Another Take on Obama and LGBT Issues

No sooner had I posted this critique of the Obama Administration's attitude about LGBT issues, than I saw this article on The Daily Beast by Timothy Patrick McCarthy, entitled "Obama's Cautious Gay Strategy."

McCarthy notes the glacial pace of actions to maybe, potentially, one day, end Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the total lack of action by Obama, an opponent of same-sex marriage, to provide any recognition of same-sex relationships.

Regarding Obama's directive to HHS to make rules providing access by same-sex partners to each other's hospital rooms, I agree with Andrew Sullivan's view that, while I can't say Obama's decision is a bad thing, per se, it glaringly points up the president's opposition to marriage equality. If we had that, no such special rules would be necessary.

McCarthy compares Obama to Bill Clinton, who, as McCarthy notes, signed the Defense of Marriage Act. But, of course, McCarthy blames Republicans for that. What? Did they grab hold of Clinton's left hand and force him to sign it?

People ask me how, as a gay man, I can be a Republican. While it's true that today's national Republican leadership is generally opposed to the LGBT agenda (yes, we have an agenda and, if that sounds sinister, so be it), the Democrats, despite somewhat friendlier rhetoric, have not done very much for us.

Clinton could have vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, but instead chose to sign it. Whom should we who are opposed to that legislation blame for that? Bill Clinton. A Democrat, last time I checked.

A few Republican governors signed statewide gay rights laws during the 1980s and '90s. Is that strain of Republicanism dead by now? I hope not.

I hope you're right, Larry

I agree with what Larry Kudlow writes in this blog post about freedom of contract.

But I don't know that he necessarily has a basis for being so bold as to say "Republicans have clearly become the party of the private sector."

Many of us hope that that is the case. But it's one of the big unanswered questions going into the 2010 and 2012 elections. The Republicans' record, when they controlled the political branches of the federal government from 2003 to 2006, is not encouraging in that regard.

The 2003 Medicare expansion wasn't Obamacare, but it was a giant step in the wrong direction, right at the time we should have been preparing for the demographic time bomb that will soon hit the FDR and LBJ Ponzi schemes. We need to, at the very least reduce, and ideally phase out, Medicare and Social Security in their current form.

George Will provides a good summary of that situation, in case by some chance you might need a reminder.

I'd like to see this question asked of Republican candidates at every opportunity: will you indeed be the party of the private sector when you're back in power?