I’m not sure it’s a slam dunk – 60% of Republicans are against it, but how many of those are against it because it doesn’t go far enough? In other words, there’s a non-negligible minority who don’t want gays in the military at all.
For the record, it isn’t only GLBT people who care about DADT and other GLBT issues. It’s something that’s embbeded into the whole base.
Agreed, but I’m going to have to apologize for the opinion that I hold which is that it’s a very low priority in the grand scheme of things, and that Obama has given it a laudable amount of attention if you ask me. The LGBT community is just looking for a scapegoat. As they can’t hurt the people who voted down Gay marriage in referendums around the country, they are going to string up one of their most powerful allies.
I have very little sympathy for people who are the biggest threat to their own causes.
Bull. They weren’t exactly stoic when Obama yammered on about Iran.
Err…read the question asked in the poll. I don’t think it really leaves room for that interpretation.
He isn’t being abandon because the LBGT are not on the top of his agenda. He’s being abandon because he has not fulfilled the promises he made to us. He has lied to us. I don’t expect the world from him. I think it’s reasonable to expect honesty.
It would be great if an elected representative made us top priority but I think most the gay community can accept that’s not going to happen. We do want representation when we need it and the DNC isn’t offering that. If LBGT priority is so low on the list it does we don’t see representation it isn’t representation and the DNC should stop lying claiming it is.
DADT was supposed to be gone already. He has continued put it off. Now when the gay community is growing closer to open revolt against him he’s decided to bring it up again.
He promised to use his position to weigh in on gay rights issues. To ‘use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws’ When issues important to us have come up he has not had a word to say on them.
Actually he’s been working on DADT the entire time he’s been in office. LGBT community started whinging about how it wasn’t moving fast enough pretty much immediately. Hell even if it started yesterday that qualifies as immediately, even though it started over six months ago.
He’s only served 1/4 of his term, and you guys are ready to string him up. Whatever, you’re not going to get something better by tarring and feathering Obama.
Oh yea, and the economy impacts you too.
I read the article, but didn’t see the actual question asked. The images on that page are not loading for me, though, so if it’s a graphic I can’t see it.
If the question specifically asks if the respondent supports gays openly serving in the military, I take back what I said with pleasant surprise.
Look. I like Obama, I really do. But the fact remains that his failure to address DADT is only one point of contention between him and the gay community. Additional points of ire came from his having a homophobe open his inauguration to filing papers defending DOMA. It’s not just DADT.
And yes, the economy impacts gays. So does getting fired for being gay. Perhaps even more so.
To a large extent, most of my disappointment is aimed at Congress, not the president. But “president” is “national scapegoat” so I don’t really think its unusual or out of line for the gay community to be poking Obama for not acting on the things he promised.
Ah, OK:
Question was: Do you favor/oppose allowing openly gay men/woman to serve in the military.
Wow…must take him a really long time to sign a piece of paper!
Obama could end DADT via Executive Order. Zip, bang, boom done. Granted full ending of DADT requires Congress but Obama could essentially end the practice with no more than a stroke of his pen. Being CiC has its perks.
The LGBT community is asking him for about 10 seconds of his time. What jerks. :rolleyes:
If you think it’s the simple it might be best for everyone if you refrained from voting. I’m not saying you CAN’T vote in case someone was going to bleat about how it’s your right, only saying you should probably refrain.
I think you over-estimate the power of the CiC, he’s been spending the last year building relationships with the Generals who will have to implement that stroke of his pen. They all know it’s coming, thanks to Obama, but none of that matters right?
Yeah, you should probably refrain from voting if you think that’s all there is to it. There is that whole, ‘Not trying to be a big swinging dick before he has built any capital with his Generals’ thing, but no you’re probably right, it’s just a matter of signing a piece of paper. :rolleyes:
Besides didn’t he already end gay discharges with a single order? I thought he put a moratorium on firing for DADT. If I am wrong can people give me some cites for homosexuals who have been fired under DADT over the last year?
Well if the issue is complex maybe he shouldn’t have promised to end DADT in his first year. Is your defense of his actions he lacked the foresight when he made that promise to understand he would need to develop capitol with his generals.
No he has not suspended the implementation of DADT. He could as the other poster noted with the stroke of a pen.
Sorry no cite last I’d read aprox 270 soldiers have been discharged through the don’t ask don’t tell policy since Obama took office.
He promised a whole lot of shit he hasn’t delivered on.
Perhaps.
Well I will trust but verify if someone who cares more about this issue than I do wants to provide a cite.
Sorry, but you’ll have to take your indignation elsewhere. Like Airman said, the gay community has only been helped by one party, a party pretty much under assault from another party whose members actually prayed for the death of a sitting senator. You want to pretend this is like blacks in the South? They waited 100 years before the 14th Amendment got enforced. You can stand to wait a few more years until the economy and other more important issues get resolved.
Other, more important things, came up. Like making sure we didn’t spiral into a depression, health care for 30+ million people, and not actively torturing innocent people in our jails.
If what you say is right, then I completely agree that the number of people who’ve had even one instance of homosexual sex could be closer to 10% and maybe a bit higher.
Which of those things were not on the schedule when he made the promise? Those things were already on the table as well. It also isn’t like the gay community is asking for a lot of his time in order to fulfill his promises.
If he could be so kind as to release one sentence press statements that would be meaningful representation. Instead he withholds saying anything on issues and leaves the gay right advances fighting the fight alone.
Apolitical in this context does not mean “lack of politics”. It means that they are not favorable to policies favored by one party over another. Things like nuclear policy with regard to Iran are not partisan issues, whereas DADT is.
As a matter of fact, such partisan political behavior while in uniform (and thus a representative of the Armed Forces) is a violation of DOD regulations.
I did not see them blatantly supporting any partisan policies, and if they had I can assure you they would have been torn apart in the press this morning.
So evidence (studies/polling) < anecdotes?
I wouldn’t put the number at anywhere over 5% personally (gays just tend to be louder, that’s all;)).