you want, but you’re wrong.

    If a professor from UC-Hastings is the best you can do, that’s just sad. My challenge stands, find me a professor from a top-tier reputable law school that willing to agree with you. You won’t.

  33. jjasonham says

    @Travelingman Rick

    I challenge you to name one thing of “change” that was not at first incremental.
    And to use GWB as an ideal for what a president should act like? Tisk. The same could be said about a 2 year old that wants to bash through the fence instead of finding a way around it.

  34. says

    Pull your head out of Obama’s ass long enough, Ms. Rowland, to have someone read the following unequivocale, nondebatable text of the law PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1983 to you:

    10 United States Code § 12305 – “Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement,
    and Separation. Notwithstanding ANY other provision of law, during any period members
    of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to
    active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title,
    THE PRESIDENT may suspend ANY provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, OR SEPARATION applicable to ANY member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the
    United States.”

    Tens of thousands of “reserve component” members are presently serving, and last September the President extended our “state of national emergency,” the other prerequisite for the statute to apply.

    It does not say, “except for discharges of gays.”

    Further, as “any constitutional law professor” who knew shit from Shinola would tell YOU, the constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. § 12305 was upheld
    in “Santiago v. Rumsfeld,” 425 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2005).

    And that 10 U.S.C. § 123 reinforces the President’s powers in relation to officers specifically: “Authority to Suspend Officer Personnel Laws During War or
    National Emergency.”

    Further still, under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 654 [the DADT statute itself], contrary to his recent denials, the Secretary of Defense has broad
    discretion to determine the specific manner in which “don’t ask, don’t tell” will be
    implemented…or NOT implemented.

    Which brings us to the major point: why is the President refusing to use these powers to stop discharges until such time as repeal can be implemented IF he is so opposed to “the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are”?

    Please tell us that, Ms. Rowland and Ms. Washington.

  35. TANK says


    Yes. Nathaniel Frank is wrong. I’ve read his book. Great in parts, unresearched in others. He has a PHD in History, but no education in constitutional law. Accuse me of bloviating all you want, but you’re wrong.

    If a professor from UC-Hastings is the best you can do, that’s just sad. My challenge stands, find me a professor from a top-tier reputable law school that willing to agree with you. You won’t.”

    Yes, he and a coterie of constitutional law professors including martha minow (dean of harvard law) are wrong…because you say so…LOL! You’re a joke.

  36. Anti-Dem_Anti-Rep says

    BULLSHIT. As commander in chief he could stop loss expelling LGBT service people. This is the same old “be paitent, idiots” bullshit given us century after century.

    Obama will be the 1st Black 1st 1term Black prez. Voted 3rd party against him in 08. Will vote against him more vehemently, again.

  37. John Normile says

    We’ll see If “The right thing to do” actually comes true….since working with congress has been a disaster so far I’m not too optimistic…but at least he’s talking about it and the loud cheer was a good thing

  38. planetspinz says

    Tell John McCain what you think about his response
    “In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.

    “This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

  39. Matthew N says

    Once Boise & Olsen win at the Supreme Court we won’t have to continue to beg for a morsel of human rights from the Democrats (or any other party).

    Honestly, I don’t really care what Obama or anyone else in government does for gay rights any more. I’m tired of empty promises and little action.

  40. says

    Jesus, this entire argument has been argued at least 20 times in the past year. Michael always pulls out stop-loss as if it’s just a catch all for the president to do anything with military personnel that he sees fit.

    Under your understanding of the current law, the next president could just declare all female soldiers to be immediately separated from service for national security reasons because “unit cohesion requires it.”

    You really think the president has that much power? Stop-loss on the surfaced seems ridiculously broadly scoped, but in reality and applicable functionality it isn’t.

    I’ve got an early morning, so I’m out. I’ll try to check back tomorrow and see if the conversation has progressed much beyond the usual name calling and “bloviating”, but I can’t imagine that it will. Feel free to e-mail me that name Tank if you find someone.

  41. Grimmlok says

    I love all the cheering faggots, clapping their hands like seals, reeking of Stockholm syndrome that “OMG did you hear, someone said the word GAY in a speech! OMG! Best thing evar! This erases X many decades of being treated like shit plus 1 year with a president who won’t do anything to let us get married like FULL CITIZENS! Well, i’m sold!”

    Stupid, vacuous queens, keep chewing that little scrap Obama throws to the floor for you. It’ll keep you busy so the rest of us, in reality, can view all the pretty words with well deserved skepticism.

  42. jjasonham says


    I decided to add the (b) and it’s subsections

    (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.
    (b) A suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) shall terminate
    (1) upon release from active duty of members of the reserve component ordered to active duty under the authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, as the case may be, or
    (2) at such time as the President determines the circumstances which required the action of ordering members of the reserve component to active duty no longer exist, which­ever is earlier.

    So, according to this the President could do this, but it would require extending the National State of Emergency for as long as you’d want the executive order to hold up. This would keep all reserves in active duty, and it would still be at the mercy of the next president’s whim. I’m also pretty sure that this “state of emergency” does not come cheap, either, especially in a recession. I can see it now: “Obama extended costly state of emergency to keep DADT suspended”. That is not a secure basis for getting rid of a law. Do it right THE FIRST TIME. Isn’t that what we were screaming at BushCo during the previous administration in regards to what we needed done?

  43. TANK says

    So has progressed basically means for you that everyone is in agreement with your false claims that no constitutional law professor agrees that the stop loss is constitutional. I proved you wrong, and even sourced the dean harvard law to prove it. QED. And yes, even Elizabeth Hillman who teaches at a subpar law school (in your opinion) but his a constitutional law pofessor, and moreso a specialist on DADT and has served in the military has a hell of a lot more credibility than your say so.

    You have no argument against the issuance of a stop loss by the executive. None. Instead, you have been refuted as the prez does, in fact, have that authority.

    Let’s face it, Rowland, you’re either a plant in support of DADT, a zealous blind supporter of Obama and his decision to refuse to halt the dimissals under DADT, or just simple. None of the above recommend your character, or lack thereof.

    Also, you changed tactics midstream, and are now criticizing the right that the president has to issue said stop loss with the possibility of another president reversing the hold. You like to dance, apparently, but you’re not good at it.

    Not only does the president have that much power, but he can exercise it.

  44. Patric says

    Thank you, Planetspinz, for providing some needed perspective. Morons like Travelingman Rick who pine for the good old days of George W. Bush and the other Log Cabin losers on this site would have us believe that the way to advance the cause of equality, if you haven’t accomplished all of your aims within the first 12 months of a President’s administration, is to turn to the party which gave us Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the FMA. McSame’s press release today on DADT should remind thoughtful readers on this site of who our real enemies are.

  45. says

    I just didn’t expect Tim Geithner to be enthusiastic about Gay rights, but there he was, clapping away.

    Quite frankly, everyone was slamming Geithner before he could even do his job, but between him, Bernanke and Obama they did save the economy from going over a ledge; the problem now is that they aren’t doing more of the same to pull us away from the brink. Geithner’s role with the AIG bailout is unsettling, but I’m not ready to write him off yet.

  46. Rob G. says

    I just gave the DNC another $2,500 via credit card to make up for a hundred to so well-meaning boycotters who’ve never given more than $25 anyway (the boycott sponsors have, collectively, given less than $5,000 to Obama and the DNC over the last four election cycles).

    The boycott has failed. Tbe DNC is raising more money than ever.

    I’ll keep giving more and more each time I see another naysayer twist a post title or downplay an achievement.

    But I’ll give as much as I can to the grassroots folks as well. But I’ll be damned if I’ll turn my backs on the folks that got us to this point.

  47. TANK says

    Did anyone catch the shot of that spineless crumb mitch mcconnell glowering at the president with his arms folded in his lap? Refusing to clap or stand, essentially expressing that he doesn’t care what happens to this country, he will blindly oppose anything that the democrats propose for its betterment. Ya know, with him, you can rest assured that partisan politics extends to race.

  48. TANK says

    “but between him, Bernanke and Obama they did save the economy from going over a ledge;”

    ROTFLMAO! Oh, that’s just precious. You have yet to see how untrue that statement is. You will.

  49. Grimmlok says

    Rob G., you enjoy giving money to people who see you as 2/3 of a person, who won’t spend 1 drop of political capital on you, and who compare your relationship to that of an incestuous pedophile?

    Wow, awesome. You’re bankrolling your own bigotry.

    You Uncle Tom, Stockholm Syndrome, kicked puppy, OWNED House Faggot. Keep licking massah’s boots and maybe someday he’ll set you free!

    Vomitous. People like you enable the oppression instead of wielding power and forcing the powers that be to actually DO something for a change.

  50. Oscar in Miami Beach says

    Not really care for it.Lots of platitudes andnothing concrete.About DODT,the same old crap.Nothing concrete.After 7 years with a black that ended in a total fiasco,I believe nothing they say anymore.Show me and show me now.Starting with England the Armed Forces have accepted gays.Is the USA less than those countries?.According to Obama yes,we are.More garbage over more garbage.Because Clinton failed on Health Care,Obama has to pass a plan whether good or bad.He has to be better than Clinton.Wrong approch.Didn’t say anything I care for other than excuse himself for what came before.Total waste of time.

  51. says

    @ jjasonham:

    The discussion is about what Obama said TONIGHT…not what we should refuse to insist upon because the sky might fall in the future. That’s the same EXCUSE the Pentagon is using not to end DADT. And, it’s logical conclusion is that we should not even demand “repeal” because a future Congress could simply reinstate the ban. It could BUT….PUHLEEZE!

    The President said, “THIS YEAR, I will work with Congress….” As I stated, he extended the “state of emergency” which Bush initiated after 9/11 but was set to expire last year. While he only extended it for 12 months, there is no reason under the proverbial sun to believe he will not extend it again and for NOTHING related to ending DADT, any more than there is to imagine that there will be no reserve units serving a year from now.

    If anyone expects the “war on terror” to end by New Year’s, Osama bin Psycho to surrender and beg for forgiveness, the Taliban to leave Afghanistan and Pakistan and newstands, I have a few sections of the Brooklyn Bridge I’ll sell cheap.

    Further, “stop loss” of gays has already been selectively applied by the military itself, from WWII all the way through our current invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As for Ms. Rowland, one could accuse you of invincible ignorance [too much Kool Aid has been shown to cause brain cancer] but I think it’s worse than that: you’re simply another willing member of the Obama Borg with your head so far up his ass you can see Russia out his mouth.

    As such that makes you nothing but a Queer Quisling.

  52. CHRIS says

    All you faggots here screaming about D.A.D.T You know DAMN WELL your “I’m a fabulous faggot” Ass have no intentions of going into the Military.

    You’re too fab for that so to now see this as our big moment. I personally don’t get it. Some of you don’t like Obama, Never will like Obama so it’s really a SO WHAT moment.

    And regarding the queen who commented earlier and said “You should have voted for Hillary”

    Well girl it’s obvious that some would just be more happy with White her than Black him and neither one of them believes in marriage equality and the other one’s spouse signed that death warrant that is known as D.A.D.T and you paid that no mind.

    But don’t try telling that to Michael@Matfuckup Bedwell because this queen wants to call people who still supports Obama Obots. And she’s still licking the remnants of Clinton’s cock. As he made sure you didn’t serve openly and won’t get married. That’s assimilaion for ya!


  53. jjasonham says

    Everyone keeps bringing up Harry Truman’s executive order. What Executive Order 9981 did was ensure that the army did not discriminate. Signed in July of 1948, Truman did not integrate the army with a stroke of a pen. It could on protect blacks from discrimination, but even then it couldn’t force them to integrate. Of course the military fiercely resisted and went straight to the Sec. of Defense with a plan of their own: a quota of 10% african-americans, in order to “follow” the Executive Order. By 1953, 95% of Army units were fully integrated. So things did NOT magically happen with the stroke of a pen. The difference with today is that DADT IS A LAW. It is a LAW that was enacted by CONGRESS. AND NO ONE, NOT EVEN A PRESIDENT, CAN OVERTURN THAT LAW WITH A STROKE OF A PEN. The law can be SUSPENDED on Executive Order, but only during a STATE OF EMERGENCY. And a state of Emergency can only last for 2 years, before the President has to call for, AND ARGUE THE REASONS WHY, the nation must be in the state of emergency.

  54. jjasonham says


    I know what the discussion is about, and the allusions made to what some “insist upon” was in direct response to a comment that was already made. There is not one person on this thread that is not demanding a repeal, so you’re seeing only what you want to see. Insisting something be done through fighting the right people and demanding it from the president (or else) are two very different things. You’re simply yelling at the wrong people if you’re yelling exclusively at Obama, simple as that. And notice I said “exclusively at Obama” not “at Obama”. Not one person said that a repeal shouldn’t be pursued “because a future Congress could simply reinstate the ban.” Get your facts straight.

    As for your state-of-emergency tirade, I have no idea what you’re even trying to say. Many, many countries have counter-terrorism programs without being a state of emergency. The US was one of them once. The Bush Years was an EXCEPTION not the Rule regarding that one.

    Your comment to Rowland is interesting, considering the fact that you haven’t responded to any of the points I made against your argument for suspending DADT through a state of emergency.

  55. John says


    We have seen many liberal converts to the “Cheney Doctrine” since Obama became president.

    That is, a president’s ability to abuse power – by declaring everything he does as vital to national security – is justification in and of itself. If Congress is too pathetic and weak to challenge presidential power, then that’s their problem. As long a president can get away with it, he should definitely do it.

    Even the most ardent atheists become true believers when it is their pet project being blocked by Congress and not someone else’s.

  56. CHRIS says

    Right Hillary in 2012 and she still WON’T SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

    So the queens will still be in bondage by their beloved Queen Mother!

    Like I said earlier it might be better pill to swallow from White her, Than Black him.

  57. says

    Stop complaining that he won’t issue an executive order ending or suspending DADT.

    It’s blatantly unconstitutional. Do your research. We elect presidents, not emperors.

    Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Jan 27, 2010 10:40:25 PM

    Thank you, Aaron.

  58. Mike says

    It is interesting to not that, according to all reports, Obama’s aides opposed his including DADT language in the speech. That is why earlier White House officials were saying that DADT would NOT be in the speech. Obama overrode his staff’s objections, and that’s why Axelrod rushed told CNN at the last minute.

    Also, his line “It’s the right thing to do” was not scripted if you noticed, he added it himself

  59. TANK says

    If you queens keep telling a lie long enough, other queens might believe you. It is constitutional to issue an executive order/stop loss on dadt.

    Also, isn’t being in two wars a state of emergency? Couldn’t it be construed as one? WHere we’re bleeding valuable members of the military due to an unjust policy? C’mon…you queens don’t care about gay rights.

  60. jjasonham says


    These wars will not last forever. And since an executive order suspending DADT could only last during a state of emergency, we would be right back where we started from once the emergency was gone. Hmmm…declaring a state of emergency every two years…how would we keep it up when the wars were over? Start another war, i guess…that’d be great! It is a crazy idea to have DADT suspended by the state of emergency. That is not a long term plan. We want a repeal! That doesn’t even get into the moral implications of keeping the reserve in active duty just so gays can temporarily serve openly in the military. That helps NO ONE, gay or straight, and it hurts soldiers, their families, and our deficit alike!

  61. TANK says

    Now that’s an argument, jason. It’s not the only argument that matters against issuing the stop loss, but it’s an argument. I’d respond that national security is at risk RIGHT NOW during a state of emergency. It is justified on those terms RIGHT NOW. It isn’t a long term solution, but it sends a clear message to both the pentagon and congress that Obama is serious about overturning DADT.

  62. Davey says

    I think the fact that only a relatively small few con law professors (two or three?) think it IS absolutely constitutional and that the rest (dozens?) either don’t think it is or are not sure indicate that it is NOT clear cut and clearly up for interpretation. If a majority said “yes” that would be a different story. Anyone who has studied law knows it’s up to interpretation and cannot be read literally. C’mon folks, let’s raise the bar a little shall we?

  63. says

    @ jjasonham:

    Let me try to make this simpler:

    Authority to apply stop-loss through 10 USC 12305 requires being “in a state of national emergency.”

    We ARE in “a state of national emergency.” There is no reason to believe that we will not be for years forward as it justifies “stop-loss” [of nongay servicemembers] and stop-loss was formalized in order to deal with shortages in new enlistments and reenlisments.

    Even if we KNEW that Obama would NOT extend it another year this September or September 2011, ASK THE GAY SERVICEMEMBERS whose careers could be salvaged by a stop-loss order for at least that period of time if THEY would take whatever security they could get for as long as they could get it or continue to serve in silence and fear because of your armchair gymnastics.

    No, EVEN AFTER FULL REPEAL the majority of gays in the military will NOT out themselves [this tendency is documented by studies of behavior after bans were lifted in other countries and domestic police and fire department forces], but at least ONE gay servicemember would be very thankful for your fighting for this rather than finding “what if” excuses not to: Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach.

    He was outed last year…his 18th year in the Air Force. Otherwise able to retire at 20 yrs., if his discharge were delayed just one more year he would not lose $46,000 a year FOR LIFE, plus medical benefits.

    Speaking of dollars, you speculate about potential bad PR from the cost of “stop-loss.” The contrary is true, and Obama’s failure to address it is one more indication of how superficial his commitment is to ending the ban.

    The General Accounting Office has documented that the taxpayer cost of discharging gays otherwise eligible to serve is hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars. Again Fehrenbach: tho an example at the high end as a trained fighter pilot, his discharge would cost taxpayers a huge amount to train his replacement; estimates are as high as $25 million.

    In short, there is no business case to continue discharges another single day when, until further notice, it IS legally mandated because we ARE and expect to remain indefinitely in a state of national emergency. And I fail to see the sense in an argument against applying the band-aid of stop loss based upon the chance that it MIGHT not stick through repeal.

  64. jjasonham says

    I totally see where you’re coming from. And believe me, I am all about sending a message to the Pentagon about how serious he is. But a war does not always, unequivocally mean a state of emergency. Just look at what Obama would have to do for this executive order:

    1. He would have to declare a state of emergency. This is many steps in and of itself, he’d have to argue for why it is justified…and that includes explaining to families why their loved ones are still obligated to military after their tours are already over.

    2. According to the subsection giving permission to the President to suspend DADT, he would have to argue why OPENLY gay soldiers are essential to national security. Remember, under DADT, gays aren’t being denied the right to serve, just serving openly. That would be the hardest part to justify, especially when Military officers with clout will testify why their operations are NOT being diminished with closeted gays.

    3. He would have to repeat all this in two years…

    Can you even imagine how that would play out? WEDGE ISSUE, just in time for 2012 as well.

  65. Marty Gilbert says

    Stop whining and support the first President to even mention Gay and Lesbian rights. This is not a dictatorship fortunately or you would be in prison. The President cannot even get Health Care threw congress Gay rights is no easier. Its more difficult when the Gay and Lesbian community has more to say about a dress than the content of his speech. Support him and fully with your voice, email and cash or suffer with the what you get with the Republicans in power Geez.

    We are often our worst enemies. The headline of this article is an embarrassment to the LGBT community.

  66. Mark says

    My God. After reading these posts and all the faux-intellects masquarading as authorities (but, MY law professor said IT IS)it is small wonder why, at the end of the day, the most important gay rights case to potentially make it to the supreme court (prop 8) will be argued by straight men.

  67. JT says

    Most gays don’t really care about DADT or even same-sex marriage directly. This all comes down to everybody wanting to be right. Those who showed way too much enthusiasm over Obama are afraid of looking like fools in retrospect. Those who rely on Democrats being the only gay-ally-political-party want to be confirmed in the eyes of others (and reassured themselves). Gay Republicans want to be able to say “You Dems did nothing..” Etc etc. Stuff like that.

  68. says

    Despite it probably having been written before I posted my explanation, JJasonham’s hallucinations are so factually WRONG that they must be readdressed.

    1. Obama would NOT have to declare a state of national emergency in order to issue a stop loss order, say, tomorrow morning. We are ALREADY in a state of national emergency. Period, Ms. Keller. I’d spell it out in your hand if I could reach it.

    2. He would NOT “have to argue why OPENLY gay soldiers are essential to national security” [tho that case COULD easily be made…see Fehrebach above and multiple highly needed linguists such as Dan Choi]. That’s why they call it an Executive ORDER.
    Congress/the Repugs/Rush Limbaugh/Elaine Donnelly/Baby Jebus have NO veto of it.

    3. What he MIGHT have to do TWO YEARS FROM NOW is NO EXCUSE to keep shit canning gays TODAY. And why would it be any more a “wedge issue” THEN than saying TONIGHT openly gays should be allowed to serve [through repeal], particularly when 59% of CONSERVATIVE REPUGS also support gays serving openly?

    The ILlogical extension of that argument is that he should NEVER end DADT.


  69. Rafael says

    I paid particular attention to the generals and not one of them seemed receptive nor supportive of the President’s call for a repeal of DADT. That alone, shows we have a long way to go.

  70. TANK says

    Ah, that’s just not compelling, jason. First, the argument that openly gay soldiers are essential could be made by the soldiers deemed necessary to mission who are discharged under dadt. This would be interpreters, seasoned military personnel, etc. The state of emergency declaration is justified based on the fact that discharging these mission essential soldiers is compromising the readiness, preparedness and effectiveness of our military to achieve their objectives.

    In doing this, he’s also making the argument to congress for its repeal.

    Now assuming that he can issue the stop loss (I’ve yet to see anyone provide any coherent reasoning why he can’t–quite the opposite, in fact), there really isn’t a good reason for him to not do it other than his political aspirations…which he’s already aligned himself with its repeal.

    There’s only one compelling argument I’ve heard against it, and so far, no one’s really posted that one.

  71. jjasonham says

    For the first time, I actually see where you are coming from. I understand now where your sense of urgency is coming from. For those officers that are truly qualified, openly gay, and being dismissed. Although I still do agree that the executive order is in order here. The President’s office aka a committee formed by the president would have to argue why Fehrenbach and those open like him are absolutely essential to national security. Every single one. The courts will look to the current laws and precedent (DADT) and make a decision, all within the 12 months of state of emergency that Obama had. The burden to prove that each single dismissal is essential to national security, especially with DADT looming over their heads, is almost a judicial impossibility, and frankly either way, will leave the plaintiffs in the exact same position they’re in today: a limbo (providing they’re currently suing). The frightening reality of the courts was just touched on in the last SCOTUS court ruling in campaign funds. The LAST thing one wants to do is to set any kind of precedent or have any kind of new ruling while DADT is still active. This is why the root cause must be addressed!

  72. jjasonham says

    No insight or foresight. Nothing fucking happens in this country without checks and balances. The Courts and Congress each can overturn an executive order. It happened in 1996 with President Clinton! When are you going to realize that when it comes to enacting or retracting a law, it’s not ONLY WHAT YOU ACTIVELY DO. It’s about ensuring a victory by minimizing anything that could possibly prevent it, first, then pursuing it. That is not shit canning anyone. You You prepare, prepare, prepare, anticipate, and then strike. It is foolish to risk an intervention from such courts. That may not have been the case 15 years ago, but that is the case now. And the burden of proof I was referring to will eventually happen when you have Military officials that are against Obama that have 1. a law to back up their claims and 2. equally qualified, straight and/or closeted soldiers.

    It may not be compelling to you. But it doesn’t have to be. What I’m theorizing is a possible explanation for what IS happening and why, not what should happen. For you there is a compelling reason for and against stop-loss. In this game it isn’t so clear cut, and when you are responsible for more than just the gay community, then you choose the lesser of two evils.

  73. says

    CLAIM: “The President’s office aka a committee formed by the president would have to argue why Fehrenbach and those open like him are absolutely essential to national security. Every single one.”

    On WHAT do you base that claim? There’s NOTHING in 10 USC 12305 that requires ANY explanation other than the President ASSERTING his belief any servicemember[s] is/are “essential to the national security of the United States.” Not “and get agreement from others.”

    CLAIM: “The courts will look to the current laws and precedent (DADT) and make a decision, all within the 12 months of state of emergency that Obama had.”

    AGAIN, 12305 itself has ALREADY been ruled constitutional. WHO would have “standing” any court would recognize to challenge Obama’s application of it to gays? NOT anyone in Congress [they’d be trying to challenge the black-and-white law passed by their own body], not a member of the military or a civilian…they would have to being able to demonstrate probable cause of “harm” from the Executive Order. HOW would they do that?

    How about trying to sue him for “not enforcing a law” similar to Lambda Legal’s suit against his OPM for not following a federal judge’s order to allow a lesbian court employee to purchase medical insurance for her partner. Just the opposite, “an executive order would not be a matter of the President choosing to
    ‘not enforce a law’ but an appropriate exercise of executive authority
    granted directly by Congressional statute that WAS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS TO TRUMP ALL OTHER LAWS PASSED BY THEM.

    Thus the beauty of this is that 12305 is legally bullet proof and no more vulnerable to political attack than calling for repeal. Now that Obama seems to have at least partially gotten over his fear of the latter there is no excuse for him not to stop the bleeding if he sincerely wants to close the wound itself.

  74. jjasonham says

    And by lesser of two evils, I’m NOT referring to one community or the other, I’m referring to the “HOW” part of the procedure of getting equality and fairness for everyone.

  75. Paul in Honolulu says

    A la Peter, Paul and Mary: When will we ever learn?

    Obama is a politician first and foremost. He really doesn’t give a shit about gay and lesbian Americans. What he does care about is getting reelected. Hence, the gratuitous and mildly insulting remark about “working” to repeal DADT. As if that will mollify us enough to open the gAyTM and support the already spineless bastards who smile at us while they take our money and then run the other way on anything remotely resembling justice for us.

    We will see absolutely no progress on this or any other gay-related issues during his first term. There are too many politicians, including Prez Fauxbama, who are scared shitless that they’ll lose whatever standing they still have left to do the righteous, moral and completely American thing and vote for ENDA, abolish DADT and repeal DOMA. You’ll see none of that for at least the next three years.

  76. jjasonham says

    Oh my, you guys are still up. I’m in NYC I need to sleeeep.

    @Michael and Tank

    To be honest, there’s really not much I can say that hasn’t already been said. It just looks to me that the administration has concluded that it’s not worth an executive order that will invite more conflict and emotion around this case than there already is when a repeal to DADT (not a suspension) is the ultimate goal. A stop-loss will help the people that have been dismissed, this year. It’s not a stepping stone type of action. It would be if it was a more permanent solution that didn’t have a law hanging over it’s head. I honestly cannot think of any other reason why they are choosing this route. Once again, nothing is happening in a vacuum, and minimizing negative impact is obviously very important to this administration.

  77. walter says

    if we are not in a state of emergency i don’t know when we will we have troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan Pakistan. Trops covering the border in South Korea advisors in Yemen and working the Haiti earthquake plus variousdrug qrs and a war on terror lf astroke of the pen will prevent someone who wants to serve from being discharged id call it an emergency wouldnt you

  78. says

    @ jjasonham:

    What part of CONGRESS GAVE this power to stop ANY discharges TO THE PRESIDENT don’t you understand. You’re beginning to sound retarded with a bad case of logical aburdities diarrhea.

    The court’s overturn of Clinton’s Executive Order was one of ONLY TWO instances in the entire history of our country when the courts have done such a thing. And neither Clinton’s Order or Truman’s before it were actions based…I’m going to type this verrrry slooooowwwllly so perhaps you’ll finally get it…..on EXERCISING EXPLICIT POWERS GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENCY BY CONGRESS.

    Congress can only override a President’s
    Executive Order by supermajority which, even if the Dems lose seats in November, there is no reason to believe could be brought together in this case. Even Blue Dog Democrat Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana applauding Obama’s call for repeal illustrating AGAIN….typing slowly…if there is reason to believe there is adequate support in Congress for “permanent” repeal there is NO reason to believe there would be adequate support for overriding an Executive Order stopping discharges for the same reasons UNTIL repeal.

    Truman issued his Executive Order racially integrating the military after his efforts to get Congress to do it failed [your description of that chain of events is almost as flawed as your analysis of this situation]. Yet Congress did NOT attempt to override his EO even tho racist was FAR more openly virulent and pervasive in the Congress of 1948 than homophobia in the Congress of 2010.

    Despite persistent much higher existence of racism, neither was the Executive Order of President Eisenhower desegregating schools nor thoswe of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson barring racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting overturned by Congress.

    You keep jerking off on imaginary worst case scenarios that have no historical, constitutional, or strategic credibility thus, as the saying goes, making you a part of the problem not the solution.

    One can only wonder why? As you can’t logically refue any of the documented deconstructions of your doomsday scenarios, perhaps you could answer this question: what flavor of Kool Aid are they serving in the Obama Borg Cafeteria today?

  79. jjasonham says

    WOW Michael. How childish. What the hell are you talking about?? You have absolutely no idea how the law works. That is crystal clear! And if you were to ever try to convince anyone over the age of 7 that a lawyer prepares his case without ever prepping himself for the worst, then you’d be laughed out of the room. There were TWO overturns, but THEY HAPPENED. Truman never thought it would happen to him, and neither did Clinton. “Conventional” wisdom told them it wouldn’t, but it did…so it CAN. Many things can happen in the state our political landscape is. You simply cannot focus past the fact that there is this thing in front of you that you feel you can wholly blame Obama for. I am not an Obama-bot, and no one I even debate with would ever USE the phrase “Kool-aid” to explain a perspective, much less describe me in those terms. If you don’t think of the worst case scenario, you cannot even BEGIN to be prepared to argue the law, that is a FACT. I understand now that it is just very difficult for you to wrap your brain around a sphere bigger than your own, much less plan out a national strategy for repealing a law. Good luck.

  80. Steve says

    Andy, in your position you should be rallying us troupes to get behind change rather than being cynical at a President who at least is making SOME effort albeit not as much as we all would like.
    Change starts small. We all work towards change. We can not mock those that at least are some what sympathetic to us.

  81. jjasonham says

    Just before I go…I knew I had read this before:

    This Milper Internal Message from January 7, 2004 lists “violation of Army’s homosexual conduct policy” along with “SCHEDULED FOR ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT (AMEDD) RELATED SCHOOLING INCLUDING FLIGHT, NURSING, PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT, AND LONG TERM HEALTH EDUCATION AND TRAINING.” as reasons to be INELIGIBLE FOR STOP-LOSS

    Also, at

    WASHINGTON, March 18, 2009 – The Army will phase out use of the so-called “stop-loss” program between now and January, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today.

    Phasing out the stop-loss program in general could be a huge reason why Obama isn’t willing to use it to suspend DADT discharges. Dig deeper Andy.

  82. NickfromNYC says

    same old talking teleprompter. sounds charismatic but i just don’t believe that he has the experience, will, capability, and credibility to move things forward. it’s all lip lip lip

  83. says

    For those of you arguing over whether Obama has the power to end DADT, last year over 70 members of congress sent a letter to Obama pleading with him to at least suspend ongoing investigations until legislation is passed. They, along with their many consitutional lawyer aides seem to think that would be perfectly acceptable and within the powers of the office of CIC. Yet Obama continues to allow the military careers of 2 servicemembers a day to be destroyed by ignoring their plea. That’s called cowardice and bigotry in my book. And to Clint who claimed that this was the first time a President has mentioned gays in a SOTU, you might want to do a little research before spouting off. Clinton called for ENDA and hate crimes laws to protect gays back in 1999. Obama lied to us and those here who are still singing his praises are doing great harm to our civil rights movement. They are shameful.

  84. says

    I don’t give a rat’s ass about DADT. The outright ban that preceded it kept me from being drafted into Vietnam.



    And neither Barry nor his congress is all that interested in passing it.

  85. DR says

    Overall, I found this SOTU address to be exactly what he chided against… campaigning. Lots of ideas, not much clue as to execution; I realize that is not necessarily the point of the SOTU, but I have a feeling he just wrote a bunch of checks he won’t see cashed.

    It really didn’t make much of an impact when he talked about DADT. By that time I heard him talk so much about how we have to work to “fix” other countries, it was anti-climactic to me.

    The one thing he said which I liked: He called out the Democrats for not doing a damn thing with the power they had and called out the Republicans for stalling everything. That was impressive. The rest? It sounded like a campaign speech all over again.

  86. arch says

    I am sorry but all this stuff about “military efficiency” is crap.

    There has been no undermining of morale in the British armed forces since the ban on gay personal was lifted over here several years ago. I am sure that american serviceman will be just as well able to cope with out gay comrades as british soldiers have proved to be, both in camp and theatre.

    And as for the other argument about “military tradition and heritage” that is also crap, the Britsh army and navy have as strong and proud a heritage as the US armed forces (apart from the minor matter of a little colonial war we lost at the end of the 18th century – damn you fellow are good at fighting for what you believe in…), indeed go back far enough and the British military tradition forms part of the earlier heritage of US forces; my father’s regiment has a daughter regiment in Boston (The Ancient and Honourables)formed in the 17th Century by members from the UK who settled in America.

    These are smoke screen arguments to cover up bigotry and are shameful at a time when US and UK servicemen (including plenty of gay ones) are dying at their countries’ command.

    It will go and when it does you will wonder what the fuss was all about, that has been the experience in european armies.

    Oh, and always a pleasure to watch your current president in action, he really is impressive.

  87. Shawn says

    Shame on the President for allowing Congress and the Military Brass to decide to end DADT…they will do nothing. Imagine if a President had said he’d leave it up to Congress and the Military to decide if persons of color would be allowed to serve?

    This is a civil rights issue…not for the majority to decide. Congress and the Military’s delays are based in hate and discrimination. There is no reason why DADT shouldn’t be removed.

  88. Shawn says

    Yes Obama can repeal DADT himself without the okay from Congress or the Military Brass…he’s the Commander and Chief…he gives the orders and Congress and the Military should follow.

    If certain people in the military don’t want to follow it, then they can leave or be discharged for failure of duty.

    Obama has an historic opportunity to end the discrimination of gays in the military and he won’t do it. Very sad.

  89. says

    I’m surprised there are no log cabinites out there claiming that we should have voted for McCain, because clearly there’s no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on any gay issues.

  90. says

    “Please tell us that, Ms. Rowland and Ms. Washington.”

    That’s MR. WASHINGTON to you, Bedwell.

    Calling people Qusilings and Uncle Toms because they disagree is just lame and divisive. I want DADT to end now as well. I also understand the reality of politics.

    One more thing I understand is the civil rights movemnt. If you all are SO ready for action, let’s see some. Bedwell, put your money where your mouth is. Oganize SOMETHING that will have an impact. Not a march (lord knows I’ve benn through that before), how about you and dozens of others chaining yourselves to the Pentagon fence or staging sit ins at recruiting stations? Since verbiage seems to be tyour thing, organize a massive petition and let those in power know that you will organize a mass effort to fund new Pols who will fight against incumbents who don’t demand an end to DADT now.

    Oh wait, that would take time away from your bleating aan Towleroad, wouldn’t it?
    Guys, the civil rights movement is our model. Study it and do something.

  91. says

    so Andy bowed to the pressure and changed the title of the post? What Obama said WAS lip service, but apparently Andy is more concerned with upsetting the wrong people than being an advocate for our community. It’s looking like the Advocate over here more and more everyday. No wonder our civil rights movement is going nowhere. Our so called leaders are all sell-outs and cowards. Time for a new movement. Either you are for gay civil rights, right now, or you are standing in our way and we must simply move past you. No more excuses, no more promises. Action. Now!!!!

  92. WesternCiv says

    Over two-thirds of US adults, including most Conservatives and Republicans, now favor repeal of DADT (Gallup):

    73% of US combat troops are “personally comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian comrades” (Zogby):

    Most military families, think DADT should be repealed (Quinnipiac):

    104 retired officers, lead by former Joint Chiefs Chairman General John Shalikashvili, have urged repeal of DADT, calling it harmful to the military’s mission.

    Count me among the majority of Conservatives and Republicans who support repeal of DADT.

  93. TANK says

    gaylib, we really don’t have any leaders. And Towle never positioned himself a leader; moreso, I’d hope no blog writer would be considered an lgbt leader. There are a lot of reasons why we don’t have any leadership, or at least effective leadership. These dovetail into reasons why we won’t for the foreseeable future, too.

    At least people are now realizing that it’s possible for obama to issue the stop loss. That in itself seems to be a hard won victory…to convince FAGS! oy…we already know why obama won’t issue it. It’s the same reason why he won’t do most of the things he said he will (the first year sets the agenda for presidents…understand this…it is the defining year, for the most part).

  94. jjasonham says

    What people like Gaylib want is not just to have DADT repealed, they want it done exactly the way THEY see fit. They want constant coddling that it is being done their way, and that will give them the recognition they “deserve”. The sooner you accept you’re never going to get an explicit promise on an exact date of repeal, the easier your lives will be. The most you can get are promises that it will be repealed at all…and what some of you don’t realize is that this is a big deal IN AND OF ITSELF! Why the fuck would a politician in the age of the internet go on record making a promise so many times, and during a SOTU no less, if they truly don’t intend to do something about it? The reason why we’re in the position we’re in today is because people organized and fought the RIGHT PEOPLE THE RIGHT WAY to get us here. A President can suspend a US law during a state of emergency but he can’t get rid of it. And this stop-loss everyone speaks of was specifically extended in 2004 and explicitly made gay discharge a factor that was NOT covered by stop-loss. And why the fuck would Obama use a program that he has been phasing out since March 2009?? There is more than one way to skin a cat, but don’t fucking cry bloody murder “I’m a victim!” just because it isn’t being done YOUR WAY.

    PLEASE NOTE: There is nowhere in my comment where I say “DON’T HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE”. If you held all of Congress and the President accountable with the same ferver, and reasonable CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, we’d have a clearer path to victory. To have that “You’re for us or against us” mentality is the complete anathema to getting ANYTHING done. That was BushCo’s motto. And making that argument is just an excuse for not thinking about complicated scenarios. Thinking that way doesn’t make it a simple scenario, it makes you look simple.

  95. JT says

    Tank is corect on that one. Andrew Towle never positioned himself as a leader. He just runs a personal blog with collected news stories and info. (including his own personal biases). Which certainly serves a purpose. Tank’s also right that we don’t have any leaders. Anything being done for us is being done for us by straight allies.

  96. jjasonham says

    An addendum:

    What some, including myself, failed to realize at first is that Stop loss is not just a procedure, it is a program. It’s a take it or leave it, all or nothing kind of thing. To evoke stop loss is to have the whole pie, not parts of it. There is no way you can implement parts of the program without implementing the entire program. That includes the “back-door draft” issues. And the fact that dismissal for “THOSE SOLDIERS IN VIOLATION OF THE ARMY’S HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT POLICY” was specifically added in 2004 makes this a no go.

  97. Jason says

    For all you nay sayers out there and cynics out remember those who refused to acknowledge cynical ideals when our rights looked bleakest. Harvey Milk for one refusedto give up on prop 6, even against overwhelming odds we beat the Anita Bryant’sand the John Brigg’s.

    We finally have a national hate crimes protection bill as part of law which is a milestone. For all you tired bitchy queens out there give hope a chance…

    Or did you forget Harvey’s words? Did you forget the hope he instilled in us even when we we’re being murdered on Castro stree or Polk? Or when the police would raid our bars?

    Do not forget the past and how 40 years is not a very long time…. We have come a long way. I may be only 21 but I am a veteran, my partner is active duty Navy, and I for one refuse to listen to cynics now or ever in life….

    I’ve felt the hurt and pain of this policy and for a Preasident of the United States to mention the us’s in the State of The Union is huge in my eyes….. We can’t live on hope alone but without it there is nothing….

    Remember that!

Leave A Reply