Obama Girl meet Obama Boy

Okay, this cracked me up.


(H/t Towleroad.)

What this video is based on, all - all 25m views worth:

Read the rest of this post...

So what if Obama's support of gay marriage is "political"?

I've noticed a few folks saying that the President's new-found support for same-sex marriage is "political." Meaning, he did it for the election. For crass reason. Not because he simply likes us.

To that I say: So what?

My friend Adam Green has a nice synopsis of my feelings on this:

"Nothing's wrong with an elected leader responding to the will of the people and doing the right thing because it's an election year," said Adam Green, a founder of the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "If that gets us more civil rights and things like Wall Street accountability, fantastic. Democracy at work."

There's a famous suffragette quote (or perhaps not so famous, as I'm failing to find it in Google) that goes something like this: "I don't want you to like me, I just want you to take your boot off my throat."

Point being: I dont care if politicians "like" us. I care what they "do." George Bush, the gay Republicans told us, really really really liked us in his heart, but he had to act anti-gay to please the right wing that controlled his party. Why should that give me solace? I'd much rather have a president in office who didn't like me but did all the right things than one who did like me and did all the wrong things.

I'm not trying to get people to like me. I'm trying to further the movement for gay civil rights. The former is only relevant when it aides the latter. Read the rest of this post...

Obama endorsement of gay marriage likely to woo young voters, women

Vote photo via Shutterstock

Boston Globe:

President Obama’s endorsement of legal same-sex marriage is likely to resonate with young voters and women, two blocs where Obama is already strong, a new Gallup poll indicates.

Gallup on Monday published more detailed results of its annual Values and Beliefs survey, which last week showed 50 percent of Americans believe gay marriage should be legal. Support among voters between the ages of 18 and 34 is at 66 percent -- 19 points higher than in the 35 to 54 age group.

The gap between men and women is 14 points, with 56 percent of female voters saying they support legal same-sex marriage.

Read the rest of this post...

Newsweek calls Obama the first gay president

Hmm.

Read the rest of this post...

Is the GayTM back open?

Thoughts? Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING: President Obama supports marriage equality

On October 27, 2010, I asked the President Obama what his position was on same-sex marriage.  He told me that his position was evolving.  Today, Barack Obama's evolution on marriage equality is complete.

 President Obama has told ABC News that "same sex marriage should be legal.... I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."  (ABC has the video.)

Obama became the first President of the United States to support marriage equality. It's a very welcome development. As you know, the President first announced that he was evolving during our interview on October 27, 2010. In response to my question, the President said:

I think it’s a fair question to ask. I think that -- I am a strong supporter of civil unions. As you say, I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine. And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply. And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today.

I told the President that if our relationships weren't treated like everyone else's, we aren't equal. Today, he acknowledged that we are.

Now, this doesn't change any law or over rule any constitutional amendment. It's symbolic. But, it certainly feels different to know that, for the first time, our President thinks our relationships are equal.

During our interview, the President said, "The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going." Now, he's with the trend. And, our talk concluded:

Q The arc of history. THE PRESIDENT: The arc of history.

Yep. The arc of history. And, I'm honored to have played a small role in this. (h/t to ThinkProgress for the transcript of today's interview.)

------

NOTE FROM JOHN: A few points.  First, this is major news and these aren't "just words."  When the President of the United States makes a statement about an issue this big, the words have impact.  They can impact court cases around the country, and just as importantly, people's attitudes. Those attitudes matter at the ballot box and in the schoolyard.  The President's opinion matters.  This is an important day for gays and lesbians, our allies, and for all Americans who believe that our country stands for more than cheap political slogans.  Today we showed that it does.

________________________

UPDATE:

Here's the photo from the October 27, 2010 interview. The other bloggers from left to right are John Amato, Oliver Willis, Duncan Black, Barb Morrill. To the President's left are Jesse Lee and Macon Phillips from the White House.

Five progressive bloggers interview President Obama in October, 2010.

Read the rest of this post...

Rumors flying that Obama may endorse marriage equality today. Or not.

UPDATE: A few tweets that are spot on about today's rumors.

“@marcambinder: White House cancels its press briefing for the day. #semiotics #couldmeannothing”

“@samsteinhp: if the president is not going to come out in support of SSM then the White House is letting the speculation get a bit out of hand”

Odd story.  The White House seems to have put out the word, to some reporters, that the President will talk to ABC today about his "evolution" on gay marriage.  While it sounds like he just might come out for gay marriage, I'm having a hard time believing it, in spite of the fact that the electoral math arcs in the direction of marriage equality.

I think the worst thing the President could do today is put out some split-the-baby-in-half statement about marriage that only confuses people more, and sends yet another signal that he's simply playing politics with the issue (since he did once support same-sex marriage).

Will the Republicans use a marriage endorsement against the President?  Sure.  And they probably will regardless.  While Mitt Romney will say in the debates that he has the same position as Barack Obama (in order to tick gays off at the President), the RNC and/or its surrogates will almost certainly do "Obama loves gay marriage" mailings to bigots in the south.

This issue is going to come up at the Democratic convention, regardless - the platform committee will have to decide on a request from a number of top Democrats to include support for marriage equality as a platform plank.  It's news if they do, it's news if they don't (and will certainly tick off gays, and their indie supporters, if they don't).  Why not short-circuit the news now by coming out for marriage equality. It's not really news if the President has already endorsed it.

Nip it in the bud.  Evolve already.

PS More evidence from Politico that something may be up. Read the rest of this post...

Marriage-gate continues

Here's ABC's Jake Tapper's excellent questioning of White House spokesman Jay Carney, re VP Biden's embrace of gay marriage and the White House's subsequent panic.

Steve Kornacki writes over at Salon that Joe Biden might be positioning himself for a 2016 presidential run:

[I]f positioning himself for ’16 is on Biden’s mind, then the politics of gay marriage are much different for them than they are for his boss, who will (presumably) never run for office again after 2012 and is interested only in maximizing his appeal to this year’s general election swing voters. Biden has to worry about this year too, obviously, but to be a contender for ’16, he needs to build and sustain as much goodwill as possible with his party’s base. And by now, rank-and-file Democrats are far, far ahead of the Obama White House when it comes to gay marriage.

The pace of the public’s evolution on the issue is kind of amazing. Just eight years ago, when a Supreme Court decree in Massachusetts thrust gay marriage into the Bush/Kerry debate, an NBC News Wall Street Journal poll found that voters overwhelmingly opposed its legalization by a 62 to 30 percent margin. Two months ago, the same poll found plurality support for gay marriage, 49 to 41 percent. Among Democrats, according to the newest NBC/WSJ numbers, support now stands at 67 percent – up from barely over 50 percent in 2008. At this rate, the number could be well over 75 percent by the time the ’16 race formally kicks off.

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post has more about why the White House position, and postering, on marriage is seriously messed up:

But in a way, the confusion over what Biden meant is exactly the point, and again reminds us that Obama’s position just won’t wash. Obama’s claim that he’s evolving on the issue, and his very good record on gay rights generally, has paradoxically made it harder for Obama to continue holding out against gay marriage. His “evolving” position and overall record have left gay advocates fully persuaded that he does favor full equality for gay and lesbian Americans, increasing impatience for him to say so already, and making them all the more certain that his failure to do so is rooted in nothing but political calculation.

All this ends up making it an even bigger deal when someone like Biden seems to be completing that evolution, even if he isn’t. Obama’s good record on gay rights has only served to raise the stakes on his failure to get it right on the issue that goes perhaps most directly to the heart of whether gays and lesbians will have full equality in this country. And so when Axelrod observes accurately that there’s a very a clear contrast between the two men on gay rights, while qualifying it by reminding us that neither Obama nor Biden is prepared to support full equality, it only risks angering people more.

Liz Goodwin at Yahoo weighs in too:

"I just think it becomes very hard for the White House to finesse this much longer," said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay rights in his second term. "We're having a national discussion about this important issue about the way we treat our citizens, and the president can't be on the sidelines."

Socarides said it's "unbelievable" to say Biden wasn't endorsing gay marriage on Sunday. In his comments, Biden added that he doesn't know whether Obama would support same-sex marriage in a second term. The vice president said his feelings changed on the subject after meeting gay families. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said on MSNBC Monday morning that he also thinks same-sex couples should be legally allowed to marry, joining fellow Cabinet member HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, who has also publicly backed gay marriage.

Read the rest of this post...

Joe Biden has evolved. Why not Obama?

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post asks the salient question:

Joe Biden has evolved. Why not Obama? On Meet the Press yesterday, Joe Biden said that he is “absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men marrying women are entitled to the same exact rights...I don’t see much of a distinction — beyond that.”

As Jonathan Capehart puts it: “If Biden can freely say that he’s comfortable with same-sex marriage, nothing should stop Obama from doing the same.”

And yet this required a walk-back. An Obama aide told MSNBC: “the vice president was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue.”

It’s unclear what Biden was saying he is “absolutely comfortable” with, but the lack of clarity here is exactly the point. As good as Obama’s gay rights record has been, this Biden episode confirms again that ever since Obama declared he is “evolving,” his position has been untenable.

What’s more, as Jamelle Bouie notes, it’s unclear coming out for gay marriage is all that politically risky in the first place.

Read the rest of this post...

Biden endorses same-sex marriage, White House tries to take it back

Here's what VP Biden said about gay marriage, from Roll Call:

“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden said. "Frankly, I don't see much of a distinction beyond that."

"More and more Americans have come to understand what this is all about is a simple proposition: Who do you love? … And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that's what people are finding out is what all marriages at their root are about. Whether they're marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals," he said.

Here's what the White House, via top adviser David Axelrod, is now claiming that Biden said:

On his personal Twitter account, Axelrod wrote that what Biden said "that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights" is "precisely" the position of Obama.

Wrong.  Biden talked about the marriages of gays and lesbians being the same as heterosexual marriages.  And Axelrod's attempt to back away from what the White House apparently sees as the radioactive nature of our civil rights is patently offensive.

So, in conclusion: 1. No one will believe Axelrod's denial.  2. The religious right already has been claiming that President Obama is for gay marriage, and they'll use this incident as further proof, regardless of Axelrod's denial.  And, 3. Gays will find Axelrod's denial, and the odd claim that the President supports equal benefits for married gays while he doesn't support the prerequisite for us getting those benefits, marriage itself, hypocritical, political, and offensive.

So, to recap: All Axelrod's denial does is further tick the gays off while doing nothing to dispel the notion on the right that the President already embraces gay marriage.

Dumb dumb dumb. Read the rest of this post...

Right wing talking point: the "Romney, Warren, Obama" position on marriage

If there was any doubt that the right would use President Obama's unwillingness to come out in support of  marriage equality as a talking point, look no further than this clip from the Heritage Foundation.

After a blogger briefing, NOM's Brian Brown was approached by Richard Manning, from Americans for Limited Government, where Manning raised the issue of Obama's position on marriage. It's a bit difficult to hear, but he says:

"You guys are in a unique situation, in that…the fact that the President still has the Rick Warren position of four years ago on marriage. So if they want to take down someone who opposes…diversity in marriage, they should really go after Obama…If I were putting up a website, I'd put him on as a prominent supporter."

The exchange takes place in the last 50 seconds of the video here (and below).

First, let me be very clear: No one on the left is trying to take down Obama by talking about his position on marriage - I'm pointing out an on-the-record position and warning of what's to come.

Second, you read that right -  the right wing is framing opposition to marriage equality as the "Romney-Warren-Obama" position. As Joe and John have said here countless times, this will come up during the campaign and in the debates. I just don't see any way that Obama can effectively distinguish himself from Romney when asked about marriage - and at the same time, people on the left are going to be livid when they hear the President, in essence, agreeing with Mitt Romney and the NOM on stage during the debates. The very real strides made by the Obama administration on many LGBT issues, and his position on DOMA, will simply be overshadowed when it comes down to a question on whether we deserve to be able to get married.

Maybe that's not fair, but it's the reality.

This Romney-Warren-Obama position (particularly Warren, given how most Americans view him favorably) helps Romney paint himself as a moderate (though Romney's utter abandonment of his openly-gay spokesman, in the face of religious right outrage, won't help the serial flip-flopper win the middle). Further, I'd argue the President's position hurts states that will have marriage on the ballot because it undercuts the story of a (very real) momentum we see in support for marriage equality when the leaders of both parties still see our relationships as undeserving of the same respect, rights and protections that come with marriage.  I just don't see any way around this, and I don't see a net gain in votes for Obama - just destroyed enthusiasm among young, LGBT and progressive voters.

  Read the rest of this post...

Cleve Jones wants your stories of workplace discrimination to share with President Obama

As we reported yesterday, Cleve Jones, an icon in the fight for LGBT equality, has been named a White House Champion of Change and is going to meet with the President on Thursday. This meeting between Obama and Cleve is coming at an opportune time. Top staffers at the White House, led by Valerie Jarrett and Cecilia Muñoz, have told us that the President won't sign the non-discrimination executive order. We've also heard that from Jay Carney and other press spokespeople, too. But, Cleve will be talking directly to the President -- and we have not heard directly from Obama on this issue yet. So, Cleve wants to share real stories of workplace discrimination with the President. If you have one, let Cleve know. From GetEQUAL's Robin McGehee:

This week, civil rights advocate Cleve Jones will be honored at the White House as a "Champion of Change" -- a well-deserved honor. Cleve has been at the forefront of our fight for so very long and is truly an inspiration. His work in the LGBT and labor movements have allowed him to champion workers' rights for decades. We know he will press the President to address the issue of workplace discrimination. If you know someone who has experienced workplace discrimination, please share this email with them and ask them to submit their story so that we can share it with Cleve before he meets with President Obama: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6535/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=6883 Everyone deserves to feel safe and protected at work, and to experience a level playing field in the workplace. Sadly, the people who are most marginalized and vulnerable are often the ones who face the greatest discrimination. We need the President to sign an Executive Order now, ensuring that government money is not used by federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT workers, and paving the way for a legislative solution that would bar workplace discrimination across the board!

If you've faced discrimination, share it with Cleve so he can educate the President about the issue. Do it here. Read the rest of this post...

Obama in NC, won't mention Amendment One, frustrating young voters

Today, President Obama will be at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to give a speech on student loan interest rates, which will double in July if Congress doesn't act. That's not the big issue in North Carolina right now. North Carolinians are currently voting on the viciously anti-gay Amendment 1, which will ban marriage equality, and more, in the state. Early voting began on April 19th for the May 8th election.  Much of the opposition is coming from students. The President's campaign issued a statement a couple weeks ago, which stated Obama's opposition to Amendment 1.

Scott Wooledge is hoping that the President will add his own voice to the campaign today:

President Obama is scheduled to appear in North Carolina tomorrow. Will he speak out against the anti-gay amendment, as so many local conservatives and Republicans have already done? The Washington Post says, "Nope."

Scott is referring to an article in the Post titled, "In North Carolina, more evidence of Obama’s delicate approach to gay rights":

Two weeks from now, North Carolina will hold a public referendum on what could become one of the toughest anti-gay measures in the country: a far-reaching proposal to amend the state constitution to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. But President Obama is not expected to touch the subject when he appears in Chapel Hill on Tuesday — even though it is roiling the electorate there.

Ah, yes. That delicate approach. Funny how that delicate approach isn't a factor when money is the issue. This weekend, the NY Times Style section ran a piece on the White House Social Secretary Jeremy Bernard, which contained this nugget:

In a city where White House guest lists are dissected like WikiLeaks cables, insiders have already seen the hand of Mr. Bernard in the presence at the dinner for Mr. Cameron of nearly four dozen “bundlers,” or people who solicit campaign checks for Mr. Obama from their friends and associates. Mr. Bernard has at the same time become an important White House gatekeeper for prominent gay people, one of Mr. Obama’s most important but impatient constituencies, which remains frustrated that the president opposes gay marriage (Mr. Obama has said his views are “evolving”). In recent months, the president has turned more and more to gay men and women in search of new veins of large campaign donations, particularly after antagonizing Wall Street, a traditional but now less fruitful source of cash.

So, the gays are a new vein for cash for Obama. But, Obama still needs to be delicate on gay issues -- or something like that. Anyway, back to North Carolina. We've heard repeatedly that campaign manager Jim Messina is targeting young voters this year. They are an important part of his roadmap for victory. Yesterday, Think Progress reported "Half Of Recent College Graduates Are Jobless Or Underemployed." Not so good. Those young voters are going to need something to get them motivated to vote for the President. So, let's hear from some of the young voters in North Carolina, a key battleground state. There's this:

[Obama's] delicate sidestep of Amendment One, a ballot initiative to be decided May 8 that would recognize marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal domestic partnership in North Carolina, is seen by some as another sign that he is not fully committed to gay rights — an interpretation that could dampen the enthusiasm of the young voters he is trying to court. “It’s a little bit of a missed opportunity,” said Josh Orol, 20, a sophomore at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a leader of a campus movement to defeat Amendment One. “I didn’t expect him to talk at length about it. I know he has come out publicly against it. But I sort of hoped he would at least name-drop a little bit. It’s disappointing.”

Disappointing isn't exactly the kind of thing that inspires these voters. And, this:

Nonetheless, that approach is frustrating younger activists, many of whom have come to view marriage equality as the defining civil rights cause of their generation. They are impatient with Obama’s self-described “evolving” position on gay marriage — he supports civil unions but stops short of endorsing legal protections for marriage — and they are looking for signs that he is ready to embrace their cause more fully. “The ‘evolving’ position does frustrate people, especially young people, because it’s such a no-brainer to us,” said Jeff DeLuca, 21, a senior at UNC-Chapel Hill and another organizer against Amendment One. “When it’s all said and done, young people are going to vote this down 70-30. There is just a very strong generation gap.”

We've been pointing out this generation gap repeatedly. Obama's campaign has apparently built a ferocious organization in North Carolina. Messina could put that machine to work to help defeat Amendment 1. There is already an impressive campaign underway to defeat Amendment 1. Our side's t.v. ads began airing yesterday. We can win -- and we need help from all of our allies to turn the tide. Just seems like the Democratic convention in Charlotte could be a lot more fun if North Carolina defeats Amendment 1. Read the rest of this post...

Cleve Jones is a White House Champion of Change, will meet Obama this week

Cleve Jones, a major force in the quest for LGBT equality, has been named a White House Champion of Change, according to his Facebook page and a tweet:

I'm looking forward to meeting President Obama in the White House this week as part of the Champions of Change program.

Yep. Cleve is going to meet with the President this week. Great timing, considering the ongoing controversy over the LGBT non-discrimination executive order. Cleve, who now works in the labor movement, speaks with great moral authority on issues relating to LGBT equality and discrimination. I hope the White House will listen closely.

For those who may not know, Cleve cut his teeth in the movement working with Harvey Milk. Most recently, he helped organize the October 2009 March for Equality. (He also notes on his facebook page that he didn't get invited inside during the march.) And, he was the visionary behind the AIDS Memorial Quilt.

If you watched the L.A. production of "8, The Play," you saw Cleve playing Evan Wolfson.

The White House "Champions of Change" website states:

The best ideas come from the American people. Everyone has a story to tell, everyone has a part to play.

I imagine Cleve Jones has some stories to tell. Read the rest of this post...

Wash Post blasts Obama decision on LGBT Exec Order: "no principled reason"

The fallout continues.

Today, there is really strong editorial from the Washington Post on last week's decision by the Obama administration to say no to the LGBT executive order:

WHITE HOUSE press secretary Jay Carney spent a good chunk of his time during a briefing last week trying to explain why President Obama has declined to issue an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Mr. Carney struggled for some eight minutes but was unable to give a satisfactory answer. That’s understandable, because there is no principled reason for refusing to extend such workplace protections to millions of Americans.

There is "no principled reason." You can watch Carney's eight minute struggle here.

And, the Post's editorial also disabuses the White House talking point about working to pass ENDA instead:

The president, Mr. Carney argued, “is committed to lasting and comprehensive non-discrimination protections,” but those protections would be best achieved through a “legislative solution,” such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). ENDA, which would extend prohibitions against sexual orientation discrimination to all but the smallest private-sector employers, is a worthy piece of legislation, but its passage appears remote and likely will remain so if conservatives control either chamber of Congress or if the GOP candidate captures the White House in November.

Focusing on the grand gains achieved through legislation also ignores the important role played by executive orders and other administrative acts in paving the way for change. Mr. Carney, for example, pointed to the 2010 repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as a model of legislative achievement, but he failed to note that independent presidential action preceded the repeal. Before Congress voted to ditch the wrongheaded policy that prevented openly gay men or lesbians from serving in the military, the president took steps on his own to require, for example, review by higher-level officers before a service member could be ousted.

The president played a pivotal role in the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and also deserves credit for refusing to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. He should again seize the mantle of leadership by issuing an executive order that prohibits the federal government from doing business with contractors that fail to guarantee basic fairness to their LGBT employees.

This still makes no sense, beyond the fact that is was a misguided political calculation.

I hope that Valerie Jarrett and Cecilia Muñoz, who convened last week's meeting with LGBT advocates and a couple of lobbyists, are working on a solution. Jim Messina should be concerned, too. (He mostly worries about collecting LGBT money for the campaign.) This was a no-brainer -- and it's clear from the editorials and commentary from the traditional media that no one is buying the White House spin. Yes, it's become an ongoing problem. Didn't have to be. Shouldn't have been in the first place. It does make one wonder who actually makes these inept decisions. Read the rest of this post...

White House LGBT Exec Order debacle: One week later, still mired in controversy

A week ago, the White House announced that the President wouldn't be signing the LGBT non-discrimination Executive Order. And, the fallout continues. I have to imagine that the political geniuses on the campaign and at the White House figured that this would slide by. After all, we're now smack in the middle of the campaign. Their opponent, Mitt Romney, has been burnishing his anti-gay credentials, including an endorsement from the race-baiters at NOM. Surely, they must have calculated, this will be a mere bump in the road.

Wrong -- like so many calculations made by Team Obama, especially when it comes to the LGBT community.

In Roll Call, "The newspaper of Capitol Hill Since 1955" (sub. req.), Rep. Jared Polis took a whack at the White House:

“Without a Congress that’s willing to pass [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], I wish the president was a little more aggressive to pursue nondiscrimination,” openly gay Rep. Jared Polis said in a brief interview Monday.

The Colorado Democrat, a leader in the LGBT Equality Caucus, said Obama made a strategic misstep last week when he announced he wanted Congress to move on enacting a nondiscrimination policy for all workers rather than issue an
executive order that could protect employees working for federal contractors. With a Republican-led House and a Congress now focused on the elections, the chances of passing a gay-rights-oriented bill this year are dim at best. And the prospects could remain equally grim if Democrats fail to win back control of the House in November.

“I was disappointed they haven’t reached out yet,” Polis said, noting that he had not spoken with anyone in the administration sincelast week’s announcement. “They certainly have a lot of explaining to do in the LGBT community.”

They're not explaining it well at all.

Watch this exchange between White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and the Washington Blade's Chris Johnson.

Okay. So, now, they want to do ENDA legislatively - and it's like DADT? The only thing like DADT is the way Carney is obfuscating, just like Gibbs did when he got DADT questions.

Speaking of DADT, Chris Geidner has an analysis pointing out four reasons why the contractor executive order is not like DADT:

Asked if the administration misjudged the response from Obama's supporters to the decision not to pursue the executive order, Carney defended the decision as "the right approach."

He said, "The president believes that, in this case, the right approach is to try and build support for ENDA. I think that a good example, again, is to look at the approach that was taken by this administration in dealing with his commitment to repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and working with Congress and working with the Pentagon to make sure that that came to pass. There was criticism at the time that we weren't taking the right approach. In the end, I think, it has been shown to have been the right approach and to have been an effective approach in building support and ensuring that in its implementation ... that the implementation itself has been extremely effective."

There are four major distinctions between what happened surrounding DADT repeal and what is going on with the administration's actions to advance LGBT workplace protections, distinctions thus far ignored by the White House.

Geidner's four distinctions, all backed up with supporting info., are:

First, the control of Congress was in the Democrats' hands in the 111th Congress.

Second, although a formal moratorium on DADT discharges was not put in place prior to DADT repeal, the administration did take interim steps to lessen discrimination while awaiting legislative action on the repeal.

Third, unlike with DADT repeal, the relevant agencies appear to be fully on board with the executive action being sought here.

Fourth, unlike the DADT discharge change, the additional effects of the proposed executive order being sought by advocates with regards to workplace discrimination have impact beyond that which would be achieved by ENDA.

Kinda demolishes the White House arguments.

Yesterday, Mike Signorile wrote a great post over at Huffington, providing some context for what the White House decision means politically and for the LGBT movement:

The problem for the campaign is that the White House itself brought this issue to everyone's attention by calling the meeting of LGBT activists, inspiring reports of a "rift" with gays where there previously wasn't one, and it's not going to go away anytime soon, as activists now have the support of LGBT people across the country who are suddenly focusing in on this issue.

One thing that's being asked is how gay leaders allowed this to happen. Paul Yandura, a gay former Clinton aide, says the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) gave the administration a pass, with HRC sitting on its polling on the issue when it should have released it publicly months ago, and NGLTF not even sending out a press release right after the meeting to criticize the president.

A larger problem is that HRC endorsed the president a year ago, and all the group appears to have gotten in return was his presence as a speaker at their annual dinner. That helps them sell lots of tickets, but doesn't do much in attaining tangible rights. Had HRC not endorsed Obama until now, they could have told the White House, "This is what we want for our endorsement."

The gay groups worried about losing access not only do a disservice to the LGBT movement in this regard, but by not publicly making it clear that refusing to sign the order will be a bigger headache for the president than that imagined during any "panic," they badly serve the president, as well.

This should never have been a controversy. The White House needs to fix it -- fast. Read the rest of this post...

"Laughable" arguments, "insider game" advocacy led to White House failure on LGBT Exec. Order

I had the opportunity to listen to Mike Signorile's interviews with Tico Almeida from Freedom To Work and Paul Yandura on Friday -- in the wake of the major screw-up from the White House over the LGBT non-discrimination executive order. Both provided fascinating insight. Fortunately, today, Mike posted the audio of those interviews, along with a post highlighting some of their key points. If you're at all interested in how this issue played out, read Mike's post and listen to the interviews:

“It was weak, it was shallow, it was unpersuasive,” said Almeida of White House arguments made against signing the order, appearing on my radio program on SiriusXM OutQ. “It floated back and forth between different reasons. It wasn’t even consistent. There were a few younger, junior staffers who made some arguments that were just laughable. Really embarrassing.”

Almeida believes the rejection of the order is political. He theorized it was caused by “panic” at the White House in an election year, as the issue had suddenly risen above the radar in the media, after two gay men, members of the direct action group Get Equal, planned to confront Obama about it at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.

In a separate radio interview, Yandura, who helped create Get Equal and has been critical of the White House for what he sees as foot-dragging, agreed: “The [activists at the] Easter Egg Roll was [a] brilliant move. That got the issue into the mainstream press. It got the White House smoked out on this.”

He criticized some gay groups for giving the president a pass on the issue, in the past and now.

“HRC sat on the polling they did [on this issue] from six months ago,” Yandura charged. “It was clear that the groups -- and if you want to say it in positive way -- the groups were trying to give the White House space to do the right thing. I would say they weren’t advocating on our behalf. I was told that everyone had agreed they were going to play an insider game. Well, I think we now as a community can see when you play an insider game, this is what you get.”

“The first email I see come out of NGLTF, after this big meeting that Rea Carey’s in, is a fundraising email,” Yandura continued. “They’ve sent nothing out to their list on this. So, if they’re supposed to be leading on ENDA -- they’re failing. I think we can watch by, 'What are our groups doing now?' Why wouldn’t Rea Carey and Joe Solmonese grow a pair and come out and say ‘I’m not going to stop until you sign this?’”

Game on.

Of course, we're annoyed. But, it's been especially fascinating to watch the hugely negative reaction from people outside of LGBT activism to the President's decision. It doesn't make sense, but Tico and Paul provide some good insights. Read the rest of this post...

Another annoying column with the same-old -- and wrong -- DC conventional wisdom on marriage

The circa 2004 conventional wisdom on marriage appears in the Washington Post column, The Fix, today. Of course, The Fix regurgitates the conventional wisdom on marriage. The Fix is inside baseball and gets to talk directly to "Democratic strategists" -- and, as we all know, Democratic strategists are so amazingly smart that every thing they say should be believed. Even if not much of it is based in reality:

According to Fix interviews with more than half-dozen Democratic strategists, basically nobody in Obama’s party is expecting him to make the switch before the election. And even supporters of gay rights suggest the timing might be wrong.

While many may see it as the right thing to do, they say pulling such a switch would be too difficult this close to an election.

“I don’t expect him to change his position at this point,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “On the one hand, it would be a welcome surprise for many, and on the other hand, be seen as politically motivated and polarizing to others because of the timing.”

Most Democrats agreed that raising the issue in the context of the election might be counterproductive even for the gay rights movement itself.

And, we all know that more than a half-dozen Democratic strategists can't be wrong. So, thank you, The Fix and Democratic strategists, for telling us what you think. I know this might be a stretch, but I'd encourage The Fix -- and those Democratic Strategists -- to take a fresh look a recent polling.

The Fix alleges that the anti-marriage forces have more intensity. That's not true anymore, as evidenced by last month's Wall Street Journal/NBC News. That poll shows more support for marriage by a 49 - 40 margin (that fact hasn't seem to permeate the minds of the DC insiders yet.) Think Progress dug into the numbers, which show that 32% strongly favor marriage, while 31% strongly oppose it.

So a better question might be what will it do to enthusiasm if Obama says during one of the debates that he still thinks same-sex couples aren't equal. Is it going to get him any right-wing votes. Of course not. But, it's going to be painful to hear for a lot of gay Americans and our allies, particularly those young voters who Jim Messina is assiduously courting.

Last May, Kerry Eleveld and I guest-hosted Mike Signorile's show on Sirius/XM OutQ. One of our guests was polling guru Nate Silver, who had recently published a post titled, "Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority." Nate told us that Obama was already behind the trend of public opinion, "It's too late for [Obama] to get ahead of the trend." And, he said that was true for Democrats and Independents.

And, maybe The Fix could step outside of its usual pattern of talking to the same old strategists and interview someone like Dr. Gary Segura. Last month, Segura wrote an important post titled, "Why Latinos are Ahead of Barack Obama on Marriage Equality." Latinos are the fastest growing voting demographic in the country -- and another prime target for Messina and the Obama campaign. But, Gary isn't a DC insider, so his insight might not matter to The Fix. Gary is just a professor at Stanford. Actually, he's Professor of American Politics and Chair of Chicano/a Studies in the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity at Stanford. Gary is also a principal in the polling firm, Latino Decisions. And, he has been an expert witness the major marriage cases, including the Prop. 8 case.

It's always painful to read the same old-CW about gay issues. But, today's column in The Fix appears so out-of-touch, it looks like someone from the Obama campaign choreographed it.

I used to play along with the idea that Obama was evolving. That's gotten old and outdated already. Now, it's clearly a political calculation the White House is making not to announce support marriage. And, I don't like people playing politics with my equality. So, I'm with Mike Signorile now: Obama must come out of the closet on gay marriage. Read the rest of this post...

Criticism mounts over Obama's punt on Exec. Order. NYT calls it "cynical hedge"

It didn't have to be like this. The White House could have done the right thing and issued the LGBT non-discrimination executive order for federal contractors. But, somehow, the geniuses that run the place decided against it. Not sure why, but no doubt, it was another inane political calculation on their part.

Today, an editorial in the NYT takes the President to task:

Many federal contractors already have antidiscrimination policies. With Congress gridlocked over the issue, Mr. Obama had the chance to immediately extend protections against anti-gay employment bias to the rest of the employees of federal contractors without imposing a significant new burden on business. Yet the White House said no such executive order “will be issued at this time.”

It is unclear why Mr. Obama declined to do the right thing here. He has taken actions against discrimination, like repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against openly gay service members. And he has voiced opposition to proposed state constitutional amendments in North Carolina and Minnesota to bar same-sex marriage. His hesitation to ban gay bias by government contractors, like his continued failure to actually endorse the freedom to marry, feels like a cynical hedge. It’s hard to see the political sense in it, and it is certainly unhelpful to the cause of full gay equality under the law.

I think this White House makes political calculations based on what their opponents will do (see, for example, this NYT article on how FOX News sets the agenda for the FDA.) The President's political strategists don't factor in what their allies will do in response to negative news. That's because most progressives just sit back and take it. We don't. You'd think they'd know that by now.

John linked to Peter Wallsten's article in today's Washington Post. The first two paragraphs are an indicator of what's to come:

Gay rights activists vowed Thursday to step up political pressure on the White House over President Obama’s refusal to sign a nondiscrimination executive order, with some decrying the decision as an attempt to avoid controversy before the November election.

One prominent liberal donor said he would spend $100,000 to fund a “We Can’t Wait” campaign targeting Obama, a takeoff on the president’s own slogan for his efforts to use administrative actions as end runs around what he has termed an obstructionist Congress. The donor’s money will be used to fly victims of discrimination at federal contractors to Washington to confront Obama and his aides and gin up public attention.

It shouldn't have to be like this. But, it is.

Also, today, at the Washington Post, a column by Joe Davidson, titled: Why Did Obama Refuse Executive Order?

Why indeed?

And, anyone buying the White House "we want to pass ENDA" line needs to read, White House Whopper on ENDA Executive Order, by Jillian Weiss. In response to Jay Carney's claim that the White House is "aggressively pursuing passage of ENDA." Jillian wrote:

What?! Someone's pants are on fire, and they're not mine.

Here's why she wrote that:

On ENDA, the White House never weighed in, despite the fact that there only a few votes needed to pass it, and, in fact, declared they wouldn't, as it wasn't their place to do so.

This is a shell game -- watch the pea under the shell and see if you can figure out where it is this time. The Democrats have successfully played a shell game with LGBT rights for quite a long time.

In my 2010 meeting with Melody Barnes, the Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, this is what happened:

She also noted he has mentioned ENDA, and that he believes it should be integrated into the agenda. He has articulated his support and will continue to. "We are not a barrier," she said. But, she continued, "we look to the Senate leadership; they know what we support and if the President were to push issues it would be a long list. It's up to them."

The White House doesn't have a valid policy reason for why they're not doing this executive order, which means politics is at play. And, it means they're more worried about the reaction from the professional homophobe community than what the LGBT community thinks. Disturbing to think that's how these decisions are made by the Obama team. Read the rest of this post...

Sen. Merkley, ENDA Sponsor, "deeply disappointed' by White House fail on LGBT Exec. Order

From Greg Sargent tonight:

Jeff Merkley reminds us that he’s an excellent Senator by hammering the White House for punting on the executive order barring discrimination by federal contractors against LGBT workers.

Here's what Greg linked to:

Washington, DC- Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley, the lead sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, issued the following statement after reports that the Obama Administration won’t take action to bar federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers.

“I am deeply disappointed that the Administration will allow companies that accept federal contracts to discriminate against workers on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Such discrimination in the workplace is unacceptable. There is no way that equal opportunity exists for all Americans when such discrimination is tolerated.

“I appreciate the President’s support for ENDA and will keep pushing for legislative action. However, an executive order would be a very constructive step forward and help build momentum to pass the bill. It’s disappointing that the White House is passing on an opportunity to make immediate gains for equal opportunity in America.”

Also, Greg has a post on the White House executive order debacle, warning them to "Stop playing it cute on gay rights":

There’s no denying that Obama and his advisers have a very good overall record on gay rights. But on this issue, and on gay marriage — two hugely important topics to the gay community — there’s too little clarity and too much of a whiff of excuse-making and political calculation.

Bad political calculations. Really bad. Read the rest of this post...