ad_facebook
ad_facebook_468

One response to “Obama: “met my commitments to the LGBT community””

  1. Francoise

    Well if smarmy sycophants and pettifogging politicians could fly, that ballroom would have been an airport. Frankly, I find the obsequiousness revolting.

    He talks the talk and the walks the walk but he does not walk his talk. Translated from Ketman, the phrase “met my commitments to the LGBT community” really means I have done all I am going to do. That’s it folks.

    Where is there a journalist or activist with the guts to demand that this so-called “civil rights lawyer” actually provide a LEGAL reason why the does not support ‘equal protection of the law’?

    Again, he only gets away with it because of toothless lap dogs who let him cavalierly toss-over the insult of ‘states’ rights’ claptrap that was flatly overruled by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia. That Obama does as he does is Politics. That the self-anointed high priests of the LGBT ‘leadership’ and the press let him get away with it is a disgraceful dis-service to the Community and more a tribute to propaganda but a disgrace to journalism.

    Brace yourselves for when SCOTUS finally strikes down all these despicable gay jim crow laws, these Giucci-shoed sycophants and propagandists (not any Stonewall activists) are the one’s who will be taking credit for it. Frankly our heroic lawyers are the only ones we can rely on.

    How ironic that two conservative straight men may give us our biggest victory despite the obstruction of our own leadership.

    When it comes to political donations the LGBT community might send out a better and stronger message by letting Obama know that instead of contributing to his campaign their dollars will go to the anti PropH8 legal team.

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

Why some think the dissent cries ‘wolf’ over Supreme Court marriage decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down state bans against same-sex marriage has been touted as “probably the strongest manifesto in favor of marriage” and pilloried as “a threat to American democracy.” The huff and puff will soon die down, and here’s a look at the legal bricks that will remain standing and why some might think the dissent is crying “wolf.”

» more


Breaking News

“Justice that arrives like a thunderbolt”: On same-sex marriage “the fight is over”

June 26 has been solidified as the historic date for LGBT history in the United States. It is the day in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not enforce laws prohibiting same-sex adults from having intimate relations. It is the day in 2013 when a Supreme Court procedural ruling enabled same-sex couples to marry […]

» more


Supreme Court: States must license and recognize licenses of marriages for same-sex couples

In a widely expected yet stunning victory for LGBT people nationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 26) that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional. The decision requires states to both issue marriage licenses to couples and to recognize marriage licenses obtained in other states by same-sex couples.

» more


Supreme Court upholds health insurance subsidies critical to people with HIV

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upheld the right of the federal government to provide health care insurance subsidies to people with low income in states that have chosen not to participate in the Affordable Care Act by setting up insurance “exchanges.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a big political victory for the Obama administration and a big relief for people with low incomes, including many people with HIV.

» more


Abercrombie case: LGBT and evangelicals on the same side

It is a rare occasion when LGBT legal activists find themselves on the same side of a case as the conservative Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is also rare to find LGBT legal activists on the same side as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his fondness for hewing to the original explicit language of a law.

But so it was with EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch June 1, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot escape federal law’s requirement to accommodate a job applicant’s religious practices by claiming the applicant never told the employer about his or her religious practices.

» more


Roberts’ questions stole the spotlight; will they steal the show on marriage?

Most legal observers who watched or listened to the oral arguments from April 28 in Obergefell v. Hodges, an appeal seeking to strike down bans on same-sex marriages in four states, focused on the likelihood that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vote with the court’s four liberal wing justices and find the bans unconstitutional. But a few, like University of California School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, believe the vote could even be 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts on board.

» more