Of course, the ironic part is that Obama's justice department today just defended the Defense of Marriage Act again. It's not as robust a defense as before, and in many respects I keep hearing that his justice department "has to" defend the law even though the White House wants it repealed. But still...wish they could've ended this week with a perfect record.

Pat Robertson's tirade against the signing of the new federal hate crimes statute is so filled with misinformation and lies that it is difficult to know where to begin.

The measure in question makes it a hate crime under federal law to physically attack a person based on hatred of that person's sexual orientation.  Oponents argue that this measure violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause -- nothing could be further from the truth.  This measure identifies a characteristic possessed by ALL Americans -- sexual orientation -- and criminalizes hate crimes committed against people based on hatred of their sexual orientation.  Thus, this measure protects ALL Americans -- just as a heterosexual man who attacks a gay man based on his hatred of homosexuals would be subject to the reach of this law, so too would a gay man who attacks a heterosexual man based on his hatred of heterosexuals be subject to the reach of this law.  In other words, the sword cuts both ways, thereby ensuring that principles of equal protection are not offended.

Robertson opines that a preacher who teaches that homosexuality is sinful could be punished in the event that a member of his or her congregation goes out and attacks a gay person.  This is patent nonsense.  The US Supreme Court has made it absolutely clear that advocacy to break the law is protected speech falling squarely within the protective ambit of the First Amendment; in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Court held that advocacy to break the law is protected by the First Amendment "...except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Does Pat Robertson truly wish to defend the right of religious figures to incite congregations to riot?

Robertson also ignores the fact that the existing federal hate crimes statute already protects people from attacks based on their religious beliefs.  Robertson repeatedly argues that sexual orientation is a matter of conscious moral choice, and that homosexuality is a chosen pattern of behaviour.  Religion, however, is definitely a matter of choice -- people can and do convert from one religion to another (or cease to practice religion) all the time; the fact that religious beliefs are chosen does not detract from the constitutionality of the existing hate crimes statute.

Robertson then insists that the murder of Matthew Shepard was merely an isolated incident, and that the majority of Americans accept gay people and do not hate them.  Would that this were true.  Shepard was by all accounts a kind and decent young man, whose only mistake was to trust two Laramie thugs who attacked him once they learned that he was gay; after pistol-whipping him and smashing his skull to powder, they tied him to a split-rail fence and left him to die (he was found and cut down, but died in the hospital a few days later without ever regaining consciousness).

The rubbish about "the noose [being] tightened" around the neck of Christians is a red herring.  Only when gay people are included in the protective ambit of the hate crimes statute do people such as Robertson protest that the measure in question violates the US Constitution.

Critics of the measure point out that such statutes have been used in other nations to prosecute religious leaders.  What these critics overlook is the fact that these other nations do NOT have equivalents of the First Amendment, which offers great protections to people in terms of their insulation from prosecution merely for speaking out against homosexuality.

It is indeed shameful that a person who claims to represent the teachings of Christ is so willing to spread lies, misinformation, and blatant deception up and down the land...

PHILIP CHANDLER

President Obama has done well by signing a bill which now includes sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of federal hate crimes. Most hopefully, the Obama administration will repeal the intolerant ban which prevents HIV infected people from entering the United States. No one based on sexual orientation or on their condition of HIV/AIDS should be denied entry into the U.S. The other bills listed in the blog must also become law.

This was a great week indeed.

It is great that Obama is taking steps to end discrimination,As I said in another post it will take time to change people's hearts and minds but if they see Obamas example the change will come sooner than we thought. I have the same wish as you do Dave that this will help people in Obama. I love all of you.

Wow. That line from Obama gave me chills as well. Did not expect that coming from him.

But it's actually really obvious to anyone who isn't filled with hatred. Or so you'd think. Did people previously believe that gay sex is a form of violence or "terrorism," or what?

The signing into law of Matthew Shepherd and the lifting of the HIV travel ban are both really great steps forward but "This means that LGBT men and women with HIV will no longer be barred from entering this country, can apply for Green Cards, and can travel to the U.S. to marry their partners if they're coupled with someone from one of the states that recognizes marriage equality" is a bit misleading.

Yes, HIV+ people can now come to the States to marry but their partnership won't be recognised by the federal government if it is with someone of the same sex. If the person is gay their US citizen husband or wife will still be unable to sponsor them for a green card.

The passage of hate crimes legislation and the lifting of the HIV travel ban are both large steps in the right direction but until some kind of federal recognition is given to same-sex couples many, many LGB Americans will continue to experience massive discrimination.

There is much work to be done, but it has been a great week.

I am very proud of our President for doing the right thing! 

Obama's Best Gay Week Ever?

Curious if we will see headlines that read, "Obama's Best Hetero Week Ever"

Why does it matter what motivates a crime (in terms of how the crime is dealt with after the fact)? If a straight man attacks a gay man because he hates homosexuality, why not just convict him for attacking someone?

YOU GO OBAMA!!!

this year is making history as the movement is happening keep it up fellus because we need balls in the white house

Removing "Don't ask Don't tell" will never be completed by Obama!  I say this after some research into this matter. 1st, if people were ably to serve openly, the US would be kicked out of every Islomic country in the wourld.ASAP! 2ed, large numbers of high ranking US military leader's will resign because of the caouse that will follow. 3ed, the US would never again have the ability to train Police and Military personal of Middle Eastern Nations in policies of "tolerence". I spent 10 years in the US military, and have friends still in, so I have access to interview people of authority. The Koran teaches "intolerence" to the Utmost Degree...well beyond what the Bible teaches.

I cannot help but feel that the gay community expects far, far too much from President Obama, who it should be remembered is one man, and whose remit is limited to stewardship of the executive branch of the US government -- not the legislative or judicial branches.

Instead of complaining about what Obama has NOT done, let us look, briefly, at what he HAS done.

He rescinded the ban on persons with HIV from entering the USA or from immigrating to the USA.  Make no mistake -- this issue had a tremendous impact on many, many people.  I personally know people who are in relationships with non-US citizens who have HIV infection -- and these spouses lived in great fear of being found out by the US government, and of being kicked out of the country.  So let's chalk one up for Obama on this issue.

Obama also signed the Matthew Shepard James Byrd Hate Crimes federal statute into law last week -- something that Bush promised to veto were it ever to have crossed his desk.  This measure makes it a very serious federal crime to perpetrate acts of physical violence against any person based on hatred of that person's sexual orientation.  To all those who claim that this measure violates the principles of equal protection -- go back and read your constitutional law manuals, and you will see that the US Supreme Court has already upheld a state statute that was very similar to the new federal statute (however, the state statute in question did not cover sexual orientation) (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)).  Pat Robertson is fulminating and foaming at the mouth regarding this development -- he claims that it will be used against priests and ministers of religion in the event that one of their congregants, hearing a sermon in which homosexuality is condemned, goes out and assaults a gay person based on what he heard during the sermon.  This is utter rubbish, and should be dismissed as such out of hand -- the US Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the First Amendment covers almost all speech, including DIRECT ADVOCACY TO BREAK THE LAW -- I stress that even direct advocacy to break the law is a protected form of speech under existing First Amendment precedent (see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), in which the UNANIMOUS Court, held (per curiam) that direct advocacy to break the law is protected by the First Amendment "...except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Obama has also signed several Executive Orders flatly outlawing sexual orientation discrimination by any branch of the US government.  He even signed an order mandating that the gay spouses of ambassadors to other nations be covered by the federal health care program (an action of dubious legality, given the existence of the DOMA).

Now let's look at the other side of the coin.  Obama's Justice Department filed a brief in federal court arguing in favour of upholding the DOMA.  There are two ways of looking at this action: firstly, as the chief executive officer of the nation, he is obliged by the oath that he took, and then retook after Justice Roberts bungled it, to uphold and defend its laws, regardless of how distasteful he may find such laws; secondly, however, he could have refused to file this brief on personal grounds.  Precedent for the latter course of action does exist -- when Senator Jesse Helms and one of his lackeys in the House passed a law mandating the discharge from the armed forces of any person suffering from HIV infection and the denial of healthcare and other benefits to such people, President Clinton refused to defend that statute when it was challenged in federal court.  Fortunately, Congress removed this provision from the law before it could take effect.

So Obama has not yet taken any course of action favourable to the gay community with respect to the DOMA; and this is a serious issue, given his promise to repeal this ugly and mean-spirited measure.  On the one hand, he is a first-term President in his first year in office, struggling with healthcare and a great many other issues; on the other hand, waiting for the "right" time usually results in absolutely nothing being done.

Obama has also taken no course of action (yet) to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy.  However, this is not a matter that he could resolve merely by signing an Executive Order -- the ban on openly gay persons serving in the armed forces is now a federal statute, and can only be reversed by Congressional action (Congress would have to repeal this law).  Just how much political capital does Obama enjoy with respect to this issue?  Just how much support would he enjoy were he to submit, for Congress' consideration, a bill to repeal the DADT policy?  Are we in fact being realistic when we argue that he has not done enough for the gay community regarding this issue?

It is crucial that we acknowledge political reality.  We have just suffered a heartbreaking loss in Maine, where gay marriage has been repealed by the forces of pure evil -- and I do not make that statement lightly (I consider Maggie Gallagher and others who intentionally and knowingly ripped apart the marriages of gay couples to represent the quintessence of evil, and I believe that we should call these people on their evil acts).  However, it appears that we have won the struggle to retain the State of Washington's "everything but marriage" statute, consideration of repeal of which was put before the voters in a referendum (R-71).  We also won a crucial vote in Kalamazoo, where the existing ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination was retained by a large margin.  It appears that Americans are willing to accept domestic partnerships and civil unions that offer to gay couples all of the substantive rights, benefits, and privilegs of marriage, but are not yet ready to vote for gay marriage at the ballot box.  One response to this is to file suit in federal district court, seeking a declaration that the DOMA is unconstitutional -- however, it is by no means certain that we would win were we to invoke this course of action, and a loss at the level of the US Court of Appeals, or at the US Supreme Court level itself, would be utterly devastating.  Another response is to continue doing what we have been doing over the course of many years -- which is to break down stereotypes and to "come out" of the closet to EVERYBODY -- study after study has shown that those people who claim to know gay people at a personal level are much, much less likely to harbour anti-gay attitudes than are those people who claim not to know any gay people at a personal level.

We have to be realistic here, and we have to be very careful not to shoot from the hip at a time when we are in a state of great disappointment and distress.  By remaining calm and plotting strategy carefully and with regard for the limitations of our political and judicial branches, we will ultimately prevail.

Jay Stewart makes several points in his post above; however, I disagree with him.  The US army would not allow itself to be "kicked out" of every Islamic country in the world should openly gay personnel be permitted to join the armed forces; we are currently not welcome in those nations as it is, and I fail to see how they could "kick out" military forces that are already unwelcome.  As far as regards a large number of senior military personnel resigning -- let them!  The armed forces of every other Western democracy permit openly gay men and women to serve, and these armed forces have not collapsed.  If senior personnel cannot or will not deal with a new political reality, then they have no business being in the armed forces in the first place.  As regards the teaching of "tolerance" to personnel in Middle Eastern nations -- their religion MANDATES intolerance, so I fail to see how the situation could be made any worse by including openly gay personnel in the armed forces (America is already regarded as "The Great Satan" by these nations, so I fail to see how the inclusion of gay personnel in the armed forces could or would shift this dynamic in any real direction).

In short -- let us not yet lay into Obama with both boots.  The jury is still out with respect to his considerations regarding gay Americans, and we should be careful not to leap to conclusions without very careful consideration of political reality...

PHILIP CHANDLER