Less "Evolved" Than Dick Cheney?

It's Pride Day 2011, and as the AP points out, the day gets a big boost from the passage of the marriage equality law. It will probably the biggest Pride parade ever in New York.

Lot's of celebration in the air but we must also look toward the future: And part of that is focusing on President Obama's ridiculous stance -- "evolving"-- on marriage equality. He only gives ammunition to our enemies by being opposed to marriage now. After the monumental New York win, and the powerful push for equal rights by Governor Cuomo, and the vote by a Republican-controlled state senate, the president looks so far behind. He came to Manhattan to take gay money last week, only to tell us that what we just achieved is something he is opposed to. That is not just some minor point for us to give him pass on it. It is a direct assault on our rights. The president is now on the side of the people working against, while the universe of those working for us and joining us in this fight has just grown exponentially.

As I said to Politico, in a quote that has been picked up by CBS and others, "When your position on something like this is behind Laura Bush, that is a problem." I'd add, to use the president's "evolution" term, if you're less evolved than Dick Cheney that is pretty scary.

Missing Bush?

Has it really come to this? Long-time AIDS activist Gregg Gonsalves tells the New York Times, regarding President Obama's response to HIV/AIDS: “I’m holding my nose as I say this, but I miss George W Bush. On AIDS, he really stepped up. He did a tremendous thing. Now, to have this happen under Obama is really depressing.”

The article describes the dismal response by this administration to the epidemic and lays part of the blame at the feet of Rahm Emanuel's brother:

AIDS advocates complained bitterly that they had been betrayed and that the Bush administration’s best legacy was being gutted — and they blame a doctor and budget adviser who is also the brother of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Interview: The Attorney in That "Bombshell" Case

It appears that John Berry, the highest ranking openly gay person in the Obama administration, head of the Office of Personnel Management, was not yet in his post when the OPM defied a court order and directed the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to deny a California lesbian federal appeals court employee of federal marriage benefits, including health insurance for her wife. But John Berry most certainly is there now. And the OPM now has been given 30 days by the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the deadline is December 21, so now it is actually less than 20 days) to follow his earlier order which the White House, through OPM, defied.

Yesterday the lead attorney in the case that came to light in TIME last week came on my radio program. James McQuire, a partner at the law firm Morrison & Foerster, along with Lambda Legal, is representing Karen Golinksi in a case that I wrote about over the holiday weekend, described as a "bombshell" by one legal expert, in which Judge Kozinski wrote a stern decree demanding the White House and OPM follow his order.

The audio of the full interview is below, in which McQuire outlines the case, explains why the judge has the power to issue such an order and discusses with me possible reasons why the Obama administration defied the order, from worries about how this might affect DOMA to concerns about separation of powers.

Just a few things I want to point out: McGuire said that when the administration defied the order, it was about six weeks prior to when openly gay John Berry took the OPM post. Now, however, Judge Kozonski's decree from the week before last for the OPM to stop interfering is in Berry's lap. McGuire said the White House has three options: It could give Karen Golinski her rights and let this be; it could choose to appeal to a panel of the court; or it could do nothing, keep defying the order, and Karen Golinski would appeal to the same panel. Obviously two of those options will further inflame tensions with the LGBT community.

Hillary Clinton Condemns Global Homophobia

On the eve of World AIDS Day Hillary Clinton yesterday addressed the criminalization of people with HIV and homosexuality in a press conference, after days of criticism of the Obama administration for not speaking out on Uganda's proposed law that would execute HIV-positive gay men:

“Obviously, our efforts are hampered whenever discrimination or marginalization of certain populations results in less effective outreach and treatment. So we will work not only to ensure access for all who need it but also to combat discrimination more broadly,” she said during a press conference in which officials also announced that the XIX International AIDS Conference, set for 2012, will be held in United States — the first time the conference has been held here since 1990. “We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide.”

There was not a mention of Uganda specifically.Kerry Eleveld's story quotes an unnamed source close to the state department who says they're working through back channels and acknowledges that nonetheless there needs to be public condemnation and implies that it will come if things don't change. Kerry also discusses the concern regarding the administration's only comments on Uganda's plan thus far, from the president's global AIDS coordinator, Eric Goosby:

Clinton’s comments came on the heels of an interview with Ambassador Eric Goosby, the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, that concerned many HIV/AIDS activists.

“My role is to be supportive and helpful to the patients who need these services. It is not to tell a country how to put forward their legislation,” Goosby said of Uganda last week during a Newsweek interview.

Many HIV/AIDS activists felt that Goosby’s comments signaled a certain tone-deafness by the Obama administration to the Ugandan issue. But one person who consults regularly with the Department of State said the agency has been heavily engaged with Ugandan officials regarding the fate of the legislation.

“They have been working for several weeks behind the scenes at a senior level within the department to determine what the actual facts are and what the likelihood is of this bill becoming law,” said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity...

...“They are trying to proceed in a way that gives them some private leverage but also acknowledges that Secretary Clinton has an obligation to speak out on human rights issues in her capacity as our top international diplomat,” said the source. “It's been a delicate effort with inconclusive results.”

This is good to hear, and I applaud Secretary Clinton for her general statements against homophobia. But, yes, we need loud and public condemnation specifically of Uganda and its policies. This cannot go publicly unchallenged.

Rick Warren Can't "Take Sides" on Gay Executions

Via Box Turtle Bulletin comes this Newsweek.com post in which we learn that Rick Warren, who in the past had ties to the Uganda pastor who helped spearhead legislation that would execute HIV-positive gay men if enacted, will not speak out against the legislation, saying that "it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations."

On Meet the Press he said, speaking more generally on the gay issue, "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides." As Newsweek's Lisa Miller points out, this is a guy who called abortion a "holocaust" and who certainly does what he can to stop it in this country and around the world. Surely, he believes, as a self-proclaimed moral leader, that one must speak up against injustice. That is, if he sees state executions of gay men as a true injustice at all -- or at least one that is worth upsetting the apple carts he so neatly set up in Uganda.

And is it a coincidence that the Obama administration -- in which Warren has a fan at the very top -- has not spoken out loudly enough against what's happening in Uganda and that the man who doles out the AIDS dollars (our taxpayer dollars, need I remind) on behalf of the president to Uganda, PEPFAR chief Eric Goosby, says pretty much what Warren says? According to Newsweek.com, Goosby says his job is "not to tell a country how to put forward their legislation."

That has got to be one of the most outrageous things I've heard so far from an Obama official: We're neutral on extermination.

UPDATE: Max Blumenthal has done a lot on Warren and his Uganda connections and I've had him on the show often. This piece he wrote back in January is a good refresher for the discussion now about Warren. Read the whole thing, but just wanted to pull out this passage that sums up Warren's investment in Uganda:

Days later, Warren emerged so enthusiastic after a meeting with First Lady Museveni, he announced a plan to make Uganda a “Purpose Driven Nation.” “The future of Christianity is not Europe or North America, but Africa, Asia, and Latin America,” he told a cheering throng at Makerere University. Then, Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi rose and predicted, “Someday, we will have a purpose driven continent!”

Obama and Maine

David Mixner makes important points on President Obama's failure on Maine, no matter what happens today. We can't let the administration get a pass:

We won't know the results until late in the evening, but there is one result that is overwhelmingly clear to LGBT citizens and their allies: President Obama and his team were zero help in this critical battle and in the last week might actually have hurt us. That is a fact.

Despite repeated pleas for assistance from this community from the start of the campaign, he chose to ignore every opportunity to grant us such relief. At the recent Human Rights Campaign dinner he never said the word "Maine" once. The most we were able to get out of the White House office of communications was that he was opposed to such efforts. Try weaving that into a powerful ad or robo-calling!

However, practicing benign neglect was not the end of it. This past week, Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States in the state of Maine said that this administration had no position on the ballot measure. Read that sentence again carefully. Our nation's chief law enforcement officer and the president's hand picked choice said that the issue was just not that important to this administration! Now don't be fooled by any rhetoric that presidents don't take stands on such issues. Going back as far as President Carter when he opposed Proposition Six, they have taken such stands.

My Appearance on Sunday "Today" Show

I spent the morning at NBC in Washington the day before the National Equality March, doing two live MSNBC "hits," as they call them, two hours apart (hope to have those clips soon), interviewed by Peter Alexander. During that two hour lull I did a taped interview for an NBC News report on the march and on President Obama's speech. That ran on "Weekend Today," first story on Sunday morning on NBC, clip below.

Spirited Discussion Last Night on CNN

Last night I appeared on CNN to discuss Obama's speech with Dan Dan Savage, Lt. Dan Choi and Hillary Rosen. Was a good, but sometimes feisty debate, and i can't wait to get all your thoughts. Was two segments, pretty long and the video is in two parts here.

Dems Vote for Abstinence-Only Funds

So glad we have a supposedly filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority: The Senate Finance Committee has voted to restore abstinence-only funds, though the President opposes this and though every study has shown this is both bad public health policy -- adversely affecting young people's lives -- and a waste of money. The two Dems who made it happen, by the way, are among those who voted against the public option today: Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln and North Dakota's Kent Conrad:

Two Democrats — Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas — joined all 10 committee Republicans in voting "yes" on the measure by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah.

These people are literally allowing young gay men and others to become infected with HIV, and allowing young women to get pregnant. Latest poll shows Lincoln is doing badly up against Republican challengers for re-election in 2010. I say, let her lose! Why are we even putting hope in these people if they will vote against us anyway? Let's replace them.

Mixner: Obama Must Speak Out Now on Maine

I couldn't agree more with David Mixner. Yesterday Obama offered what seemed like more empty words, mentioning gay parents during his proclamation on Family Day. If those weren't empty words and he really cares about gay families The President will speak up now about the Maine amendment that would strip away the right to marry that both the Maine Legislature and the governor approved. And Mixner points to the urgency of now:

Time is running out in Maine. Soon people will begin to request their absentee ballots and start voting. The time for President Obama to make clear that he opposes the ballot measure in that state is now. If he waits any longer, the Maggie Gallagher brigade against human rights will use his opposition to marriage to prove that he supports the proposition. During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite clear that he opposed all such measures, despite his opposition to marriage equality...

...The president must stop allowing himself to be used and remain silent while it is happening. He won't be left out on a limb alone if he stands for justice. Thousands and thousands of his supporters from Maine and around the nation are contributing, volunteering and working hard to defeat this hate-filled effort. At the recent National Convention of the AFL-CIO, delegates were urged by leaders to call family and friends in Maine. Countless people of faith are working and praying for the defeat of this proposition. The Democratic Party in Maine has come out against it. So the president shouldn't fear about being out there alone, his friends will be by his side.

Go read the whole thing.

Obama's "Indoctrination" Speech

We talked a lot of about this on the show on Friday and I'm going to bring it up today and get your thoughts about an email I received. A listener said I was wrong and nasty to say that the caller who took his kids out of school for the speech was a" bad father" and that I have no right to tell people what is and what is not good parenting? I'm sorry, but he's producing the people who will go out and either foment bias or stop it in the future, and that does affect me. Anyway, I'll read it and we'll talk about it.

The White released the speech the president will give today to students which Republicans -- who had not read it -- claimed was radical socialist indoctrination,. Here's The gist of it:

“If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.....We can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents and the best schools in the world. And none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities.”

I've now realized this is indoctrination into something foreign to the Republican mindset: Actually studying and finding out the truth about the world and moving on from there with hard work, rather than: a) being rich and getting Daddy or Mummy to get you a job (i.e., Mary and Liz Cheney, Jenna Bush, Jonah Goldberg, and on and on); or b) being not-so-rich and being deprived a good eduction because of Republican policies and, in your ignorance, then believing whatever some emotion-based, exploitative smear artists (whether politicians or part of the insurance industry) tell you about who caused your problems instead of actually studying and getting the facts. Yes, that is really radical!

By the way, Republican Party chair Jim Greer, who you'll remember I debated a few times in CNN, says he still believes Obama may slip in a different speech. I kid you not. Shameless.

Why I Am Marching on Washington

I have talked about the idea of a march on Washington since the day after the election, as I explain in this Advocate column. But I didn't initially support this march, the National Equality March to take place October 10-11. That all changed, particularly after the DOMA brief, but also after listening to Cleve Jones when he came on the show for a full hour in which he took calls from across the country. The clincher though was the cocktail party commemorating Stonewall 40, put together to do damage control, as I note in the column:

Last June, amid growing criticism of President Obama’s foot-dragging on LGBT rights and after the despicably homophobic Defense of Marriage Act brief, the White House hosted a cocktail party to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. It was nice for us to see a president commemorating the Stonewall riots for the first time. But it was an even better event for Obama himself, a great photo op, in the midst of the outcry, showing gay people -- dubbed by the media as LGBT “leaders” -- applauding him.

Leaders? The crowd included an overwhelming number of Democratic Party hacks and donors, Beltway social climbers, careerists (specifically, former gay group heads now looking for jobs), PR flacks, lobbyists, sycophants, and assorted sellouts. The fabulously superficial -- including a fashion editor who sits front and center at every New York fashion show -- were there too. And everyone was enthralled by the event, clapping uproariously for the president. Many of those present had raised lots of money for Obama and for the Democratic Party—or gave generously themselves -- and probably worked for 20 years to see the day when they could have cocktails and hors d’oeuvres in the White House, using the good china no less!

That really had me realizing we all needed to go, but as I said, I'd been thinking about a march early on:

It’s not that I was ever really opposed to the idea of a march. To the contrary, as listeners to my Sirius/XM radio show know, I’ve been talking about marching on Washington ever since the morning after Election Day. For me, it’s been a matter of historical precedent: The black civil rights movement wisely took advantage of a window of opportunity in 1963, when Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress. Republicans could no longer be blamed for the lack of civil rights protections, and marchers knew that media attention would put pressure on the Democrats and shame them into action.

We have that same window of opportunity today.

But that’s not to say I was immediately sold on this march.

Read the whole column to see my reasoning, and let me know your thoughts. Hope you'll be there!

My CNN Appearance Re: Obama

I appeared on CNN earlier tonight and discussed President Obama and his promises, and what he has fulfilled and has not, with CNN's Don Lemon and Log Cabin Republican Charles Moran.

Obama Tries to Deaden the Pain

President Obama has a new approach on the Defense of Marriage Act, having learned the hard way that the previous one was offensive and outrageous. Yesterday the White House released a statement from the president, on the same day that new papers were filed in the DOMA case in which the Justice Department filed the now infamous DOMA brief back in June. This time, the papers made clear that DOMA is "discriminatory" and that the administration wants it repealed, even though government lawyers claim they must uphold it, bound by the Constitution.

As I said on the show, it was a brilliant move of the White House to also release a statement from the president that he wants to repeal DOMA, even though he's saying nothing new and he is continuing to refuse to say when he'll do it, and it's clearly no time soon. The strategy threw the media off, with some outlets actually focusing on Obama's call for repeal rather than the fact that the administration is still defending DOMA in court.

Bottom line: It's good that the administration is at least thinking about how its defense of a heinous law will play out, and is trying to deaden our pain while slitting our wrists. But please don't take it as anything more than that. Obama is taking the easiest path -- some Christian righters even think he wants the court to undo it so he doesn't have to spend any capital -- and the one that is least brave. Our protests have gotten through and the administration is worried about what we -- and others -- may think about the president's promises and his commitment to civil rights. But the White House is not worried enough to actually move on the repeal of DOMA now.

Beck: "Obama is a Racist"

I am simply astounded by this clip of Glenn Beck accusing President Obama of being a racist and it surely shows that all those who claimed we'd entered a "post-racial" era with Obama's election were smoking something awfully strong.

More Backpedaling on DADT

And the White House thought a cocktail party might quell the anger.

Not a week after that photo-op event at the White House where the President promised to fulfill promises about promises -- some day -- they're back to giving out mixed messages and downright insulting and offensive reasons why we can't repeal "don't ask, don't tell."

Joint chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen is now saying that he's not done any extensive review -- while Gates and Obama have implied their working on it -- and that he's there to "advise" the president "should" the policy "change." Admiral Mullen may be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff but he reports to the president. And if this White House cannot reign him in -- and give us a clear answer on repealing the law and when -- then this president is a weak man who cowers to his own Pentagon, and everyone, gay and straight, should be concerned about that.

Mullen clearly doesn't want to repeal the policy, but that's tough. He should not be expressing his reticence and undermining the president on national television. If he is allowed to do that we're in trouble, because maybe he's not undermining the president at all -- maybe he's expressing the White House view too. On CNN he talked of "changing" the policy, not repealing it, and says he has advised the president to do so in a "measured way" because he's worried about the military families of straight soldiers and the impact on them. As former Clinton adviser Richard Soccarides told Americablog, that is insulting -- what about the gay servicepeople and their families?

This is going to further outrage LGBT people across this country, and what is the White House going to do? Hold another cocktail party? The White House should soon realize that none of those people in that room last week has the power to quell the anger. Most of them are empty suits with no real base of support or power, just a lot of big donors, fundraisers, former executive directors and current directors of bloated but really not-so-influential (on the gay public) organizations -- and I could go into the names, and probably will, but it's too exhaustive at this point. The White House surely didn't like seeing the anger and disappointment played out in the media, and was also worried about the money -- big time -- coming from gay donors and threatening the DNC fundraiser, so they moved to do something to quell it. But if the White House doesn't stop the mixed messages and backpedaling, the damage will be irreversible. They will be sorry. And no cocktail party is going to solve it.

Stonewalling

Colbert's take on Obama and the gays. And hey, I'm in the report, check it out.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Stonewalling
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Mark Sanford

Barney Frank: Criticisms "Inappropriate, Unfair"

I interviewed Barney Frank today about his introducing the trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act in Congress this week; the LGBT agenda that Congressional leaders met on this week; the Defense of Marriage Act brief by the Department of Justice; President Obama on LGBT rights; and the gay DNC fundraiser in DC tonight.

Barney became very unhappy with me and pretty heated when I played Howard Dean's comments on the DOMA brief, trying to stop me and saying he didn't come on for me to "play records."

He defended the brief, defended the President on LGBT rights, defended Democrats in the House (though he said we need to take on Democrats in the Senate) and defended the DNC fundraiser.

Barney and I have known each other for many years, agree on many things, disagree on others, and often when he comes on the show it can be a spirited discussion. This time I'd say he was a bit more angry about issues, particularly about how some of us have criticized the Democrats and the White House. And like I said, the Howard Dean clip really rubbed him the wrong way. Let me know your thoughts.

Gay Leaders To Be Feted at White House?

This is pretty outrageous. In the midst of all the anger from LGBT people over the DOMA brief and the inadequate response -- so far -- by the Obama administration, gay lobbyists, executive directors and assorted others who comprise what is identified as the gay leadership apparently have been invited to a party at the White House thrown just for them.

It's another photo-op in which everyone -- the president and the gays -- can look happy and like they're having fun, but more so, it's a way for the White House to wank off the gay leaders a bit while still not delivering. None of them should fall for it -- and that means they should not attend this event -- most all the Human Rights Campaign. We don't want cocktails for high-paid gay and lesbian lobbyists and executive directors looking to schmooze and feel important. We want action on our rights, and at this point it means DOMA and DADT.

The signing of the memorandum by the president to give some benefits to some federal employees was a crumb, which, as I wrote last week, should have been a gesture made five months ago. Nonetheless, unlike some others, I believed it was appropriate for Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign to be there, along with other LGBT leaders. It was business: The president was signing an order to benefit some LGBT people (in addition to a few partner benefits for some gay and lesbian federal workers he signed an anti-discrimination order banning discrimination in federal hiring based on gender identity). I think they should be there, be cordial, and let the president know it's not nearly enough.

I know some people think Obama should not have been given the photo-op, but really, the story of anger by gays was already out there and wasn't about to be changed by that event. In fact, the next day, the story line in the media was along the lines of "president offers some little thing but gays just are not happy and are in fact more angry." So the photo-op did nothing, but LGBT leaders kept the dialogue open by going, which they should.

But now, a cocktail party? No, that's not business -- it's schmoozing and sucking up, and it's all about buying off gay leaders by seducing them, very cheaply, so the White House can help get the money coming back in, since the DNC gay fundraiser for next week is collapsing. The response so far has only been about the money and it's not nearly enough.

What we need now is real action. Not these crumbs, whether it be the census inclusion or some benefits for federal employees. We need something big, and until then, the DNC fundraisers should continue to be threatened, and nobody among the gay leadership should be partying with this president.

Obama Cheerleader Now Excoriates the President

Stampp Corbin came on the show back during the Democratic primaries, representing the Obama campaign in our LGBT Caucus (you many remember Hilary Rosen came on as a supporter of Hillary Clinton, debating the issues).

Stampp was the co-chair of Obama's LGBT Leadership Council and was a committed and fierce advocate for Barack Obama. I saw him at the Democratic National Convention, and he was doing his usual cheerleading for Obama. But no more.

Stampp Corbin has written a piece headlined, The DOMA Brief Ruined Everything, attacking the President for the DOMA brief and also pulling out of that DNC fundraiser, which is getting pretty damned lonely these days.

Says Stampp:

Mr. President, your DOMA mistake awakened a sleeping giant. He is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore. You better get LGBT affirming legislation moving quickly or the coffers of the LGBT community will be slammed shut on the fingers of your administration and the DNC. You and the DNC may find themselves asking about our donations “if not now, when” as we have been asking about our rights for the last few months.

Indeed, the anger is only building, and the president and Democrats need to do much more.