How could Ms Keisling give the President a B?I don’t recall, other than hiring an out TG lady, anything in particular that the President has done for the trans community.
Mr Solmonese’s grade for the President suprised me not a whit, since his activism consists of beltway signings of rental truck equality agreements and upscale dinners

Another thought

A thought – what if he was pandering in 1996? Perhaps our President is actually telling the truth now – this constitutional law professor actually believes that civil and religious marriage are one and the same – “god is in the mix.” That he is on the side of NOM – there’s something “sacred” about civil marriage in our society.
His fig leaf, then, is that he believes in separate but equal civil unions. Are we prepared for that answer and what are the consequences if he maintains that position?  

Another thought – perhaps the sun rises in the east. And another, that the weather at the equator is usually warmer than that at the poles.
Or maybe it’s just that he thinks Gays are Icky, and while not quite free to say so in so many words, his (in)actions speak volumes. There’s been just enough crumbs scattered to them for (im)plausible deniability.

This Neophyte’s View…is that I’m not so much interested in any particular grade that the President may receive on his actions towards Civil Rights. That much is, and has been, evident. I would want to know if copies of this signed statement can be circulated and transmitted back to the Prez with a message of protest as a virulent and effective campaign? What are the chances of the successfulnes of an action such as this? And, will this evidence become apparent in the MSM news cycle? In short, what are our recourses?
Also, if it would be up to me, what are my next steps as a moderately technologically challenged student-desk jockey?!?
I want to be able to return to my home state of California with my head held up…

…I can’t think of this – State Dept introduced a new policy with the passports. Don’t remember the particulars, but I think it was a way to go around the fact that some states don’t change gender on documents after even an operation. Wasn’t there something like that?

What ifhe has no firm position at all? What if he just says what he thinks people want to hear? What if he’s so swayed by polls and numbers and his own craven urge to maintain his position that he’s fully prepared to sacrifice anyone and any principal to do it?

No, he wasn’t pandering in 1996There just aren’t enough gays in Hyde Park to pander to, for one.
And remember, even a lot LGBT’s (or was it the groups?) were scampering away from the marriage issue in 1996.
Having said that, the one defense that I have heard about that 1996 questionnaire (which I truly believe that the Windy City Times “lost” for the Obama campaign) is that civil unions weren’t on the table to support as an option in 1996.
And that’s some very weak tea, indeed.  

Doesn’t matter to mewhat his personal convictions are, or whether they are influenced by his religion.  Some people still believe that blacks are inferior because it says so right there in their bibles!  (Sons of Ham and all that.)  We don’t give people a pass on using that to support inequality.  Why should we tolerate it when it’s used to support inequality for LGBTs?

I have a long way to go beforebecoming convinced that the Republicans have suddenly become our friends. The depressing reality is that we don’t have any in high places. Neither the Democrats not the Republicans are willing to actually do anything. The present approach just isn’t working. Nothing of any significance for LGBT rights is going to come out of this congress.

In grad schoolA C+ is a failing grade.

So the ranting continues…You know, I give the GOP ALOT of credit for their ability to fracture the Democratic alliance at every turn.
They certainly know how to exploit the stupidity and blindness of the activist wing.
While Pam and others are going on a rampage talking about the sudden sea change amongst the GOP, the GOP can go on laughing because they know that NOT ONE OF THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT IS UP FOR REELECTION or ANYONE that actually has to face voters is in support of gay marriage. NOT ONE. In fact ALL of the Republicans actually running for office are actively against anti-LGBT. More importantly, the very same Republicans that have supposedly seen the light are actively helping anti-LGBT Republican candidates get into office even as they publically run on anti-LGBT platforms.
Despite the obvious, the perpetually clueless LGBT activists have completely bought into this and are working to hurt the Democrats by pushing them onto the political third rail. These clueless activists REFUSE to acknowledge that the American people (especially the people that actually VOTE) are strongly opposed to gay marriage. But that is not important to them. What they want is for the President to sacrifice his Presidency for their pet issue.
The end goal being to pain the President into a politically destructive corner by forcing him to take a position not only contrary to his stated position but contrary to that of most of the electorate (including members of his own party). Thus ensuring that he is no longer a viable candidate for the Presidency. While on the flip side, the Republicans can safely reassure the American people that they share their values and will not “undermine traditional marriage” or give into the “homosexual agenda.” Thus winning the election (and pushing anti-LGBT legislation in the process).

Well, the GOP is also fractured, for oneThat’s not a Dem or Republican thing nowadays.
For two, as i pointed out, Charlie Baker in Massachusetts is running for Governor and supports marriage equality (then again, so does Deval Patrick).
You are correct though about GOP’s that are standing for election.
There was a black republican in Massachusetts that did support marriage equailty and he lost to Scott Brown in the primary.
Also there was a Republican in California (Campbell) who supported marriage equality and republican primary voters defeated him.
So…yeah, I do have to agree with you that I want to see Republicans standing for election support marriage equality.
Otherwise it’s a lot of Tory hot air…
Speaking of the Tories, they even had openly gay MPs; lets see an openly gay Republican run for office…
Having said all of that, the President painted himself into this corner by his wishy-washiness and occasional outright hostility on other LGBT issues.

Serious Political Analysis PleaseWho on the right can attack Obama when Dick Cheney and others are on his right flank on this issue?

The end goal being to pain the President into a politically destructive corner by forcing him to take a position not only contrary to his stated position but contrary to that of most of the electorate

What in the world do you mean here?
How does Obama — or any Democrat — lose votes on the marriage equality issue when so many prominent right-wingers (office holders or not) have nullified the issue?
Are there some special secret right-winger votes that Obama got that he’ll now lose by embracing marriage equality?
You simply make no political sense, much less LGBT-movement sense.

Not only has Obamadone next to nothing for the LGBT community, most progressives would say he has done little to alter the damage done during the previous 8 years.  His promises on almost all measures have so far gone unheeded, and that of healthcare is an abysmal flop.  This administration let itself be manhandled by the far right, and they still haven’t recovered.  And now the dems had best get their s**t together and begin an all out unified attack against the upcoming right wing barrage before November’s elections.  So far the predictions aren’t good.  If the repugnant ones take back congress, Obama’s goose will be fully cooked.  

Great Post, PamMy only quibble is with this line:
“This administration is running out of time if it doesn’t want to look like an obstacle in the fight for marriage equality.”
I disagree.  The administration has already, through several actions, been an obstacle in the fight for marriage equality.  The administration ran out of time as soon as it filed a brief stating that there are rational reasons for opposing it.
Now, can the administration change course and cease being an obstacle?  Sure, if it wanted to.  But it definitely is an obstacle now.  No doubt about it.

Yeah, I don’t buy itThese people in the GOP are likely just wanting to do a little coalition-splitting, as well as realizing where public opinion’s turning.  Of course, they were the ones doing a lot of the delaying in the first place.
But, it may also serve to break the stonewalling against our rights in the Congress.
As for Obama,   I think it does mean it’s time for him to get out in front of this,  and keep his promises.   It’s certainly no good to have him seem to be stalling on a civil rights issue.   As a candidate for elected office,  I never faulted him on the civil unions position,  as problematic as ‘separate but equal’ is:  since a majority of Americans were actually behind that all along,  it constituted an achievable goal for his position,  anyway:  the true equality in many respects would seem to be more the purview of the courts.
I think it’s now time for him to get behind marriage equality, though.    Or at least get done what he came in promising.    

At least Geek provided some clarityon what the post-midterm strategy for the (probable) Democrat losses seems to be.
Scapegoat the gays (and progressives, generally).
It happened in 2004 and it happened after Scott Brown was elected.

Yep. I remember all this coming up in 2008,when criticizing Obama was taboo.  He even got a pass after clearly expressing opposition to marriage equality in an interview with the HRC, but all of us on the Left were expected to pretend we didn’t notice.   As I recall a typical response to attempts to bring this up was “HOW CAN YOU THINK THAT?”; others simply changed the subject via irrelevant tirades about “Hillary.”  Nobody need vow that “we won’t be fooled again” — that didn’t happen the first time.  People just ignored what was right under their noses.
At least “I support civil unions” is no longer a magic phrase that doesn’t come under any scrutiny.  Next step: learning to stop when you see a sign that says Bridge Out.

That would be idioticbut I wouldn’t underestimate the Democratic Party’s ability to shoot itself in the collective foot. Of course, they could always revive the Dixiecrats….

Yep, it’s not just us.I would be unhappy with Obama even if ours was the only community he shafted.  But it’s every progressive community on the map.  Time and time again, he has demonstrated a commitment to continuing the Bush administration’s policies–and in many cases even beefing them up.  His ardent support for the two Bush-era wars (oh, that’s right, one of them is over–right), his dedication to protecting and enriching corporations, his lax (to put it mildly) stance on environmental protection, his continuation of torture, his stepped-up program for shoveling money to churches…  And of course there’s the DOMA hate brief, his dogged refusal to and the DADT discharges and all the other swinishness he’s inflicted on LGBT America.
The last, absolutely final straw for me was his assassination squads, including the assassination of American citizens.  And he is now in court defending his right to such action.  http://www.salon.com/news/opin…  When I read that, my stomach turned.  And I’m not exaggerating one bit.
This man is the worst villain we’ve had in the White House in my lifetime (and I was born during the Truman administration).

You’ve earned your fee from the White House today.Now go clean the Cheetos stains out of your pajamas.

The history of Obama’s twists and turns regarding same sex marriage 1996: In response to a questionnaire from Outlines newspaper (now part of Windy City Times), Obama, a candidate for the Illinois state senate seat representing the wealthy Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, writes, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
1998: Responding to an Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test: “Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages? A: Undecided.”
2004: In an interview with Windy City Times, Obama mentions the religious dimension of the gay marriage debate, says he supports civil unions, and indicates that his stance is dictated in large part by political strategy…
2006: In his bestseller, The Audacity of Hope, Obama, now a U.S. senator, explains his support for civil unions, again mentioning religion and noting the strategic problems that the push for gay marriage poses.
2008: At Rick Warrens bigotfest Obama said “For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God’s in the mix…”   Tht makes Obama a bigot
(Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is identical to that of “Miss California”, Carrie Prejean, who said “I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman…”)
In an interview with MTV, Obama says he opposes Prop 8, but also gay marriage. Civil unions, the candidate says, are sufficient: “I have stated my opposition to [Prop 8]. I think it is unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage…”
2010 : After the Perry decision, which struck down Prop 8, the White House said “The president has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” Meanwhile, White House senior adviser David Axelrod tells MSNBC that Obama “ does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples. … He supports civil unions. That’s been his position throughout. So nothing has changed.”
from http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonath… and other sources

In politics it’s a ticket home after you lose.

Wrong. Dead wrong on all counts. 1) there is no ‘Democratic Alliance’. There are bigots like the Clintons and Obama and bigot panderers like Pelosi and Reid and there are people who fall for thier lies.
2) if Demorats don’t support us fully then we don’t support them. Their problems are not our problems. We didn’t build a movement and create an agenda for equality to help either party, but to help ourselves.
3) that fact that you are willing to subsume our equality to the political needs of a functional bigot like Obama and his Demorat cronies tell us we need to know about you.
We have no friends in either party and that’s being recognized by very large and increasing numbers of LGBT folks. In Chicago the GLN plans to go after Democrats and Republicans because “After four long years of Democratic rule of both congressional houses and going on two years Democratic control of the White House, LGBT people are angered by the lack of action to end the U.S. government’s discrimination against our community.
It is no longer mainly “the big bad Republicans,” but a government dominated by the Democratic Party which is:
* Denying us equal employment protections
* Exiling bi-national couples who can’t get rights to stay here
* Using bigoted standards to discharge us from the military
* Arguing in court to uphold the “Defense of Marriage Act”
* Continuing Bush’s “faith-based” funding of sectarian projects with federal dollars
* Cutting international anti-AIDS funding
* Freezing domestic spending while spreading America’s wars and taking military spending to record levels.”
GLN plans demonstrations and they “invite others to join us in developing coordinated protests in other cities”. Contact Gay Liberation Network at LGBTliberation@aol.com or call Andy Thayer at 773-209-1187 or Brent Holman-Gomez at 312-543-7552.”  

THE SCOOBY DOO DEFENSE“We would’ve won the election if it hadn’t have been for those meddling voters!!!”

Sounds like hard-core Koolaider to me…Oh yes, we should shout from the rooftops and vote for any DEM just because there is a damn (D) by their name on the ballot.  Typical DLC/Blue Dog mentality.
Speaking of blue dogs, one of my US Senators (Blanche Lincoln) is one and so is my US Rep (Mike Ross).  Ross has opposed Hate Crimes and has voted against the 2007 revision of ENDA, you know the one scrubbed of those pesky transgender rights so it will go down easier for these conservative “democrats”.
As for Senator Lincoln she has sided with the GOP on many issues and only throws a bone out occasionally to appease the retirement home residents that grew up during the “Solid South” era.  Lincoln has also used her chair on the Agri Committee to  reward large corporate farmers (many of whom are supporting GOP candidate John Boozman).
Although I would vote for a Dem over a Republican, the choice of a Green (John Gray) for Senate makes that an easy choice.  I will vote for John Gray and not apologize for it.

DLCAnd since we know know that a large amount of the DLC’s funding comes for the Koch brothers, how could anyone ever trust any of its members?  Obama included.

Sorry to upset your mattachinistic accomodationism, Geekbut we activists are the ones responsible for change, not you “good gay” “We’re just like you” people.

Not all of us ignored itThere were a handful of us who prophesised like Cassandra, and saw it all come true

“NOT ONE OF THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT IS UP FOR REELECTION or ANYONE that actually has to face voters is in support of gay marriage. NOT ONE.”
NOT ONE?
1)  The Republican candidate for Governor of Massachusetts.
There are probably others but I only needed to present ONE to discredit your claim.