With friends like those...but never mind. My remark wasn't in good taste.
“I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ ” Mr. Obama told an audience of nearly 3,000 people at a fund-raising dinner for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay advocacy group. “That is my commitment to you.”
The president’s emphatic declaration, on the eve of a major gay rights rally here, brought a huge roar from the crowd at the star-studded black-tie dinner, where tickets cost as much as $1,000 and entertainment was provided by the singer Lady Gaga and the cast of the new Fox comedy “Glee.” But outside the room, the president’s words met with a chillier reception.
Bil Browning, a blogger for Bilerico Project, a Web site aimed at a gay audience, said moments after the speech ended that the site was flooded with critical comments by people who said they had heard nothing new. “I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing,” one wrote.
Even inside the room, reaction was mixed. Terry Penrod, a real estate agent from Columbus, Ohio, said some gay rights advocates were being impatient with the president, while Raj Malthotra, 29, a management consultant from Washington, said he thought the speech was a rehash of Mr. Obama’s past promises.
“For him, it’s buy more time until he needs our votes again,” Mr. Malthotra said. [...]
“An opportunity was missed tonight,” Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents gay and lesbian soldiers, said in a statement afterward.
Mr. Obama spoke for about 20 minutes inside the packed Washington Convention Center; outside, a small band of protesters on the sidewalk carried banners urging the president to live up to his promises. Among them was Mark Katzenberger, a software trainer from San Francisco, who said that despite his disillusionment with Mr. Obama, he would probably vote for him again.Capturing the feeling of many in the gay community, Mr. Katzenberger said, “Even our friends sometimes need a kick in the butt.”
It does occur to me, though, that the gay rights movement is starting to remind me of something. The Democrats can be sure of the votes of same-sex attracted people in America, because although the Dems offer little more than lip service to the goals same-sex attracted people have, the other party tends to be a lot less conciliatory or welcoming. Oh, sure, you have the Log Cabin Republicans and Rudy Giuliani, but aside from that, you're not going to see a lot of support within the GOP for ending "Don't ask, don't tell," let alone pushing to redefine marriage in America and then imposing this new definition on Americans in such a way that they are stripped of their religious freedom, along with, eventually, the right to free speech, assembly, and association, which is usually what happens when some huge moral injustice leaps out from penumbric emanations and terrorizes the nation.
Philosophically, then, the Democrats are the best party for those who want gay marriage, gay special privilege, imposed acceptance of a lifestyle based on homosexual activity upon the population, legal punishments for anyone who adheres to the Judeo-Christian notion that homosexual activity is sinful, and the like. But politically--ah, there's the rub; politically, despite all the lecturing we've been getting from the MSM on how Unevolved and Troglodytish it is not to rejoice in and celebrate sexual perversion, support for same-sex marriage or other special privilege based on homosexual activity is a nonstarter. Even today, a majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage; thirty states have constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage.
So the Democrats can count on the votes and support of the die-hard gay-marriage supporters; at the same time, though, they have to be somewhat muted about it, because even moderate Democrats vote against same-sex marriage when given the opportunity. This means that for those who really, really want action on same-sex marriage or other gay rights initiatives a long period of disappointment may be ahead; the Democrats don't want to alienate their own moderates, and they certainly don't want to annoy those within their own party who don't want to see policies like DADT be ended, or other gay rights initiatives passed.
What is likely to happen? I think the Dems will throw a few crumbs in the way of the gay-rights supporters; they will also make a lot of noise about gay-friendly policies that lack the political will to pass Congressional muster, and then blame the Republicans for blocking these things. And every couple of years, the Democrats will magnify their few efforts in the gay-rights arena while ignoring the many failures or planned inactions; they will go through the motions of asking gay-rights supporters for their votes, knowing full well that they already have them locked up.
Like I said, I'm reminded of something. Seems to me there's a group that gets snookered by the Republicans in just this way: a few legislative crumbs, no real action, promises and words but no progress, a lot of foot-dragging so as not to annoy the moderates, a lot of lip service to stress the philosophical connection and obscure the lack of political gain.
And yet we pro-life Americans keep on voting for the Republicans--because we have nowhere else to go. And the Republicans found excuses for inaction even when they had the House and the Senate and the Presidency. But if we couldn't make a serious dent in abortion in those days, how on earth do we think the Republicans will help us in the future?
Maybe in a few years the gay-rights supporters will be wondering the same thing about the Democrats--because right now, they have the House and the Senate and the Presidency. So if they can't get their initiatives off the ground, they may wake up to the same disillusionment we pro-lifers are facing right now. I've got to be honest: I hope their goals don't succeed. But I can't help but feel a little twinge of sympathy; it's tough to realize that one has been taken advantage of by a political party which never had any honorable intentions in the first place.