Not that I don't appreciate Solmoneze, Signorile, et al, but we really need people like Lance to appear on these shows, looking young and fresh, and staying on a consistent message. Lance never deviates from his central theme, which is that regardless of the issue, bullying to marriage to benefits, the end result is teenagers who feel "less than" and are dying because of it. It's a consistent, emotional plee that can really get mileage, even in the flyover states.
Kudos to Anderson for reaching out beyond the stock professional gays for someone to comment.
I saw this interview when it aired originally and at the end I wondered something aloud to my partner. When Anderson asked Dustin about why our rights needed to be done now in the midst of the economic strife and the 2 wars being fought I was a little peeved that we miss this point all along. This IS an economic security issue first and foremost. The inalienable right to love who you love is a given. But we need to be saying to the American public that OUR families are struggling just like you but they don't have the protections married straight people do.
We need to be pointing out the story about the one widower who had to sue for access to his deceased partner's Social Security benefits for their child to have.
We need to be pointing out the story of the two lesbians who had to go through hell with a hospital in CA that despite all the legal papers in place wouldn't let a woman's partner see her or participate in her care.
We need to to be pointing out the story of the widower who lost the house he and his partner had because it wasn't in his name even though they bought it together.
We need to be pointing out the story of the couple who struggle with health care costs but must deal with mounting health care bills because one of them doesn't have health insurance and the other can't help because his employer doesn't offer it.
We must talk about the couple who have 1 or 2 or 3 kids and must deal with the daily issues involving school and day care issues.
We must talk about the couple who has to fork over all this money just to get the legal paperwork necessary to protect themselves in case of an emergency and the precedents against them in court if a challenge should be made.
These are the real life microcosms we need to be talking about. In this difficult economy, giving us marriage equality only allows the safety net of law to protect our families from economic devastation or complication.
While I completely agree with you, I think you've misunderstood the argument the other side is making. They don't care if we're in a bad economic situation, just like they don't care that our rights are infringed upon. They consider dealing with the recession and Iraq more important because those are the issues that directly affect them.
I haven't misunderstood the argument of anyone. For years we keep talking about our rights. Why not break down the rights? While Dustin makes a good and nice comment about teen suicide, it is much larger than that. We need to remove the sole picture of sex from the GLBT tag in people's minds. We must broaden it with an argument that besides the fact that I love a man, my daily life is no different. We all want to talk about inalienable rights to love and all but when it comes down to it, we want the right to be for that lack of a better word, "normal." our audience is not winning the minds of the politicians, it is about winning the minds of the public. And the public right now is beginning to ask questions and we need to be there with answers.
We need to show them that we lack the economic security they have and that we only are demanding parity with little cost. In a nation where people listen to the news 5 minutes or less a week and care more about a beauty pageant winner than an actual court case announcement, we need to bring the argument down to their level and tell them what we want and show that the only change is a religious exception and gender neutrality in the marriage certificate qualification criteria. I think it is us too that are misunderstanding the argument. Until we get it that is when we win.
We keep coming to the table with the "Let me love who I want" argument like we need approval or something. What we require is the protection the 1100+ rights we are seeking under the umbrella of marriage, not the approval. Until the American public gets that we will not succeed. It is on this basis if you read the arguments in the court cases and legislative action taken is why we win.
I am tired of the "Them" argument. Let's stop demonizing our opponent and step around and have an honest dialogue with the American people.
The gay community is not doing itself any favors by not showing the impact of discrimination against gays. There is the myth of gay affluence that covers up the truth.
Here's what a recent study on the issue says:
"The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law conducted a study of gay households using the 2000 Census, the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and the 2003 and 2005 California Health Interview Surveys. Their research, released this week, found a number of counter-intuitive effects. Far from affirming the media-constructed ideal of a gay lifestyle, in fact, the study reports, "The myth of gay and lesbian affluence is just that—a myth. Lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals are as likely to be poor as are heterosexuals, while gay and lesbian couple households, after adjusting for the factors that help explain poverty, are more likely to be poor than married heterosexual couple households." In short, according to study author M.V. Lee Badgett, "The report highlights a significant segment of the poor and low-income population that has largely been ignored. The data clearly undermine the persistent myth that the gay community is monolithically affluent. As a group, quite the contrary is true."
http://www.realjock.com/article/1386/
Gay groups need to connect the dots that if you are paying more in taxes, not able to obtain spousal benefits, having to hire lawyers to cover the cost of protecting our relationship under the law and a myriad of other things- then you are going to on average be poorer than straight couples. Instead we create this illusion that the issues involved are mostly abstract rights rather than real world harm. This approach only serves those who wish to harm us.
I've been making this argument to friends, as well. IMO, there's a large segment who is uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage but they're also strongly against the idea of discrimination. (For example, the case in Hawaii that started the gay marriage ball rolling was based on a non-discrimination amendment that the voters approved.)
We can win over those people by spelling out the discrimination and, thus, making the idea of gay marriage bans more appalling than rethinking their idea of marriage. To be blunt about it, if you're for "the idea that marriage should be for one man and one woman" you're also in favor of all the difficulties gay couples face when they can't be married.
Two stories I'd add to your great list of examples:
There was a lesbian couple who married in MA but then had a bad breakup. One parent took their child and moved to a state that didn't recognize their marriage. If it had happened with an opposite-sex couple, it would have been considered kidnapping, but since the marriage wasn't recognized, there was no legal basis for a custody battle.
Also, while it's great if your employer covers partner health benefits, if they do the premiums paid by your employer counts as additional income by the IRS, meaning you have to pay taxes on that benefit... and if your HR department isn't sharp that can cause all kinds of confusion about how to calculate your withholding. This is a minor issue compared to the others, but when my partner talks about it to married friends they're positively appalled because they wouldn't accept such a situation for themselves.
But ITA, we have to start talking about the rights of marriage and what it means to be denied them. Most people take marriage for granted and haven't given any thought to how difficult things would be if they couldn't marry.
A person I know, Michael, lost his partner in an accident two years ago. His partner was a federal government employee. The two of them adopted a boy from China years before. Michael originally adopted him and his partner later finalized his rights as a father to his son via a second parent adoption when they moved to Maryland. It took Michael almost a year and many lawyer $$ later for the Social Security death benefits and federal government pension to be directed to their son because the federal government had an issue with recognition of the second-parent adoption. Imagine if this happened to a straight couple? It wouldn't.
Hillary Rosen, Joe, Michaelangelo (especially on his show) have been making this argument day in and day out. I've seen it in several interviews on MSNBC and other news outlets. The financial impact on a variety of gay issues (Marriage more than the rest) have been laid out via polls and study data.
I just don't think DLB, as great as he is, is as familiar with the all the talking points.
Sorry but the HRC and their "wait lets not offend or advance" lot are not really arguing this effectively. When you take almost three presidents to get just a vote on hate crimes or ENDA, something is not being done right. And frankly the leaders across the board are not engaging the grassroots as much as they should be. Sure HRC has some great analysis and family programs going for it but its lobbying voice as well as other GLBT orgs is not effective enough for me.
You said in your first post that they should be arguing the financials of this...they are...I see it daily on news programs, articles and websites (there is even downloadable talking points about it.)
I disagreed with that part of your post.
HRC is not effect on the whole...but I was relpying to your comment in this thread, prior to you taking this into a further attack on gay organizations.
I respect your opinion here GayTVluver, but I am just not seeing it or it being done effectively enough. That is my perspective and you are free to dispute it because you see something different. What I see is organizations asking for a lot of money and not much being done. What I see is "wait he and we have a plan." I will agree with you that the information is there, but what I contend is that it isn't being sold well at all. Lately as a community, not just the GLBT orgs, we have focused on Mormans, religion, and inalienable rights for our talking points. I am just lending my voice to the fact taht we have to pick up these facts more and be more vocal in getting around hot button baiting by the press and focus on the real stats. I really don't hear it myself and I do watch and read as well.
Hillary Rosen made the argument on CNN during a panel discussion a few days ago...she always mentions the financial burden placed on gay couples because we're not allowed to marry. HRC has a downloadable list of benefits (financial and otherwise) that gay couples are denied. Michaelangelo had on tax experts recently...he's had on accountants...he's had on gay rights experts who have argued that gay people have an unfair financial burden put on them. Each of these people have also argued, on TV, that studies show that states and local municipalities benefit when gay people are allowed to marry. Almost every single discussion I've seen on the recent Obama proclamation has been criticized because it's still financially unfair for the gay couples.
One of the main arguments made for having the push for federal marriage more visible than the other gay struggles is that so many rights and benefits come with the recognition.
I guess we're just watching/listening to different shows.
I thought Anderson's segment was much better than Rachel's or Olbermann's. Then again, I probably shouldn't blame them for the fact that Baldwin and Solmonese are sell-outs.
anderson said that would be the easiest thing obama could do, but i heard that he could also easily do an executive order for DADT to postpone discharges...(is there more to an executive order?)
I am at work, so i had to strain to hear some of what was said. (i have loud co-workers), but lifting the HIV travel ban has budget issues? budget issues for....what? i'm confused on that.
I am surprised CNN didn't get someone from NOM to argue with them about this.
I love it when politicians give an opinion without any backup. It's like "I'm a senator/congressman/President and I speak for God!". Noooo, you work for us and please explain your actions like the good employee you're supposed to be. (I want to add "dumb shit", but I just couldn't)
Since it was Congress that enacted the law only Congress can repeal it. Obama can mute certain things but he cannot ignore it. It's the law. Until Congress gets off their collective asses it's not going to be done. The authority does not rest with Obamo it rests with Congress
JC is right. However, the president could use the stop-loss option and halt funding on prosecutions if he wanted. This year he could have $0 out the budget for the DADT but he didn't.
If the administration and Congress were not playing games with this like its a hot potato, he may have had a point. However, Obama has said he can do nothing until Congress acts. Congress says it can do nothing until Obama requests it (Reid's comment this week on the subject). When discusing the issue, the WH Press Secretary has been to put it nicesly dodging and weaving. The argument over repeal given their behavior is not a real one because no one is trying to repeal the law. They are trying to dodge addressing the issue.
I agree Congress is culpable here too but from an administrative stand point he can have an impact as well. I agree with JC only because the President needs to do some more symbolic things to show his belief in our cause. How about attending a gay wedding? How about meeting with Lt Choi to listen to his story? How about meeting with PFLAG parents? How about attending a gay social event that is NOT a fundraiser? How about voicing his support for HIV AIDS travel and Immigration Inclusion for G/L partners in a way that shows his support beyond a speech. President Obama can influence by action and he can also make sure his agenda with Congress includes gay rights issue check ins. Both sides of our government need to pay attention but it takes the presidents boldness sometimes to get it done.
ignore the rest of the facts surrounding the punting of the issue. The things you describe are symbolic. I am interested in substantive changes that will be a sea change shifting of how the government views homosexuality. It's the classification that's killing us. Meaning that because we are not a protected class that means we are subject to discrimination. The more we are a protected class, the easier it will be to argue in courts and with subsequent law that we should not be subject to discrimination. It's the dominoe effect. A right built in one area builds toward other rights.
Symbolism in the run up to legislative action means a lot. We need total change and I am for that. The hemming and hawing politicians do with some of these easy items needs to be pushed by a leader. A leader would show up at a gay or lesbian wedding and have their presence alone speak where they stand. I agree the classification is important and should have been taken care of with ENDA long ago as it already is in some states and cities. But what we require is for someone to have a profile in courage and show up. If Obama showed up, it would cause discussions pro and con for weeks and make people take stock in what needs to be done. This would all be done without a spoken word, just a simple press release: "President Obama will be attending so and so's wedding." I bet you if he did, it would affect change.
I'm with you on the specifics Craig, its what we need to do to get the public also on our side that matters too though.
Actually, even that study acknowledges that Congress is necessary for a permanent solution, as the other possibilities are essentially stop-gap measures to stop enforcing DADT and then getting everyone used to life without DADT, leading to its eventual repeal by Congress. Note p. 4 of the actual study itself, from the link near the top of that press release.
Now, bully pulpit is all his, and that's one of the best weapons in the President's arsenal.
True indeed. Additionally, as President, Barack Obama has been incredibly hesitant to send any legislative packages to Congress, like financial oversight reform, health care reform, stimulus packages....
Oh, wait.
Presidents sent legislation to Congress all the time. Now, at that point, Congress may well sit on their butts and do nothing--witness the Military Readiness Enhancement Act--but it's not like the President's hands are completely tied.
Additionally, 10 USC 12305 allows the President of the United States to suspend separations of military members during any period of national emergency, defined as any time members of a reserve component are involuntarily serving in active duty. That, too, is the law, as enacted by Congress. Given that our country is currently in this state, President Obama could, right now, literally halt the separation process of any homosexual member of the military with a signature, and do so completely within the laws as enacted (and even intended!) by Congress. He has as yet been unwilling to do so.
While the authority to repeal the law on a permanent basis definitely lies with Congress, and the ball isn't completely in the President's court until he's handed a bill that's been passed by both houses of Congress, the reality is nonetheless that there are things that could be--and are not being--done.
You would never know by reading this blog site that the 95% of the population that is not gay has no ill will towards those that are gay. Most people have a "live and let live" attitude towards all of our fellow men that walk this life on earth with us. Really, why would I wish heartache on anyone?
The gay community today has the same problem it has always had. Heterosexuals are disgusted at the thought of a man having sex with another man. Most people are willing to look the other way... until the homosexual agenda is forced down their throats. The harder the gay agenda is promoted in this country, the more difficult it becomes.
Most states have voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Even in California the vote has been 70% against. The only answer we hear from the gays on these votes is "discrimination." Not a good answer. I want my gay friends to be happy, but don't ever think I will accept gay marriage. CASINO ONLINE
I'm so glad you've come to this site and brought up the Gay Agenda.
I can't tell you how many meetings with gays I've gone to over the years and not once - not once! - have we had a properly organised agenda. And it's impossible to get through business properly without one. Now that you're here, could you let me know what the Gay Agenda is?
And, if it's not too much trouble, could you point out the Gay Minute Taker, too (because we never get reliable minutes in our mission meetings to take over the world).
In return I can offer you a Gay Coffee and a Gay Doughnut (many apologies that we don't have any ring doughnuts - they were exciting too many double entendres about gay sex. Oops, I've grossed you out now! Many apologies).
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and please remember us in your Christmas newsletter.
I don't remember seeing Brin being mentioned in the newsletter. Y'know the one that lists all the gay men and lesbians by their coming out date... like a birthday. ;-)
If Brin isn't actually gay, that'll mean that Gay Central has over-ordered on the toaster ovens this year. I guess one of us will just have to volunteer to go and convert a heterosexual man.
But can I suggest that we don't recruit another Republican Senator or fundamentalist preacher - we have too many of them already and I've noticed that at General Gay Meetings we've no longer got anywhere to put coats with all the senators and preachers jamming themselves into the closets. I swear to God that if we get one more of them, we'll need a crowbar to separate them. :-)
I'm sure it'd come as a lovely surprise to someone. And as they wouldn't have known they were gay or lesbian until they received their toaster over, they'd have the perfect excuse for not having properly accessorised clothing/dungarees.
DLB needs to do this more often
Not that I don't appreciate Solmoneze, Signorile, et al, but we really need people like Lance to appear on these shows, looking young and fresh, and staying on a consistent message. Lance never deviates from his central theme, which is that regardless of the issue, bullying to marriage to benefits, the end result is teenagers who feel "less than" and are dying because of it. It's a consistent, emotional plee that can really get mileage, even in the flyover states.
Kudos to Anderson for reaching out beyond the stock professional gays for someone to comment.
Economic Security
I saw this interview when it aired originally and at the end I wondered something aloud to my partner. When Anderson asked Dustin about why our rights needed to be done now in the midst of the economic strife and the 2 wars being fought I was a little peeved that we miss this point all along. This IS an economic security issue first and foremost. The inalienable right to love who you love is a given. But we need to be saying to the American public that OUR families are struggling just like you but they don't have the protections married straight people do.
We need to be pointing out the story about the one widower who had to sue for access to his deceased partner's Social Security benefits for their child to have.
We need to be pointing out the story of the two lesbians who had to go through hell with a hospital in CA that despite all the legal papers in place wouldn't let a woman's partner see her or participate in her care.
We need to to be pointing out the story of the widower who lost the house he and his partner had because it wasn't in his name even though they bought it together.
We need to be pointing out the story of the couple who struggle with health care costs but must deal with mounting health care bills because one of them doesn't have health insurance and the other can't help because his employer doesn't offer it.
We must talk about the couple who have 1 or 2 or 3 kids and must deal with the daily issues involving school and day care issues.
We must talk about the couple who has to fork over all this money just to get the legal paperwork necessary to protect themselves in case of an emergency and the precedents against them in court if a challenge should be made.
These are the real life microcosms we need to be talking about. In this difficult economy, giving us marriage equality only allows the safety net of law to protect our families from economic devastation or complication.
Our spokesmen fail to mention this every time.
While I completely agree
I haven't misunderstood anything
I haven't misunderstood the argument of anyone. For years we keep talking about our rights. Why not break down the rights? While Dustin makes a good and nice comment about teen suicide, it is much larger than that. We need to remove the sole picture of sex from the GLBT tag in people's minds. We must broaden it with an argument that besides the fact that I love a man, my daily life is no different. We all want to talk about inalienable rights to love and all but when it comes down to it, we want the right to be for that lack of a better word, "normal." our audience is not winning the minds of the politicians, it is about winning the minds of the public. And the public right now is beginning to ask questions and we need to be there with answers.
We need to show them that we lack the economic security they have and that we only are demanding parity with little cost. In a nation where people listen to the news 5 minutes or less a week and care more about a beauty pageant winner than an actual court case announcement, we need to bring the argument down to their level and tell them what we want and show that the only change is a religious exception and gender neutrality in the marriage certificate qualification criteria. I think it is us too that are misunderstanding the argument. Until we get it that is when we win.
We keep coming to the table with the "Let me love who I want" argument like we need approval or something. What we require is the protection the 1100+ rights we are seeking under the umbrella of marriage, not the approval. Until the American public gets that we will not succeed. It is on this basis if you read the arguments in the court cases and legislative action taken is why we win.
I am tired of the "Them" argument. Let's stop demonizing our opponent and step around and have an honest dialogue with the American people.
To add to your excellent post
Exactly
I've been making this argument to friends, as well. IMO, there's a large segment who is uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage but they're also strongly against the idea of discrimination. (For example, the case in Hawaii that started the gay marriage ball rolling was based on a non-discrimination amendment that the voters approved.)
We can win over those people by spelling out the discrimination and, thus, making the idea of gay marriage bans more appalling than rethinking their idea of marriage. To be blunt about it, if you're for "the idea that marriage should be for one man and one woman" you're also in favor of all the difficulties gay couples face when they can't be married.
Two stories I'd add to your great list of examples:
There was a lesbian couple who married in MA but then had a bad breakup. One parent took their child and moved to a state that didn't recognize their marriage. If it had happened with an opposite-sex couple, it would have been considered kidnapping, but since the marriage wasn't recognized, there was no legal basis for a custody battle.
Also, while it's great if your employer covers partner health benefits, if they do the premiums paid by your employer counts as additional income by the IRS, meaning you have to pay taxes on that benefit... and if your HR department isn't sharp that can cause all kinds of confusion about how to calculate your withholding. This is a minor issue compared to the others, but when my partner talks about it to married friends they're positively appalled because they wouldn't accept such a situation for themselves.
But ITA, we have to start talking about the rights of marriage and what it means to be denied them. Most people take marriage for granted and haven't given any thought to how difficult things would be if they couldn't marry.
Add one more personal story
A person I know, Michael, lost his partner in an accident two years ago. His partner was a federal government employee. The two of them adopted a boy from China years before. Michael originally adopted him and his partner later finalized his rights as a father to his son via a second parent adoption when they moved to Maryland. It took Michael almost a year and many lawyer $$ later for the Social Security death benefits and federal government pension to be directed to their son because the federal government had an issue with recognition of the second-parent adoption. Imagine if this happened to a straight couple? It wouldn't.
This argument is being made...
Hillary Rosen, Joe, Michaelangelo (especially on his show) have been making this argument day in and day out. I've seen it in several interviews on MSNBC and other news outlets. The financial impact on a variety of gay issues (Marriage more than the rest) have been laid out via polls and study data.
I just don't think DLB, as great as he is, is as familiar with the all the talking points.
Solomnese and some others
Addison...
You said in your first post that they should be arguing the financials of this...they are...I see it daily on news programs, articles and websites (there is even downloadable talking points about it.)
I disagreed with that part of your post.
HRC is not effect on the whole...but I was relpying to your comment in this thread, prior to you taking this into a further attack on gay organizations.
I respect your opinion
I am also not seeing that argument
I see it often
Hillary Rosen made the argument on CNN during a panel discussion a few days ago...she always mentions the financial burden placed on gay couples because we're not allowed to marry. HRC has a downloadable list of benefits (financial and otherwise) that gay couples are denied. Michaelangelo had on tax experts recently...he's had on accountants...he's had on gay rights experts who have argued that gay people have an unfair financial burden put on them. Each of these people have also argued, on TV, that studies show that states and local municipalities benefit when gay people are allowed to marry. Almost every single discussion I've seen on the recent Obama proclamation has been criticized because it's still financially unfair for the gay couples.
One of the main arguments made for having the push for federal marriage more visible than the other gay struggles is that so many rights and benefits come with the recognition.
I guess we're just watching/listening to different shows.
I'm impressed
HIV travel ban...
anderson said that would be the easiest thing obama could do, but i heard that he could also easily do an executive order for DADT to postpone discharges...(is there more to an executive order?)
I am at work, so i had to strain to hear some of what was said. (i have loud co-workers), but lifting the HIV travel ban has budget issues? budget issues for....what? i'm confused on that.
I am surprised CNN didn't get someone from NOM to argue with them about this.
I love it when politicians
Human equality...
...is NOT a priority for President Obama and all the federal legislators?
What is wrong with America? *tears* :(
DADT
So you are telling me...
...that the Democratic President has NO influence on the Democratic congress? Sad! And NOT good enough!
You guys should have party whips like we do Canada! [Party whips are useful (and fun!)] That way there would be less stupid excuses!
I'm so darn frustrated by the continued injustice in all directions! It's mind-numbingly depressing! :(
In JC's defense
JC is substantively wrong
Further explanation...
I agree Congress is culpable here too but from an administrative stand point he can have an impact as well. I agree with JC only because the President needs to do some more symbolic things to show his belief in our cause. How about attending a gay wedding? How about meeting with Lt Choi to listen to his story? How about meeting with PFLAG parents? How about attending a gay social event that is NOT a fundraiser? How about voicing his support for HIV AIDS travel and Immigration Inclusion for G/L partners in a way that shows his support beyond a speech. President Obama can influence by action and he can also make sure his agenda with Congress includes gay rights issue check ins. Both sides of our government need to pay attention but it takes the presidents boldness sometimes to get it done.
It's accurate if you
Symbolism
Symbolism in the run up to legislative action means a lot. We need total change and I am for that. The hemming and hawing politicians do with some of these easy items needs to be pushed by a leader. A leader would show up at a gay or lesbian wedding and have their presence alone speak where they stand. I agree the classification is important and should have been taken care of with ENDA long ago as it already is in some states and cities. But what we require is for someone to have a profile in courage and show up. If Obama showed up, it would cause discussions pro and con for weeks and make people take stock in what needs to be done. This would all be done without a spoken word, just a simple press release: "President Obama will be attending so and so's wedding." I bet you if he did, it would affect change.
I'm with you on the specifics Craig, its what we need to do to get the public also on our side that matters too though.
double post
This is inaccurate
Ultimately, it IS accurate...
Actually, even that study acknowledges that Congress is necessary for a permanent solution, as the other possibilities are essentially stop-gap measures to stop enforcing DADT and then getting everyone used to life without DADT, leading to its eventual repeal by Congress. Note p. 4 of the actual study itself, from the link near the top of that press release.
Now, bully pulpit is all his, and that's one of the best weapons in the President's arsenal.
Gar vethed e-chunen; go hon bedithon na meth.
Congress!
True indeed. Additionally, as President, Barack Obama has been incredibly hesitant to send any legislative packages to Congress, like financial oversight reform, health care reform, stimulus packages....
Oh, wait.
Presidents sent legislation to Congress all the time. Now, at that point, Congress may well sit on their butts and do nothing--witness the Military Readiness Enhancement Act--but it's not like the President's hands are completely tied.
Additionally, 10 USC 12305 allows the President of the United States to suspend separations of military members during any period of national emergency, defined as any time members of a reserve component are involuntarily serving in active duty. That, too, is the law, as enacted by Congress. Given that our country is currently in this state, President Obama could, right now, literally halt the separation process of any homosexual member of the military with a signature, and do so completely within the laws as enacted (and even intended!) by Congress. He has as yet been unwilling to do so.
While the authority to repeal the law on a permanent basis definitely lies with Congress, and the ball isn't completely in the President's court until he's handed a bill that's been passed by both houses of Congress, the reality is nonetheless that there are things that could be--and are not being--done.
Gar vethed e-chunen; go hon bedithon na meth.
D.L.B.
Gay community.
Gay Agenda?
I'm so glad you've come to this site and brought up the Gay Agenda.
I can't tell you how many meetings with gays I've gone to over the years and not once - not once! - have we had a properly organised agenda. And it's impossible to get through business properly without one. Now that you're here, could you let me know what the Gay Agenda is?
And, if it's not too much trouble, could you point out the Gay Minute Taker, too (because we never get reliable minutes in our mission meetings to take over the world).
In return I can offer you a Gay Coffee and a Gay Doughnut (many apologies that we don't have any ring doughnuts - they were exciting too many double entendres about gay sex. Oops, I've grossed you out now! Many apologies).
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and please remember us in your Christmas newsletter.
Newsletter
Damn It!
If Brin isn't actually gay, that'll mean that Gay Central has over-ordered on the toaster ovens this year. I guess one of us will just have to volunteer to go and convert a heterosexual man.
But can I suggest that we don't recruit another Republican Senator or fundamentalist preacher - we have too many of them already and I've noticed that at General Gay Meetings we've no longer got anywhere to put coats with all the senators and preachers jamming themselves into the closets. I swear to God that if we get one more of them, we'll need a crowbar to separate them. :-)
Solution
I think we just declare someone an automatic gay or lesbian and send the toaster as a special surprise gift.
I like your thinking