There isn't that much that Obama can do simply as the president for gay rights, this is one of them. It isn't like he can either completely get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and he can't do much about Federal recognition of Gay Marriage. Most of the things in the 2008 democratic platform in regard to Gay Rights need congressional majorities that I'm just not sure are there.

Most likely way to get rid of DADT is probably going to be sticking it in the defense appropriation bill and forcing the Republicans to filibuster *that*.

Federal Recognition of Gay Marriage isn't going to happen in this congress.

Also, I'd be surprised if any state passes gay marriage in the next year. The likely candidates (New York, New Jersey) tried recently and failed...

Randy

My thoughts exactly. Unlike many a politician, Obama is actually giving the community a tangible benefit rather than just a never realized campaign promise that needs more than a POTUS to pass. This is actually within in his power to do for them.

LOL. Plenty of politicians see everyone as interest groups. ;)

No I see your point, and I understand it's one that more people than just you hold. My point is simply that the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular -- the branch of government that has the responsibility and authority to decide whether statutes and executive actions are constitutional or not -- has said that this way of doing things is constitutional. Plenty of people can and will disagree with them, but unless the Supreme Court changes its mind, it's probably not much more than a theoretical argument.

I was thinking of the courts, too. The courts have overturned lots of federal regulations over the years.

There would be no reason for the courts to overturn this particular action by the President (which isn't, I've realized on looking at it again, even an executive order -- it's a memorandum to the Secretary of Health and Human Services). It doesn't do anything other than ask the Secretary to begin to the rulemaking process and to make additional recommmendations back to the president. There's nothing to challenge in court there, because no final action is taken. The challenge would appropriately come when regulations are actually promulgated and are being enforced. Then an entity subject to those regulations could sue, alleging that the rules exceed the authority given DHHS by Congress.

Since I'm not sure it's been linked anywhere in this thread, here is the President's memo.

:D Exactly. Part of the "'I'm oppressed/need a voice/have a special interest, too' checklist."

That's one reason why, when politicians seemingly do "good deeds," I don't celebrate the politicians. I look at the positives and negatives associated with the "good deeds" and acknowledge that they all go on the politician's resume`, of sorts.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1259050824.jpg

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

But in reference to executive orders, only two. One during Clinton and one during Truman?Eisenhower?

That's what the Wiki says (and it says Truman). I don't know otherwise.

It begs the question, though: How many have been challenged in court? If 200 have been challenged, that's a 1% strikedown rate. But if it's only 4, that means a 50% strikedown rate.

And like I said, an executive order's not involved here.

True, but that doesn't mean he should use his hope and change bull to get people excited that equality is coming their way when in fact it's not. I'm not saying he specifically stated he was going that route, but he gave a lot of his gay supporters the impression he was.

Hospital visitation rights? How about some REAL benefits for same sex couples? Like I said, nothing but crumbs and only because some gay rights activists have been asking the " what have you done for me lately" to Obama.

Also DADT should NOT be repealed, just altered to not allow people to be discharged due to accusations or third party rumors.

Sorry for the rant but I do not care for this President, I feel like he just told certain voting blocs what they wanted to hear to get elected and it annoys me that people still haven't seen through his BS.

Oh...everyone sees through every politicians' BS. Don't misunderstand Obama's supporters. Democrats would be equally wrong to think that Republicans didn't see through Bush I and II's BS (ie. Read my lips and We won the War!) Every politician promises people things they can't deliver, and every politician appeases key constituents with executive orders and the like. Bush gave lots of things to the religious right that are comparable to this "not an executive order."

No.

If you look at the polls, people have a distrust of government. As much as I personally like Obama, in the end, he like everyother politician in this world is just that, a politician. At some level, the vast majority of people that actually pay attention to what is going on know that there is a level of BS in everything a politician does. The rest of the people don't even really know who any of these people are.

None of this translates to "everyone sees through every politicians' BS."

I'm generalizing, but the vast majority in my opinion do. Of course, during an election season, people get excited because it's time to boot the old regime, but I think there are very few who are really drinking the kool-aid.

There are far too many who ARE drinking the Kool-Aid of politicians. Honestly if people saw through BS, half the people that have been elected over the years never would have made it into office.

I mean some polls showed during the 2000 elections that some voters were voting for George Bush because they liked his rhetoric AND because he looked like someone they could have a beer with. When I heard that I knew there was a crisis because people don't use common sense, and as a result they don't see through the BS. They buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I hope not. I definitely think they should be able to visit their loved one in the hospital, but I don't think that we should go so far as to legalize gay marriage.

And with respect to another question posed in the thread about why the government is involved in marriage, I suppose that is because so many things involved in marriage are intertwined with areas regulated by the government, so that's why they have so much "say" concerning marriage. But I do agree about the taxation issue. But then again, I don't just find it troublesome with how married people are taxed, I have problems with how EVERYONE is taxed. :cool: