Gay activists laud Obama speech, now want action

NEW YORK (AP) - President Barack Obama's emphatic gay-rights advocacy in his inaugural address thrilled many activists. Yet almost immediately came the questions and exhortations as to what steps should be taken next.
"I was very moved," said Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay-rights group Lambda Legal. "But there's a lot more to do in the four years to come. ... It's not like everything is fine."
Items on the activists' wish list include appointment of America's first openly gay Cabinet member, steps to curtail unequal treatment of same-sex couples in the military and an executive order barring federal contractors from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The paramount priority for many, however, is same-sex marriage. Never before Monday had an inaugural address conveyed support for marriage equality, and activists now hope the Obama administration will take concrete steps to follow up, including escalated engagement in pending Supreme Court cases.
"Why wouldn't they decide to stand on the right side of history?" Davidson asked.
Obama broached the broader issues in his speech by classifying the Stonewall gay-rights riots of 1969 as a civil rights milestone on par with those in the struggles on behalf of blacks and women.
Then, alluding to marriage, he said, "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."
Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights, termed the address "perhaps the most important gay-rights speech in American history."
Among Obama's in-person audience were the Supreme Court justices who will be hearing oral arguments in March on two same-sex marriage cases. They will be considering both California's constitutional ban on gay marriage and provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, which are now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia.
The Obama administration already has said those DOMA provisions are unconstitutional and is no longer defending them, leaving that task to a legal team hired by Republicans in the House.
Gay-rights activists say the Justice Department could take further steps in that case, notably by filing papers with the high court aimed at placing an even higher burden on DOMA's defenders to justify the government's unequal treatment of same-sex couples.
Activists also hope the administration will file a friend-of-the-court brief in the California case, joining with those who argue that the 2008 Proposition 8 ballot measure banning gay marriage in the state violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection.
Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group, said filing such a brief would be a "natural extension of the inaugural remarks," which he depicted as "an incredibly eloquent equal-protection argument."
Political repercussions will probably be discussed further before the White House makes a final decision on the Supreme Court cases, Sainz said. But he suggested the administration had realized - after Obama's re-election - that advocating for same-sex marriage is "both morally right and politically right."
Obama has long portrayed himself as a gay-rights supporter and played a key role in ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in 2011 so gays could serve openly in the military. But only last year, after what he described as a process of "evolving," did Obama come out publicly in favor of gay marriage, and even now legally married gay couples in the military are denied some important benefits accorded to heterosexual married couples.
On Tuesday, the White House directed to the Justice Department questions about whether the administration would file a friend-of-the-court brief in the Proposition 8 case. The department declined to comment.
Meanwhile, the defenders of Prop 8 filed their opening brief with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, arguing that the justices should allow public and political debate over same-sex marriage to continue rather than impose a judicial solution.
Other opponents of same-sex marriage took note of Obama's inaugural remarks, in some cases with alarm and anger.
"Their implications are morally devastating for the definition of marriage," wrote Denny Burk, a professor of biblical studies at the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Burk, in a blog posting, contended that Obama's rationale for legalizing marriage for gays could be extended to polygamists as well.
Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, which has campaigned against same-sex marriage in many states, criticized Obama's decision to raise the topic in his address.
"A presidential inauguration should be a time for the nation to come together," Brown said. "Instead President Obama chose to voice his support for a radical agenda advanced by some of his biggest campaign contributors to redefine marriage for everyone."
"I was very moved," said Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay-rights group Lambda Legal. "But there's a lot more to do in the four years to come. ... It's not like everything is fine."
Items on the activists' wish list include appointment of America's first openly gay Cabinet member, steps to curtail unequal treatment of same-sex couples in the military and an executive order barring federal contractors from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The paramount priority for many, however, is same-sex marriage. Never before Monday had an inaugural address conveyed support for marriage equality, and activists now hope the Obama administration will take concrete steps to follow up, including escalated engagement in pending Supreme Court cases.
"Why wouldn't they decide to stand on the right side of history?" Davidson asked.
Obama broached the broader issues in his speech by classifying the Stonewall gay-rights riots of 1969 as a civil rights milestone on par with those in the struggles on behalf of blacks and women.
Then, alluding to marriage, he said, "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."
Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights, termed the address "perhaps the most important gay-rights speech in American history."
Among Obama's in-person audience were the Supreme Court justices who will be hearing oral arguments in March on two same-sex marriage cases. They will be considering both California's constitutional ban on gay marriage and provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, which are now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia.
The Obama administration already has said those DOMA provisions are unconstitutional and is no longer defending them, leaving that task to a legal team hired by Republicans in the House.
Gay-rights activists say the Justice Department could take further steps in that case, notably by filing papers with the high court aimed at placing an even higher burden on DOMA's defenders to justify the government's unequal treatment of same-sex couples.
Activists also hope the administration will file a friend-of-the-court brief in the California case, joining with those who argue that the 2008 Proposition 8 ballot measure banning gay marriage in the state violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection.
Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group, said filing such a brief would be a "natural extension of the inaugural remarks," which he depicted as "an incredibly eloquent equal-protection argument."
Political repercussions will probably be discussed further before the White House makes a final decision on the Supreme Court cases, Sainz said. But he suggested the administration had realized - after Obama's re-election - that advocating for same-sex marriage is "both morally right and politically right."
Obama has long portrayed himself as a gay-rights supporter and played a key role in ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in 2011 so gays could serve openly in the military. But only last year, after what he described as a process of "evolving," did Obama come out publicly in favor of gay marriage, and even now legally married gay couples in the military are denied some important benefits accorded to heterosexual married couples.
On Tuesday, the White House directed to the Justice Department questions about whether the administration would file a friend-of-the-court brief in the Proposition 8 case. The department declined to comment.
Meanwhile, the defenders of Prop 8 filed their opening brief with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, arguing that the justices should allow public and political debate over same-sex marriage to continue rather than impose a judicial solution.
Other opponents of same-sex marriage took note of Obama's inaugural remarks, in some cases with alarm and anger.
"Their implications are morally devastating for the definition of marriage," wrote Denny Burk, a professor of biblical studies at the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Burk, in a blog posting, contended that Obama's rationale for legalizing marriage for gays could be extended to polygamists as well.
Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, which has campaigned against same-sex marriage in many states, criticized Obama's decision to raise the topic in his address.
"A presidential inauguration should be a time for the nation to come together," Brown said. "Instead President Obama chose to voice his support for a radical agenda advanced by some of his biggest campaign contributors to redefine marriage for everyone."
As a gay activist, I can vouch that Obama has helped the gay-rights movement more so than any previous President. I voted for him with the expectation that he will continue to do so, and I will show my support in him doing so.
 @pdxd Why should gays have special rights?If I had rental home,should I have the right to chose to rent it to?
 @Jim330rifle You have a choice to rent a home to whoever you want, provided that you aren't making the decision based solely on something protected by law. Example, if you are renting a home out and let's say an applicant is gay and had a prior arrest for marijuana, and another applicant is not gay and had no prior arrest, you could easily pick the non-gay applicant based on a clear criminal background. People have the same right to protection from discrimination based on religion, race, gender, disability, it's not a "special right".
 @pdxd  @Jim330rifle You did not answer his question....."Why should gays have special rights?"  Why should they? Â
Â
I think what Jim is saying is that it is HIS house. He should be able to rent it to whomever he wants, for whatever reasons he wants. Â Afterall, it is HIS property, right? Â I do not think it is right for a person to be able to throw a card for whatever reason they feel like because things did not go their way (ie. race,gender,SP,religious, whatever). Â The example you gave sounds a lot like the gay person could play the sexual preference card no matter what the reason for denial actually is. Â I am with Jim. Â I would rather not have to worry about another type of card being played whenever things don't go someones way. Â
Â
If you condone anything, then there are no boundaries. Â We have boundaries for reasons, although some may be silly, or even absurd. Â If we eliminate them one by one, then where will we be at the end? Â If we allow gay marriage and then more and more gay rights, what is next? Â Plural Marriage(polygamy)? This is what happens when you dig in the sand with a Nuclear-powered backhoe.....You just sink. Â
How about appointing the most qualified person to a Cabinet post, not just because a nominee belongs to any one specific interest group? Â
 @jpk I agree, it would be great if appointees were the one best qualified to a post. If the most qualified is a 70 year old gay atheist Latino woman, or a 30 year old Baptitst white man, then lets give it to the person buited suited for it.
Yeah, but nowadays it no longer matters what one has done in the past to qualify him/her for a cabinet position, as long as there is a long tail of political expediency! Too bad!
Yeah, but advisors don't have Cabinet rank!
 @jpk I will say that that there always seems to be some sort of new political cause for someone to take a cabinet post, or a professional cause.Â
Leviticus 18:22 - 24 and 20:13 Romans 1:26-27
 @Jim330rifle Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Â
."If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
Â
If we're going to incorporate the Bible into our legal system, we need to go whole hog. Right?
 @Max Quinn I don't think so.I was just pointing out what the good book says about gays.
@Jim330rifle @Max Quinn The "good book" were parables and stories often handed down thru many generations orally, since few were literate....then put into the mix translation,first written in "old" hebrew, they had only 22 letters in the alphabet, all consonants, latter adding vowels so more translation. Then on to several other languages , greek, there were different variants of the early greek alphabet suited to local dialects so there were problems there. Then we get translation into latin, copic and other european languages before it was written into the king james bible (side note;The 1611 King James Bible was writen more than four hundred years ago when the English language was different. The original 1611 A.D. text shows the language in closer association with its Latin roots. Spelling was in Jacobean style which was not standardized, but could be read phonetically.)
Â
So even the modern day king james bible is a translation for old english, I seriously doubt most clergy in the US can even read old english !
Â
So take much of the "stories and parables" with an understanding that they may not even be near their original meaning !
The "good book" is not all that good.
@Max Quinn @Jim330rifleÂ
Â
This Deuteronomy was kinda weird ??
Â
Deuteronomy 23:1
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
Â
So , what do you think jim ?
Â
I'm not sure sargerator
That's funny sargerator
 @Max Quinn  @sargerator Me worried?
 @sargerator I think parts of the bible were written or interpreted by people indulging in shrooms.
@Max Quinn Â
Â
But what about his gun ?
Â
You know, "this is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fight'n, this is for fun"
 @sargerator Jimmy has a.... um.... rifle, so he's probably not worried.
in related news... scientist discovers cure for heterosexuality
White House already said not much Obama can do for gay marriage as it is state rights, though he seems to want to over rule them on immigration. Just the usual, I'm going to make everyone love me because I talk a good game and I don't have to follow through.
I support gays/lesbians having the same rights and responsibilities as any other LEGAL citizen of the United States.
Â
I do NOT support any rights whatsoever for anyone in the US illegally, no amnesty, no dream, NOTHING even if they are gay..
Â
Illegals have no right to demand anything from our government except deportation
 @FreerideNOT Why should gays have rights?
 @Jim330rifle I agree, sort of.  I do not think they should have any MORE rights than a heterosexual person does.Â
A better question, Why should you have any more rights than any other LEGAL citizen of the United States. Adult homosexuals should have the same rights as you do, including the right to marry the person they love.
 @FreerideNOTÂ
Â
Seriously?  You are arguing that it is a persons RIGHT to get married.  Where is that in the Bill of Rights?  As far as I know there is nothing about getting married to anyone in there.  Among the rights you are granted are Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness, Neither marriage, nor any benefits that come from being married are rights.  You have certain inalienable rights, and so does everyone else.  The argument that you are making is absurd.  You arguing for EXTRA rights.  Heterosexuals do not have special rights granted to them BECAUSE they are Heterosexual.  Do you feel that you are better than they are?  Explain to me WHY you think a homosexual person should be granted special rights because they love a person of the same gender as themselves?  I guess you think a heterosexual couple has rights that a homosexual couple doesn't?  I seriously want to hear a logical, rational argument.  I have yet to hear one.
Â
Marriage is a religious institution. Has always been so, and has nothing to do with RIGHTS.Â
Â
What you are really asking for here is for everyone to condone being gay. Â That is just not going to happen.
Â
The comment on the goat......VERY immature and well, just dumb. Â Make an argument or don't. Â
Real,
Â
A typical stupid response to a valid question. You have the right to marry the one you love so should anyone else. It is quite a reach for even the dumbest among us to think that one would want to marry outside of their species.
Â
Opps, perhaps you have thus how is your goat doing, expecting?
 @FreerideNOT They do have the SAME rights I do.  If they are a woman, they can marry a man.  If they are a man, they can marry a woman.  My rights are NO different.  What you are saying is a different type of argument.  Along with your line of thinking, If I LOVED a horse, then I should be able to marry it also, or maybe a Gorilla is a better comparison?  Stupid argument.  Heterosexuals do not have any special heterosexual rights, why should homosexual people have special rights?
Hey, a beaver scarf...... cool  :)
 @kramr Love the Avatar. Funny stuff.
These are the same folks that are "up in arms" over the prez's comments !
Â
" In the past 24 hours, Rekers, a board member at the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and cofounder of the Family Research Council, has claimed he took Lucien to Europe to inspire him to accept Jesus into his heart and renounce his homosexuality. "
Â
The family research council, formed by james dobson, look up how he made his miilions off ted bundy, yep, hypocrits to the bone !
Â
Warning, link has some (as the church lady would say) "Â nasty stuff" this proclaimed christian did !
Â
And these guys are very prominet in the republiCON circle in DC !
Â
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy/full/
Illegal aliens want action too. Will the Bamster bend over to every special interest during his second installment?
Yes !
"Items on the activists' wish list include appointment of America's first openly gay Cabinet member . . . ." Cabinet members should be appointed on the basis of their professional qualifications for the job, and never on the basis of their sexual orientation. Having a gay Cabinet member is NOT a right of the LGBT constituency.
I too decline to comment.
 @Pointblank I think you just did.Â