Marcus Bachmann on Gays: "Barbarians." Where's Dan Choi?

This is a particularly heinous thing to say:

"We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps…"

That's GOP nominee contender Michele Bachmann's husband, Marcus Bachmann's position on homosexuality. He thinks they're "barbarians who need to be educated." I'm not going to blame Michele for her husband's words, although her statements obviously put her in the anti-gay faction.

But where's intrepid Lt. Dan Choi? Surely he would have the wherewithal to come out and condemn this atrocious statement. Marcus Bachmann is calling Dan Choi a barbarian that can be cured of the gay, so what does Choi have to say to that?

...*cricket*... ...*cricket*...

I haven't heard any of the news outlets mentioning any statement Choi might have and can't find anything relevant on the Internet. So I thought I'd take a look at his Twitterfeed to see his comments on being called a barbarian.

Hmmm... nothing. Just some more Obama bashing with a rehash of his snarky "What-I-think-Obama-means" tweet. What a leader for the LGBT community, huh? How very disappointing.

Misinterpreting or Underestimating Obama

Posted by Desert Crone

I have been mulling over an idea that’s been rattling around in my head for a while, and that idea grew to fruition with two tweets by Lt. Dan Choi: “. . . .sad that Barack Obama would have voted no" and "Obama: ‘I have plenty of gay friends. Some of them work for me. I just feel they are inferior to me, and they don't deserve marriage.’" That set me off in an ugly old cranky rant on “Tweeter.” I called Lt. Choi a self-made martyr and a media whore. However, this wasn’t a spontaneous tweet; it was an opinion I’ve held about him since he came out. We drunks have a saying in AA, “Principles over personalities,” and Lt. Choi’s behavior and comments flew in the face of that belief.

His crusade became about himself and his rising star on MSNBC, not the greater good. In my opinion, President Obama became the target of “his” movement, and he lost sight of the LGBT movement. Of course, my criticism of Lt. Choi generated much support and criticism, some very harsh, which was of no surprise to me. However, I digress. In my mind Lt. Choi is hardly a martyr (which to my knowledge he has not claimed to be but acts like) because martyrs don’t throw others under the bus. Martyrs help people get on the bus and up on stools at Woolworth and into voting booths and into segregated public schools and universities. But my epiphany and the point of this post aren’t about Choi’s motive; they revolve around his criticism of President Obama.

As you know, Lt. Choi, Rachel Maddow, and Michael Moore all have the opinion that Obama would have voted against the gay marriage bill in NY. This is simply, unequivocally false. I am truly befuddled by this statement because I have read much of what Pres. Obama has said and written about gay marriage. Others are tweeting “evolve already” to the president, presumably assuming that Obama is struggling with moral or political issues around his view on gay marriage. I also disagree with that assumption.

I believe President Obama’s conundrum is whether or not gay marriage is a vehicle to achieving civil rights for LGBT’S, or whether gay marriage will come with the passing of more sweeping civil rights legislation and court rulings. If my observation does, in fact, define his conflicted feelings (or evolution), then his statements about gay marriage revolve around his search for the most pragmatic path to ensuring civil rights for LGBT’s.

 In this quote from Dec. 2008, Obama says:

‘Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it’s something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it’s less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it’s not for me to suggest that you shouldn’t be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.’

Basically, but not wholly, I base my premise on the part of the quotation that is in bold. Also, I would like to reference articles by Greg Sargent and Andrew Sullivan. I reference these articles, not necessarily because they support my opinion, but because both “get” that this President understands nuance. The lack of understanding this about President Obama has created much of the Left’s vitriolic, unreasonable criticism.

I find it incredulous that many of Obama’s liberal/progressive critics appear to forget that Obama is a brilliant Constitutional lawyer with a powerful intellect. Even a frequent critic of the President, Keith Olbermann admits “it was really one of those moments where you thought, well, maybe we do have one of say the 1,000 smartest people in the country is [sic] the President of the United States. Maybe he`s 999. Maybe number 83 - we don`t know.” 

Yet, still Olbermann and other critics frequently go to great lengths to give President Obama advice on how to do this or that. The fact that Obama is a pragmatist and a Constitutional scholar with a brilliant mind leads me to believe that his positions on issues are not based on his religious beliefs or political scheming but the most pragmatic, quickest way to do the right thing for people of the United States. Thus, he has used and is using his executive powers to make it easier for unions to organize, to implement parts of the DREAM Act, and to obtain civil rights for LGBT’s. If Congress won’t get the job done, then Obama looks for other avenues.

My point is that the criticism that Obama would have voted no on gay marriage or that he doesn’t support gay marriage is so simplistic to be laughable if it weren’t so tragically absurd. It might be true if he were a black and white thinker (no pun so don’t even go there), but he is not. He is a complex man. And don’t you ever forget it.

Gay Marriage, The States, and Pitchforks

POSTED BY JHW22

I am staying as far from the fray as I can in regards to the post-victory letdown of the passage of gay marriage in New York. From what I gather, a certain self-made martyr and an intelligent, if not emotional and often too myopic, journalist, have decided to dampen celebrations with hyperbole that suggests, in a roundabout way, that Obama hates gay people. They haven't come out (pun intended?) and said he does, as far as I know, but the implications gushing forth from a certain faction of the Angry Left is that Obama doesn't ever want gay people to get married.

Now, he has said he doesn't support gay marriage from a personal perspective (totally paraphrasing but pretty spot-on) but has never taken actions as President to prevent it. Many articles have illustrated how he has actually done MORE than any other President to advance the rights of the LGBT community so I am not going to try to reinvent that wheel.

What I want to focus on is an angle many people miss on many issues. This is just the latest example of the issue I call the "I want unrealistic perfection" syndrome. And this syndrome usually manifests itself in a form of rewriting 2008 campaign history. It results in the Angry Left misrememberstanding (yep, I made up a word) who was running and what our choices were. It results in some la la land delusion of "we could have had someone better" or "(insert candidate) wouldn't have betrayed us".

Here's what Obama said last week that got panties in a bunch:

And since I taught constitutional law for a while, I felt like I was in a pretty good position to agree with courts that have ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Constitution. And that’s why we decided, with my attorney general, that we could no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts.

Now, part of the reason that DOMA doesn’t make sense is that traditionally marriage has been decided by the states. And right now I understand there’s a little debate going on here in New York — (laughter) — about whether to join five other states and D.C. in allowing civil marriage for gay couples. And I want to — I want to say that under the leadership of Governor Cuomo, with the support of Democrats and Republicans, New York is doing exactly what democracies are supposed to do. There’s a debate; there’s deliberation about what it means here in New York to treat people fairly in the eyes of the law.

That has been debated as hypocrisy because that's the argument used against his bi-racial parents, yadda, yadda, yadda.

But this isn't only Obama's rationale. Nope, someone else said almost the same thing:

Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it's a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we're having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges. I want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits.

And I've also been a very strong supporter of letting the states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage. I want to repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in committed, same-sex relationships. I will be very strongly in favor of doing that as president.

That's what Hillary Clinton said while running for the job we elected Obama to do.

So, be grumpy that Obama has issues with gay marriage that don't sound liberal enough to you. Fine. But let's not pretend someone else in the Oval Office, and I mean a real person and not some imaginary one, would be handling this differently.

My friends here at Broadway Carl have a perspective on this. Some consider us irrelevant or gay-bashing for disagreeing with SOME people who happen to be gay (while at the same time agreeing with many people who happen to be gay -- go figure). But when the facts are clear and when Obama has shown, repeatedly, to be progressive on gay rights, then the hyperbole and exaggeration and speculation are what I consider irrelevant.

And frankly, Obama has acted in the most honestly separation-of-church-and-state way possible. If his personal beliefs on gay marriage are based on his religious studies and thought, and yet he is moving toward more and more rights for gay couples, then he is demonstrating, repeatedly, that he knows how to keep his personal beliefs separate from his professional responsibilities. He has created two silos -- one with a man's views and one with a President's views.

What should matter is what he puts in the Presidential silo. What should matter is that he doesn't allow personal beliefs to affect how he governs. And that is precisely what I think he is doing.

Raise Your Hand If You're Sick of Dan Choi

Where does this guy get off?

On a day where there should be celebration after the passage of a same-sex marriage law in the State of New York, Dan Choi instead chose to yet again attack President Obama for perceived slights against him and the LGBT community. Check out this Twitter feed:



As my recent tweets show, I really don't care for Lt. Dan Choi. He came out knowing he would be the face of the gay military and has now shown that the limelight is to his liking. You know, sort of like Sarah Palin and in my opinion, equally annoying.

No one is saying you shouldn't advocate for what you believe in, but to cast blame solely on President Obama as Choi has done is myopic, opportunistic and egotistical, knowing he was going to continue to get attention in this vein. Hitching your wagon up to Jane Hamsher only solidifies my opinion of his ever-evolving narcissism.

Let's take his tweets one at a time, shall we?

1. "...sad that Barack Obama would have voted no."

Really? How could you possibly know that? We all know that personally, President Obama has stated that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. This is a personal choice based either on his religion or it may be purely a political stance. The same stance every other presidential candidate took at the time.  But what else has he said? He is opposed to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, signed a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and his Justice Department will not fight appeals of the Defense of Marriage Act with the opinion that it's unconstitutional.

2. I wish Gov. Cuomo would run for President with Sen. Gillibrand on an 'equality ticket.'"

Instant new hero, that Andrew Cuomo. I suppose if you're a one issue voter, it doesn't matter that Cuomo has so far been anti-union and that Gillibrand had issues with being pro-gun. But hey, self avowed progressives like Choi don't care about issues like that, do they?  Don't get me wrong, I really don't have much of an issue with Cuomo or Gillibrand, but let's not get carried away with fantasies of a White House ticket.

3. Obama: "I have plenty of gay friends. Some of them work for me. I just feel they are inferior to me, and they don't deserve marriage."

Okay, this is flat out horse shit. This is the kind of drivel that makes me turn completely off to his side of the story, because he's just flat out putting words in the President's mouth that he obviously never said. In fact, he's said the exact opposite.

President Obama at an LGBT Fundraiser in New York (6/23/11): "...Last year, I received a letter from a teenager growing up in a small town, and he told me he was a senior in high school, and that he was proud to be the captain of a club at his school, and that he was gay. And he hadn’t told his parents. He hadn’t come out. He was worried about being mocked or being bullied. He didn’t think it was safe to, in his words, “openly be myself.” But this 17-year-old also looked towards the day when he didn’t have to be afraid; when he didn’t have to worry about walking down the hallway. And he closed his letter by saying, “Everyone else is considered equal in this country. Why shouldn’t we be?”

So, yes, we have more work to do. Yes, we have more progress to make. Yes, I expect continued impatience with me on occasion. But understand this — look, I think of teenagers like the one who wrote me, and they remind me that there should be impatience when it comes to the fight for basic equality. We’ve made enormous advances just in these last two and a half years. But there are still young people out there looking for us to do more, to help build a world in which they never have to feel afraid or alone to be themselves. And we know how important that is to not only tell them that it’s going to get better, but to also do everything in our power to ensure that things actually are better.

I’m confident that we will achieve the equality that this young person deserves. I’m confident that the future is bright for that teenager and others like him, and that he can have the life that he wants and that he imagines.

There will be setbacks along the way. There will be times where things aren’t moving as fast as folks would like. But I know that he’ll look back on his struggles, and the struggles of many in this room, as part of what made change possible; part of what it took to reach the day when every single American, gay or straight or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, was free to live and love as they see fit."

Yeah, that really sounds like a man who believes the LGBT community is inferior and doesn't deserve marriage, huh?

4. "I really appreciate the confidence and strength of NY Gov. Cuomo. He could teach Barack Obama. Or just primary him."

Cuomo's "confidence and strength?" Cuomo signing off on New York's legislation is a no brainer. Show me a bipartisan Congress willing to pass a bill repealing DOMA and I'll show you a President Obama signing the goddamn thing before the ink is dry.

There they go again with the "primary Obama" meme. But here's the thing: if these so called progressives really consider themselves the base, there has to be some kind of support involved. To call yourself Obama's base while not showing one ounce of support for the man and constantly shrieking "Primary Obama!" just shows you to be attention whores uninterested in progressing the discourse. Show me where progressives Jane Hamsher and Dan Choi have supported the president even once. Look for it, because I surely haven't seen anything resembling support from this duo.

And finally let's take a look at the Obama administration's record when it comes to progressing the LGBT agenda.  As has been stated in the past, President Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any other U.S. president, despite the ramblings of the attention seeking Choi.

What may have started as a good intention has now become a Frankenstein monster. Dan Choi comes off as a petulant whiner when chaining himself to the White House fence or ripping up a letter of support for Obama during Netroots Nation, but shows his hypocrisy by attending CPAC and calling GOProud "American heroes." The same GOProud that also opposes ENDA (which President Obama supports), opposes the DOMA repeal and opposes partnership inclusion in UAFA. Those "American heroes?" That's truly a WTF moment.

So can I please stop seeing Dan Choi on my television machine for a while? Or if you insist on putting him on the air, then at least challenge him on his hypocrisy.

UPDATE (11:45pm): It would seem that this post is making it's way around the blogosphere and the immediate reaction from the pro-Choi faction is that A) I have no credibility, B) I am obviously an anti-gay bigot for criticizing Choi and C) I mistook Choi's tweet in which he quotes Obama as a real quote and not satire, therefore I don't know what I'm talking about.

As to 'A', I have yet to find one of these responses refuting the myriad links to Choi's actions and words that helped form my opinion.

In response to 'B', those willing to dismiss my criticisms as the rantings of a homophobe obviously chose to ignore looking at anything else in my blog before reaching that conclusion, including the entry immediate preceding the Choi post in which I praised the passing of New York's same-sex marriage legislation. I suppose that's what gay bashers do, huh? Also by their logic, if I'm anti-gay for criticizing Choi, does that mean Choi is a racist because he's critical of Obama?

And finally, in response to the idea that I didn't understand the "satire" in Choi's tweet where he uses quotation marks for an Obama attribution, that's just silly. To be satirical, the subject matter should at least have a modicum of truth to it, making it all the more ironic. It just doesn't work that well when you're looked to as a leader (as Choi is to many) and you use quotes for something not even remotely close to how President Obama feels about LGBT equality, as shown by the actual quote I used in the post.