Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

LGBT Equality: Accomplishments of the Obama Administration

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

“So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress -- step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you.” – President Barack Obama, June 2009


Some of President Obama's more significant accomplishments for the LGBT Community. The website has the complete list but I posted, what I thought, were most important based upon relevance of personal rights.

Regardless of sexuality, heterosexual or homosexual, what rights do you consider to be the most important in your life?

-Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, expanding federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation or gender identity

-Ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to guarantee medical decision making and visitation rights to LGBT couples

-Signed into law the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010

-Directed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court and declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional

-Endorsed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 to provide full partnership benefits to federal employees

-Hosted the first LGBT Pride Month Celebration in White House history and resumed the tradition of issuing Presidential Pride proclamations

For a complete list, visit:
LGBT Democrats




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
What is most important to me is the guarantee of all rights to all people living in the United States. Isn't that what is supposed to make this country great? Seems pretty simple to me. Regardless of personal feelings, ALL Americans should be cautious of a government seeking to limit, restrict, or take away the rights of ANY group. When you allow the government to do this we give them too much authority. A wise Native American once told me this. "Enjoy your reservation."

You never know when you might end up being in a group that is limited, restricted, or have rights taken away.
edit on 8-9-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I agree with equality, but I have a hard time digesting "hate crime" legislation. All crime is rooted in desperation, necessity or hate. Why do we need extra legislation specifically for homosexuals when they are already protected by the laws on the books.

People cannot run around beating up people regardless of their sexual orientation. So why do we have to include orientation in these laws?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Yup, it's moved forward, Kudos to him on that.

Hate crime legislation is nonsense though.

All violent crimes are hateful. I don't see how a guy punching me in the face for not liking my face, is any different from doing so because of who I sleep with.

The same ammount of physical hurt and assault was accomplished.

~Tenth



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 




but I have a hard time digesting "hate crime" legislation. All crime is rooted in desperation, necessity or hate. Why do we need extra legislation specifically for homosexuals when they are already protected by the laws on the books.


I agree. A crime is a crime, regardless of the motivation.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 




-Endorsed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 to provide full partnership benefits to federal employees


I also have issue with this.

If federal employees can get these benefits, why can't everyone else?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Cosmic911
 




-Endorsed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 to provide full partnership benefits to federal employees


I also have issue with this.

If federal employees can get these benefits, why can't everyone else?


True. I don't know. Maybe it's a first step? I have worked at organizations that provide full partnership benefits to domestic partners, straight or gay.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Cosmic911
 




-Endorsed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 to provide full partnership benefits to federal employees


I also have issue with this.

If federal employees can get these benefits, why can't everyone else?

Simple.... King Obama would need to get the consent of the PEOPLE he governs to do more than what he already has. Presidential order and decree only goes so far...even for him. He's hit the limit on this topic.

In a NON King moment, we can see the same in Truman and racism. Truman desegregated the Armed Forces and it was landmark while it shook the system to it's toenails. Congress of the 1950's wouldn't have even entertained the idea....so executive orders were shown to have value in some cases anyway.


Now though? Well.... Until very recently, the Black Community themselves told the LGBT community where they could stick comparisons with Civil Rights and the brutal fights of the Black people to get equality. Now, it seems the rallying cry. How quickly values change and points of principle are cast aside, it seems.

Equality is important........but equality moves right on into something else when laws are passed specific to the benefits of one class of people. A violent crime somehow feels worse or does more damage by motivation? Hmm.. Yeah..right. These laws are an exercise in the Politically Correct run totally amok.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Great post, Wrabbit! Lots of excellent points. That was an interesting point about Truman, Congress, the Military, racism, and African Americans.



the Black Community themselves told the LGBT community where they could stick comparisons with Civil Rights and the brutal fights of the Black people to get equality. Now, it seems the rallying cry. How quickly values change and points of principle are cast aside, it seems.

Great point here, too. I find their sentiments a little hypocritical. While I do agree the Black Community experienced unique challenges, I don't find it any less important equally. I do think the LGBT Community are the Blacks of today (in regards to discrimination). Our next generation will see discrimination for a different group, and the same after that. It seems to be part of the human condition. Women experienced their own discrimination as well.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
You see this as a step forward in equality. I see it as a step backwards into decadence. TPTB gleefully lead us toward sexual excess as a reward for us wilingly accepting totalitarianism. If you can indulge yourself with whomever you want to, you are less likely to worry about what those who are in charge are doing to you.

"Equality" is supposed to be about not discriminating against people because of a trait that is a part of themselves, such as being Black or Hispanic, being a woman instead of a man. Homosexuals would like very much for all of us to believe that being homosexual falls into the same category, that "they are born this way" and there's nothing they can do; they just can't help it.

But this is far from "the science is settled." Indeed, it's simply politically correct. It's a social issue and is most often of a social cause. A domineering mother, for example, who engineers her son into being gay so that no other woman will be in his life. It's also a cultural issue. If you are NOT a lesbian, then somehow you are spurning feminism and betraying the female cause. In other words, in some circiles there is intense political pressure to be gay. Ask your daughters in high school.

And now we are being asked to believe in the "transgender" issue as well, that people born as a cetain sex are actually females born in male bodies and vice versa. We have a recent case of am eight-year old boy who says he wants to be a girl. He is being raised by a lesbian couple who insist this was not their idea.

Oh, really? How many here actually believe that? And Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian, too. And California is considering a law that says it's a CRIME for parents to resist this insanity? And in another state a life prisoner has won the right to a sex change operation even though he is incarcerated. So now it's your right to change your sex--at state expense. Transgender? Seriously? The wonders of modern technology.

This is not about LGBT "rights." It's about destroying the fabric of society, both good and bad, but still a fabric, so that family is degraded into self-indulgence so you can have sex, take drugs, and do whatever you please SO THAT the government can do anything it wants to,

and you won't care.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 




and you won't care.

Not at all. It's only a matter of time. You better brace yourself. I'm betting someone had to give up their seat to you once. Those days are over.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I agree with equality, but I have a hard time digesting "hate crime" legislation. All crime is rooted in desperation, necessity or hate. Why do we need extra legislation specifically for homosexuals when they are already protected by the laws on the books.

People cannot run around beating up people regardless of their sexual orientation. So why do we have to include orientation in these laws?


My whole philosophy and opinion on this is that no matter how many laws are put into place to protect a group of people, there will always be hate crimes. The reason why LGBT people and orientation are considered similar to other things is the fact that no matter what race, religion or creed, you can be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. It doesn't fit to one specific race, which is why I think they include orientation on some things.

That and many 'privately owned/mom and pop' stores reserve the right to use their religious or moral bias to refuse work and other privileges to LGBT people. It took my partner and I several months to find an apartment that would accept us without turning us away, which does happen.

However, I do understand where you're coming from with the question, it's just a very sensitive issue. Religious folk can preach their ideals on this subject without backlash, saying things up to and including that they should 'all be rounded up and put in a camp, so they can all gradually die'. While not all religious people are like this, the tainted ones are the ones with the loudest voice, which is a sad fact in this modern society.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
So when do the people who don't care about sexuality, don't care about the private sex lives of people and don't want to have arguments for or against various lifestyles/religions/family affairs shoved down their throats every single day get their equality?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I agree with equality, but I have a hard time digesting "hate crime" legislation. All crime is rooted in desperation, necessity or hate. Why do we need extra legislation specifically for homosexuals when they are already protected by the laws on the books.

People cannot run around beating up people regardless of their sexual orientation. So why do we have to include orientation in these laws?


Mostly orientation etc ... is included under hate crime legislation because it's often targeted. By often, I don't mean like all the time; last time I checked the highest hate crimes are never much above 10% of all hate crimes unless you take 'race' as a group ... Where I'm from even Atheism is factored into hate crime legislation, but very few crimes happen due to Atheism or directly because of it.

I see the term 'specifically for homosexuals' in regards to this a lot, and really it's not much to do with homosexuals exactly. Hate crime laws were invented in most places to stop racial violence etc ... The first hate crime laws in America are from like 1870 I think? Homosexuality really wasn't protected at all back then.

I think if hate crime laws should exist, they should include sexuality, gender, and race ... Though personally I kinda think they're a bit like having a score board. People come to all sorts of weird and wonderful conclusions from them ... Often believing that the team that's 'winning' (used to be jewish people mostly in America) is the better legally represented / favoured of the community thus it actually creates hatred against that group ironically. I imagine when they were first created they should have had a time limit on them.

Most important right: right to ideas, discussion, and to disagree but to live and let live. It's odd how some persons adapt to that. Some feel constricted and attacked by ideas and others embrace the challenge. Others use it as a field of combat to 'beat' others with their superior logic. I just kinda hope people remind themselves it's there every few weeks.

Equality, freedom, and rights doesn't mean freedom from other people's ideas, it means the right to discuss them without setting each other on fire as far as I'm concerned.

It can be annoying when a person makes an advert I don't like, approaches me with a clipboard asking for money for a cause I don't care for, or makes some weird kinda art sculpture out of bananas and genital shapes and calls it modern art ... but does anyone actually want to go back to the days pre 1950 where a film could be banned for being un-American and someone being Atheist upset the neighbours?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rebroadcast
So when do the people who don't care about sexuality, don't care about the private sex lives of people and don't want to have arguments for or against various lifestyles/religions/family affairs shoved down their throats every single day get their equality?


They already have their equality, after all, there is a certain thing in the USA called freedom of speech. If you don't want to hear it, don't associate yourself with people who preach it every other sentence.

I for one don't go to pride fests or parades because of that. My life is my business, the only problem I have is with the people who feel the need to govern that business.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


The ancient Romans and Greeks certainly didn't view homosexuality as 'decadent', rather they viewed any excesses or lack of self-restraint as decadent, be it opulence or showing off wealth etc.

The Ancient Greeks, Spartans, Macedonians and pre-Christian Romans had no problems with homosexuality or bisexuality. They didn't even have a word for homosexuality.

It was only the influence of the monotheistic cults such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam which took offense to the practice and considered it as a 'sin'.

The Athenians even had a statue of two male lovers in their main public square to celebrate the founding of their democracy as the killing of the tyrant ruler was due to a lover quarrel....between men.

The Spartans all had male partners and it was considered normal for Macedonians to have adult male lovers. Both Alexander the Great and his father had male lovers. I read about this in the book 'Alexander the Great' by Robin Lane Fox.
King Philip, his father, was apparently killed by a jealous male lover.

Unlike the Athenians where one of the partners was an adult and the other often a teenager or younger man, Macedonians were noted for being adult men being in relationships.
There were also several examples of soldiers who had boyfriends in the book.

Alexander the Great also visited an Egyptian tribe which guarded over one of the local cults where same-sex marriages were celebrated.

Zeus, the highest god of the Greeks also had a younger male lover. As did Achilles and Ajax from the legends of the Trojan War. Both of which were revered by the ancient Romans.

The Spartans also viewed their wives as basically just for babies.

One of the Roman Emperors, Hadrian, publicly had a young male lover Antinous. Antinous was worshiped as a God and was one of the most popular cults in the Roman Empire.
Antinous was even sometimes depicted as a crossdresser.

Julius Caesar's own troops even used to sing a marching song which alluded to a sexual relationship with a King of another land.
Mark Anthony was also in a homosexual relationship.

Many of the more educated people at the time were also smart enough to see that their religious cults served more as parables and stories which served as part of their tradition and did not take them literally.
Unlike those today who blindly follow their sects.

Today's negative views of homosexuality and 'decadence' come from the concept of 'sin' that was established by the monotheistic cults.
The same people that prefer to regard the world from the superstitious viewpoint of invisible mystical forces and who claim humanity and the world is 6000 years old.
edit on 30-10-2012 by Dante2117 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-10-2012 by Dante2117 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-10-2012 by Dante2117 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join