Comments on: Obama to NAACP: ‘Our gay brothers and sisters … still denied their rights’ http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/ Same dork, new year! Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:38:37 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1 hourly 1 By: Manos Torgo http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1423 Manos Torgo Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:04:27 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1423 The 2004 election is prime example why they vote on bills not likely to be passed or even containing certain parts they object to. Its so they can say they voted for "it" and their future opponent can't say they voted against a bill, regardless of the nuance involved. We've become such an "either, or" society its difficult to discuss let alone take action. The 2004 election is prime example why they vote on bills not likely to be passed or even containing certain parts they object to. Its so they can say they voted for “it” and their future opponent can’t say they voted against a bill, regardless of the nuance involved. We’ve become such an “either, or” society its difficult to discuss let alone take action.

]]> By: Gard http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1420 Gard Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:26:54 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1420 My understanding is that McCain didn't agree with the funding either. I don't understand why they pass things they know that the president is going to veto (unless they know they have enough votes to override.) It seems like they could save everybody a lot of time and frustration if they would work these things out beforehand. I'm not in law or politics, though, so what do I know. I'm also waiting for the backlash to Obama not signing the bill. I've seen nothing yet so maybe they are waiting for the actual veto. My understanding is that McCain didn’t agree with the funding either. I don’t understand why they pass things they know that the president is going to veto (unless they know they have enough votes to override.) It seems like they could save everybody a lot of time and frustration if they would work these things out beforehand. I’m not in law or politics, though, so what do I know.

I’m also waiting for the backlash to Obama not signing the bill. I’ve seen nothing yet so maybe they are waiting for the actual veto.

]]> By: PG http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1419 PG Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:16:55 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1419 I hate this BS of sticking in amendments that are completely irrelevant to the main purpose of a bill. I could see putting something about DADT in a DOD bill, but what on earth does the DOD have to do with hate crimes legislation? Federal hate crimes are almost wholly under the DOJ's purview. It's just a way for certain Republicans (McCain and a few others duly excepted) to try to force Obama to sign a DOD funding bill that he and Gates oppose. I am sure Aravosis et al. will try to spin this as another "betrayal" by Obama, but put the hate crimes legislation up as a straight yes-no vote and we can make it happen. I hate this BS of sticking in amendments that are completely irrelevant to the main purpose of a bill. I could see putting something about DADT in a DOD bill, but what on earth does the DOD have to do with hate crimes legislation? Federal hate crimes are almost wholly under the DOJ’s purview.

It’s just a way for certain Republicans (McCain and a few others duly excepted) to try to force Obama to sign a DOD funding bill that he and Gates oppose. I am sure Aravosis et al. will try to spin this as another “betrayal” by Obama, but put the hate crimes legislation up as a straight yes-no vote and we can make it happen.

]]> By: Gard http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1417 Gard Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:01:18 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1417 He's expected to because he stated he would veto any DOD bill that still included F-22 fighter jet funding. http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid98991.asp He’s expected to because he stated he would veto any DOD bill that still included F-22 fighter jet funding.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid98991.asp

]]> By: dd http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1416 dd Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:23:00 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1416 Not to worry, I'm sure Obummer will veto it. Not to worry, I’m sure Obummer will veto it.

]]> By: wondermann http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1414 wondermann Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:10:18 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1414 good speech, I hope the NAACP gets it good speech, I hope the NAACP gets it

]]> By: Tyler http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1411 Tyler Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:07:55 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1411 Hate crimes amendment passes! They haven't closed the vote yet but I have at least 63 ayes (including Collins, Lugar, Voinovich, and Snowe). Hate crimes amendment passes!

They haven’t closed the vote yet but I have at least 63 ayes (including Collins, Lugar, Voinovich, and Snowe).

]]> By: Prup (aka Jim Benton) http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1408 Prup (aka Jim Benton) Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:17:38 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1408 If we want to compare sizes of our grievances, I <i>could</i> point out he said nothing about atheists, could say his 'how they worship' specifically excluded us, and could even argue how much more persecuted we are in some places -- there ARE gay Representatives, but only one who <i>might</i> be an atheist. But that's just silly. He doesn't have to make a list of every discriminated group every time he speaks against discrimination. He made his point, and he included us ... wonder how the 'Obama won't do anything for us because blacks are homophobes' will rationalize this one away. If we want to compare sizes of our grievances, I could point out he said nothing about atheists, could say his ‘how they worship’ specifically excluded us, and could even argue how much more persecuted we are in some places — there ARE gay Representatives, but only one who might be an atheist.

But that’s just silly. He doesn’t have to make a list of every discriminated group every time he speaks against discrimination. He made his point, and he included us … wonder how the ‘Obama won’t do anything for us because blacks are homophobes’ will rationalize this one away.

]]> By: Manos Torgo http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1406 Manos Torgo Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:33:57 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1406 He's certainly doing what he can to keep the NAACP relevant by supporting the broader mission of fighting discrimination and promoting reforms that increase opportunities for all Americans. You're right he neglected to mention transgendered, but so too did he neglect to mention Sikhs who in the days after 9/11 were killed, attacked or otherwise harrassed. I tend to let such things slide or we get into the whole thing of "oops you forgot to say _______group" So long as the overall tone is one of inclusion and the goal is to remove forms of discrimination, I can get behind that. He’s certainly doing what he can to keep the NAACP relevant by supporting the broader mission of fighting discrimination and promoting reforms that increase opportunities for all Americans.
You’re right he neglected to mention transgendered, but so too did he neglect to mention Sikhs who in the days after 9/11 were killed, attacked or otherwise harrassed.
I tend to let such things slide or we get into the whole thing of “oops you forgot to say _______group” So long as the overall tone is one of inclusion and the goal is to remove forms of discrimination, I can get behind that.

]]> By: PG http://lawdork.net/2009/07/16/obama-to-naacp-our-gay-brothers-and-sisters-still-denied-their-rights/#comment-1404 PG Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:21:24 +0000 http://lawdork.net/?p=2631#comment-1404 NAACP is still kinda old school ... transgender might have just confused some of them. V. cool though -- totally compensates to *me* that the streets are all blocked through midtown for Obama's motorcade :-) NAACP is still kinda old school … transgender might have just confused some of them. V. cool though — totally compensates to *me* that the streets are all blocked through midtown for Obama’s motorcade :-)

]]>