Video: Obama makes token concession to gays, hopes they’ll leave him alone now

posted at 8:18 pm on June 17, 2009 by Allahpundit

He’s against same-sex marriage, defends the Defense of Marriage Act in court, is iffy on ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and isn’t yet prepared to grant health, retirement, or survivor’s benefits to gay couples who work for the feds. But aside from all that, he’s all about the tolerance. I give The One credit here for actually having the elephantine stones to say that the government needs the best possible talent at its disposal while it’s still busy expelling military translators for being gay, and for calling for DOMA’s repeal when he could effectively achieve that on his own by refusing to defend legal challenges to the statute. On the other hand, given the identity politics at stake, there’s no reason for him to grant gays any concession at all. Voting Democrat is what any “authentic” gay person should do, regardless of whether they get anything from it. Just ask a minority voter.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

JetBoy on June 17, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Well, one can usually get a better view from on top of a pedestal than down in a manure pile….

Dark-Star on June 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Puh-lease. Let’s be equal opportunity here. Everyone who fell in love with Obama are morons.

John the Libertarian on June 17, 2009 at 9:42 PM

Ha! Touche, my friend! ;D

lansing quaker on June 17, 2009 at 10:16 PM

Well, one can usually get a better view from on top of a pedestal than down in a manure pile….

Dark-Star on June 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM

So…when do you plan on climbing out of that manure?

‘Cause you haven’t said one pertinent thing. There’s a line between being “smart” and being a “smart a$$”.

JetBoy on June 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM

So…when do you plan on climbing out of that manure?

As soon as I’m done talking with you. It’s a little easier to come down to your level than bring you up to mine, especially after a hectic day here @ home.

JetBoy on June 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM

If there’s a line between being “smart” and being a “smart a$$”, there’s an even thinner one than being “dumb” and being a “dumb@$$”.

Dark-Star on June 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Oh, come on JetBoy. Every time I drag my gay rear into a gay-related thread on HA (and I make no bones about being a HillaryDem-turned-”Republican” in about 75% of my posts, no less), I never receive 1/8th of the flak you get as a self-professed gay Republican.

I argue pro-gay stances (civil unions plz; marriage is a sacrament in my mind and should be kept as such) and never turn heads and attract bile the way you do.

Perhaps there’s an issue with how you deliver your message? Tonality is key to a civil discussion. Most anti-gay comments I see around here ratchet up ten-fold when you comment and — while I totally disagree with them — maybe it’s time to chill just a bit, step back, get some perspective, and come back with a different means of expression?

Just a thought.

lansing quaker on June 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM

1) A pervert by any other name is still a pervert, no matter how much glitter and pony stickers you put on him.

Still missing my point. It’s not about saying something you don’t believe but about treating people like people.

2) For your misguided definition of “kindness,” please see previous comment and dictionary entry “mollycoddle.”

Maybe I could try rephrasing this so you’ll understand me better. As a parent, if I want my child to stop something, I have a few options. I could try what you’re doing here, calling my own child ugly names that I wouldn’t want him to repeat to others, or I could try what I’m recommending to you and speak to my child with loving words that I wouldn’t be ashamed to see him repeating while still making myself clear, i.e., that I don’t support what he’s doing and will not allow it.

You seem to think that by doing the latter I’m allowing the child to get away with doing the thing I don’t want him to, but I assure you that is not the case.

But of course this is only helpful if you actually do believe Jet is harming himself and actually do care about that. My only point is that you’re far more likely to get what you don’t want when you insult others than when you don’t insult them. Now that’s not true of all people of course. Some prefer the tough talk. It’s just been my experience with Jet (and most others here) that he doesn’t.

Esthier on June 17, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Funny how same sex attraction and voting Dem are so Gay.

Hening on June 17, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Obama is an opening for Republicans with Gays.

Speakup on June 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM

The best we can hope for is that they stop opening their wallets for him. They aren’t going to vote GOP.

myrenovations on June 17, 2009 at 8:41 PM

You bet they will, just appeal to whats important to them, money and freedom, especially the freedom to make money.
We need a candidate that will talk Gays into voting GOP too.

SouthernGent on June 17, 2009 at 8:37 PM

Obama is an opening for Republicans with Gays.

Speakup on June 17, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Uhhhh…. this could have phrased…. differently….

BPD on June 17, 2009 at 8:46 PM

What fun would that be?

Speakup on June 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Been to Foxwoods a few times…never once walked out a winner.

I did. Flush won on the first hand, and that perfectly set the weekend.

I live on the opposite side of Conn. from Foxwoods, NYC is only about 50 miles away. Takes about an hour. I can’t imagine living in a state as big as Texas…you can drive all day and still be in the same state!

JetBoy on June 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Crazy. Depending on where I’m going, it’s taken me 10 hours to leave Texas.

Esthier on June 17, 2009 at 10:29 PM

I argue pro-gay stances (civil unions plz; marriage is a sacrament in my mind and should be kept as such)

That right there is the main bone of contention most of us have with gays on the legal level. Some ‘conservatives’ will abandon their position on government to invade other peoples’ bedrooms, but I’d gladly leave gays alone if they’d quit trying to redefine an institution as old as civilization for their own interests, among other things.

Dark-Star on June 17, 2009 at 10:30 PM

Barry likes crack. Man crack.

BHO Jonestown on June 17, 2009 at 10:47 PM

It’s official.I’m sick of topics about gays. In fact I’m sick of gays. I’m sick of hearing about gays. I’m sick of hearing from gays. I’m sick of seeing gays. Enough already, you’re like 1% of the population of the world and we’ve got to hear about you EVERY minute. I’m beginning to wonder if Obama isn’t gay since it seems both he and gays can’t go 30 seconds without attention.

Jeff from WI on June 17, 2009 at 10:50 PM

I’m beginning to wonder if Obama isn’t gay since it seems both he and gays can’t go 30 seconds without attention.

Jeff from WI on June 17, 2009 at 10:50 PM

But, then, how do Jon and Kate Gosselin of Jon & Kate Plus 8 fit into all of this?

lansing quaker on June 17, 2009 at 10:58 PM

In order for a gay couple to take advantage of these meaningless benefits, what is the burden of proof? In other words, how does the couple prove that they are in fact a couple? And if a gay, unmarried couple with no civil union performed between them can get these benes, can a hetero unmarried couple get them? How do they prove they are a couple? What’s the litmus test? Length of partnership?

mdenis39 on June 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM

I’m sure this move will patch that deficit right up. Anyone keen on sponsoring a live-in girlfriend for me?

cackcon on June 17, 2009 at 11:06 PM

In order for a gay couple to take advantage of these meaningless benefits, what is the burden of proof?

mdenis39 on June 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Since they’re meaningless (which they are), why would anyone who isn’t a gay couple care to apply for them?

And, more importantly, why would you care if any non-gay same-sex couples waste their time and energy hatching a plan to apply for meaningless benefits?

That’s the real question.

lansing quaker on June 17, 2009 at 11:08 PM

mdenis39 on June 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Your line of questioning actually lends itself to the normalization of gay marriage rather than substituting these “meaningless benefits.” The questions show that gays are granted access to an unequal institution — domestic partnership.

The Race Card on June 17, 2009 at 11:24 PM

Your line of questioning actually lends itself to the normalization of gay marriage rather than substituting these “meaningless benefits.” The questions show that gays are granted access to an unequal institution — domestic partnership.

The Race Card on June 17, 2009 at 11:24 PM

Unless… as far as the gov’t was concerned, every “married” couple/group was in a domestic partnership… Hmmm…

Upstater85 on June 17, 2009 at 11:31 PM

The Race Card on June 17, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Upstater85 on June 17, 2009 at 11:31 PM

The line of questioning points to the slippery slope here. Whether the benefits are “meaningless” is somewhat inconsequential. What happens when this is applied to real benefits?
As a tangent observation, if civil unions for gays is recognized, then some of these problems are resolved, no? But many in the gay community aren’t satisfied with that compromise. I don’t know why.

mdenis39 on June 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM

mdenis39 on June 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM

What’s my slippery slope?

Upstater85 on June 17, 2009 at 11:57 PM

It’s official.I’m sick of topics about gays. In fact I’m sick of gays. I’m sick of hearing about gays. I’m sick of hearing from gays. I’m sick of seeing gays. Enough already, you’re like 1% of the population of the world and we’ve got to hear about you EVERY minute.

Jeff from WI on June 17, 2009 at 10:50 PM

i have been feeling the same way lately. i told my gay brother so and you know what he said?

ME TOO.

homesickamerican on June 18, 2009 at 12:20 AM

Oh, come on JetBoy. Every time I drag my gay rear into a gay-related thread on HA (and I make no bones about being a HillaryDem-turned-”Republican” in about 75% of my posts, no less), I never receive 1/8th of the flak you get as a self-professed gay Republican.

I argue pro-gay stances (civil unions plz; marriage is a sacrament in my mind and should be kept as such) and never turn heads and attract bile the way you do.

Perhaps there’s an issue with how you deliver your message? Tonality is key to a civil discussion. Most anti-gay comments I see around here ratchet up ten-fold when you comment and — while I totally disagree with them — maybe it’s time to chill just a bit, step back, get some perspective, and come back with a different means of expression?

Just a thought.

lansing quaker on June 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM

In fact, just by reading that particular post I can feel how frustrating it must be for you every time one of those obnoxious “gay pride” rallies comes through and sets acceptance of gays back to …well, the beginning.

You have a good point about tonality, and a good point about marriage. As a conservative male, I think that most of my religious peers would have no qualm about gay civil rights if it were not phrased as being marriage, which traditionally is the union of man, woman, and God.

If or when being gay becomes totally accepted, it will be your way of approaching it that wins the war.

DrRansom on June 18, 2009 at 12:58 AM

DrRanso

Unfortunately the gay lobby does not seek acceptance, it seeks dominion over what can be said about homosexuality. These skirmishes don’t truly address what many homosexuals seek. They want to get hate crime laws changed so that describing homosexual lifestyle in anything but glowing terms is illegal. It occurred to me tonight that the homosexual lobby is similar to the Palestinians in their underlying motives.

Homosexuals don’t actually want a two idea solution. They want one government sanctioned view of homosexuality that carries a hefty legal penalty for violating. The one idea solution they seek prevents my ideas from cooexisting peacefully. I don’t believe that they will accept anything less.

Mormon Doc on June 18, 2009 at 1:15 AM

Mormon Doc on June 18, 2009 at 1:15 AM

I think there is more than one gay lobby, though, and most assuredly different gays have different goals. As to what happens, I think it’s in the hands of the gays who are rational, intelligent, and understand what the general population has the ability to accept. Those who pursue the ends you speak of will never succeed, I don’t think; and I can say that politicians like those currently in power will never help them.

Ever. For all the liberal promises to gays, what have they done for them?

This article is the proof – disregarding his digustingly slimy evasions is merely ignoring the truth.

DrRansom on June 18, 2009 at 1:30 AM

Perhaps. The GOP already gets 25% of the gay vote. I have a hard time imagining the GOP pulling in a majority, but it’s not out of the question – especially if the GOP can get out ahead of this kind of thing by trotting out Dick “Freedom for Everyone” Cheney – that the GOP might get parity with Democrats among gays.

Lehosh on June 17, 2009 at 10:02 PM

What Obama is doing is demonstrating reality… Gays are ~1% of the total population, and the militants are a minority of even that. No one, Republican or Democrat are going to win one seat in Congress based on that constituency, especially when pandering to them is sure to offend FAR more people and cost you MANY more votes than if 100% of that constituency voted for you.

Even CALIFORNIA overwhelmingly voted to not allow sodomy to be called marriage. CALIFORNIA. If the gays can’t win a vote like that THERE, they can’t win it ANYWHERE (except San Francisco).

And what is pissing everyone else off is that they’re already being GIVEN everything legally that they’d benefit from calling it “marriage”, but to the militant “I’m gay and IN YOUR FACE!” types that’s worth RIOTING over.

wildcat84 on June 18, 2009 at 7:54 AM

And what is pissing everyone else off is that they’re already being GIVEN everything legally that they’d benefit from calling it “marriage”, but to the militant “I’m gay and IN YOUR FACE!” types that’s worth RIOTING over.

wildcat84 on June 18, 2009 at 7:54 AM

The tax and social security benefits are big differences. In CA they got about 47% of the vote, which is more than McCain got nationally. The age demographics favor them moving from 47% to a majority in the next decade.

dedalus on June 18, 2009 at 8:23 AM

The tax and social security benefits are big differences. In CA they got about 47% of the vote, which is more than McCain got nationally. The age demographics favor them moving from 47% to a majority in the next decade.

dedalus on June 18, 2009 at 8:23 AM

And that would be fine if the fight for same sex marriage was really all about legal benefits, but I have my doubts about that. I fear that for most gays the issue of legal benefits is just a smokescreen to garner public sympathy. Here in MA we’ve had gay marriage for 6 years now. Latest estimates are that less than 10% of gay couples here have actually taken advantage of their “marriage rights”. I work in a large office and have quite a few gay coworkers. They’ve been cheering the gay marriage movement for over a decade and yet not one of them has chosen to marry their partner. If legal recognition of gay relationships is such a necessary thing to relieve their “oppression”, you’d think the vast majority of gay couples would be clamoring to get married as soon as SSM becomes legal in their state. But that doesn’t happen. I really think this has nothing to do with legal benefits. It’s all about gays wanting homosexuality validated as normal by society and using government to punish anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy.

frank63 on June 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM

It’s all about gays wanting homosexuality validated as normal by society and using government to punish anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy.

frank63 on June 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM

We probably agree then that giving gay couples equal legal and tax status is appropriate, but using the government to put a stamp of approval on a particular lifestyle is not.

My preference is for civil unions, but it looks destined to not come to that.

In MA, I’ve read that there have been about 12,000 gay marriages since 2004. It seems like a lot in absolute terms. As a percentage, I guess it depends on how you arrive at the denominator. If that number is any gay person who is in a relationship then the percentages could be small.

dedalus on June 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Great. Now we’ll have a bunch of single people pretending to be gay so they can get more benefits. What about the poor heteros living together? No love for them?

Mr_Magoo on June 18, 2009 at 10:11 AM

dedalus on June 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM

12,000 sounds like a lot but if 4% of MA’s 6 million residents are gay then there are 240,000 gays in the state. Yes, we’d need to lower that number to exclude minors and those not in committed relationships. Even if you cut that number in half that’s 120,000 gays so you’re still at 10% of them being married.

In any case, I agree it’s hard to really estimate these numbers. My overall point is that there is much more going on here than the simple desire for finanical benefits. I think much of the support for gay marriage is soft support…people have been hoodwinked into believing that the real issue here is that gays just want the same legal benefits as everyone else and nothing more. Polls show movement towards support of gay marriage is slowing down. I really think it’s because the gay marriage movement is overplaying it’s hand. The whole Miss California fiasco demonstrated this. The more heavy handed it becomes in trying to “punish dissent”, the less public support you’ll see for the gay marriage movement.

frank63 on June 18, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2