Gibbs: DADT on Hold Until 2011?

@Stonewaller. Dear brother, if marriage laws were enacted for child procreation; then why is a childless marriage, for whatever reason, still valid? Why are the elderly, who are past childbearing age, allowed to marry? Why are people allowed to marry, divorce, and re-marry, repeatedly?? Just look at Larry King. At last count he was on wife # 7!! The salient point, which you appear to miss, is that SS marriage boils down to a matter of 'equal treatment under the law'. Because my partner and I are not legally 'married'; we pay additional taxes as we have to file separate returns. We are denied a HOST of benefits 'married' couples enjoy and if one of us chose to enter military service, (actually we're BOTH veterans); he would have to LIE about his sexual orientation to avoid disqualification. We MUST continue to ceaselessy push for equal rights or we'll never get them. We are simply demanding that to which we are entitled, as American citizens. I, for one, will settle for nothing less.

Suffragettes used initiative and referenda to advance cause of womens' right to vote which was established in states be Under Equal Protection, Blacks are subject to strict scrutiny, women to intermediate scrutiny and LGBT to reasonable basis test. Standards are based on history not biology. Even though some enter marriage with no intent to bear children, others find themselves sterile or infertile and still others marry past childbearing years, that does not change fact that marriage laws were enacted for reasons having to do with procreation. State assertion of such will meet reasonable basis test and we will lose. Loving v Virginia did not change the right of states to define marriage. It was basically a Full Faith and Credit case. There is "public morals" exception to FF&C which did not apply in antimiscegenation case which may apply in Same Sex Marriage. Furthermore, equality should not be based on biology in any case.

From licking an envelope to contributing a dollar, only 15% of Gay Californians participated in No on Prop 8 campaign. LGBT due not have economic influence of Jews, political influence of Blacks or numerical influence of Latinos/Hispanics. We may be more assertive than Asians, but our influence is no greater. We should not overestimate our influence or overplay our hand. The "marriage or nothing" strategy is failing. Domestic partnership was succeeding. We need a new strategy. We don't ally with groups sharing common interests such as Latinos and Asians on immigration issues. We only recently became concerned with their issues and only few hundred LGBT showed up at recent rally only few of whom were not directly affected by transnational marriage. Even our Straight sympathizers think that we only care about ourselves and they are right! Classism, racism, sexism, ablism and ageism are rampant in our community which protests discrimination by others. Heal ourselves

By Three-fifths Compromise, Congress limited rights of Blacks. By Dred Scott, Supreme Court limited rights of Blacks. Women's suffrage was voted on by the people -- all male. Separate but Equal is not always unequal (i.e. handicapped access, affirmative action, first cousins marry in only half the states). Roe v Wade superseding successful legislative effort for abortion has led to unending culture war. LGBT constitutional lawyers like Bill Eskridge think that judicial decision would be a disaaster. Civil Civil Rights Movement made conscious decision not to make interracial marriage an issue because we felt that it would: 1) not significantly further energize existing activists; 2) not substantially activate non-activists; 3) would mobilize our adversaries on every other issue of concern to us. Sound familiar?

I am sure Blacks would have liked Lincoln to have emancipated them during his first year in office. Did his failure to do make him a racist? I am sure women would have liked Wilson to support suffrage from bully pulpit during his first year in office. Did his failure to do so make him a sexist? I am sure that labor would have liked FDR to support unions during his first year in office. Did his failure to do so make him anti-union? We antiwar activists would have liked JFK to withdraw troops from Vietnam during his first year in office. Did his failure to do so make him a militarist? Should we opponents have supported the opposite party or withdrawn contributions in all cases?

Come on Advocate, the headline should read "Obama to continue firing Gays until 2011" Majorities in both houses and the White House, it is just amazing that Washington still can't get equality passed. I too have decided to hold off, I've decided to hold off on funding any candidates until the report comes out in December.

It makes me laugh, and then feel sad, just how far behind the U.S. from my country in respect to equal rights. Mostly because the U.S. so loudly boasts that it is THE one and only beacon of liberty, justice, and equality in the world. Couldn't be further from the truth. When it comes to equality the U.S. is not a leader. Canada legalized sodomy nationwide in 1969, the U.S? 2003 (the same year Ontario and B.C. legalized same-sex marriage). Canada has allowed Queer people to serve openly since 1992, at this rate the U.S. will be more than 2 decades behind. As before it's so sad it's laughable.

But Barry and Barbara are our "friends." They said so.

Obama is trying to string the LGBT community along; promising repeal of DADT, AFTER the elections.. How can I say this... BULLSHIT!!!! They repeal DADT, BEFORE the November elections or there will be a bloodbath at the polls.

Really? Since 2003? Where's the study you asked for or put together in those 7 years? Where's the documents from all our allies telling you how to go about implementing integration? Where's the Presidential stop gap to keep men and women from being discharged until the law is repealed? 7 years of doing nothing but talk, talk, talking a subject to death.... yeah, that sounds a lot like the Obama I know.