Viktor Kerney has a post on Bilerico Project that is a very good read. Check it out. Here is a snip, and then my commentary below. (Emphasis added is mine)

When they heckled President Obama before they made news, but Obama didn’t really change course. Hell, he even told them to go lobby Congress, but, no, they were fixed on attacking him, causing a lot of eye rolling and head scratching within our community. I thought they learned from those experiences, but I guess not.

And I find it very interesting that they are using a lot of resources, money and people power to ‘pressure Obama’. Really? GetEQUAL is willing to disrupt his campaign in hopes to get his attention. Funny, I don’t remember them ever using this much force on our opponents.

On the one hand, I think I understand GetEqual’s purpose. They expect our proponents to truly be 100% on our side. In the past, we have had proponents who have been supporters in name only, but their actions haven’t really demonstrated that support. Holding proponents accountable isn’t a wrong direction in some regard.

On the other hand however, I question if GetEqual, in this case is cognizant of the context of their efforts. If Obama doesn’t win in the Fall, things are going to be SO MUCH WORSE for LGBTQ issues, that his win is critically important. Anything that may stand in the way of that is- what’s the phrase- biting off your nose to spite your face.

Obama has taken an approach on many issues, ours as well as others, that is based upon expecting policy change to come from Congress. Change from Congress is more likely to last, whereas Executive Orders will go away. People can either agree or disagree with this approach, but the President has been extremely consistent in this approach. I see this as a good thing, unlike steps taken under Bush which shifted power away from the Elected Congress towards the White House.

GetEqual reminds me in some ways of PETA back about 18 years ago. They were destroying research facilities, and could cite their position on the use of animals. Yes, but there were far more animals tortured, mistreated, put down, and neglected in puppy mills, and shelters, animal fights, etc, yet these wee never their targets in those days. They picked an easy target and exploited that.

GetEqual has a problem with the President’s current methodology, but they aren’t going after the President, such as a picket at the White House. They are targeting Obama campaign offices. In other word, they are targeting my future, and your future. Their efforts may assist in electing a GOP President. Thanks but no thanks.


via GetEQUAL: Move On from Obama & Attack Our Enemies | The Bilerico Project.


  1. Thanks Thomas, but there’s a problem with the logic here – Obama may not win in the fall anyway and this may be our “last hope.”

    • Jay,
      I’m not sure what you mean by “last hope,” given your point about the November election. If Obama issues an executive order, and then he doesn’t win in the Fall, the next President can simply end that executive order. So, then, what has really been accomplished?

      I would say that it is in the interest of every LGBTQ person as well as in the interest of every known progressive issue and cause, that we make sure that Obama wins in the Fall. We can not allow it to be a “may or may not” case. We must make it a full reality.

      I would also say that we must not be so hung up on one guy sitting in the White House. I believe we had the chance to win Same-sex marriage in Maine last time around, but we diverted time, energy, people ands money away from Maine for a National March on Washington, and we lost a critical battle in the fight for same-sex marriage. Therer are lots of battles, and I think Viktor’s point, and I would agree- let’s put time and energy where we win the most from a win, instead of puicking the easiest target.

      Now, if I do not understand your “last hope” comment properly, please say more and help me grasp your point.

      • Sure, Thomas.  I suppose “last chance” would have been a better choice of words.  We can play out the possible scenarios over and over again just for fun.

        1) Obama doesn’t sign EO and is re-elected with the current House and Senate standing as is – No ENDA, No EO.

        2) Obama doesn’t sign the EO and is not re-elected (assuming Romney wins) and the House and Senate standing as is – No ENDA, No EO.

        3) Obama signs EO and is re-elected with the current House and Senate standing as is – No ENDA, but there is an EO.

        4) Obama signs EO and is not re-elected with the current House and Senate standing as is – No ENDA, but there is an EO that may (or MAY NOT) be cancelled by Romney – which I believe is highly unlikely considering a 74% support for it.

        5) Obama doesn’t sign EO and is re-elected with the a new majority Democratic House and Senate – No EO and No ENDA (why not ENDA? There was a majority for two years and it sat in committee – there is no guarantee of democratic support).

        6)  Obama does sign EO and is re-elected with the a new majority
        Democratic House and Senate – There is an EO and No ENDA (why not ENDA? There was
        a majority for two years and it sat in committee – there is no
        guarantee of democratic support).

        Of course it is “possible” that there will be an ENDA in the next congress under Obama and highly improbable under Romney, but we have a guarantee of something with the signing of the EO.

        The smartest course of action would be for Obama to go to the House and Senate and say – “You have one/two month(s) to implement an ENDA legislation.  If you do not, I will sign an EO for non-discrimination in federal contracting.”  This would: (a) show him to be a solid leader; and (b) not make a liar out of him for saying he would sign the EO when he was candidate Obama.

        I’m sure there are dozens of other potential scenarios, but it turns out my psychic was a fraud.

        The insane thing about this whole “controversy” is that there is no “right” answer.  Certainly we can all agree that if we knew the right course of action to get equal (no pun intended), we would already be treated equally under the law.  I really dislike the belittling language used by both sides of the argument.  If it is an opinion, it should not be presented as fact and Viktor presented a lot of inaccuracies as “fact” in his posting. He also made inaccurate claims about the strategy sessions and conversations that went on with GE before launching this campaign and provided ZERO sources or citations… just blanketed it with “I say it is so it is.”  When referred to trusted sources used by numerous social justice advocacy organizations regarding the MAP, it was dismissed with “Honestly,

        Another observation: You state that “Their [GetEQUAL’s] efforts may assist in electing a GOP President.” 

        According to Reuters, Obama’s falling poll numbers in the battle with Romney are a result of “A tepid economic recovery” and “voter pessimism about the future” – along with his below 50 percent job approval rating.  About 2/4 of voters still think the economy is in a recession and most think they are worse off than they were 4 years ago.  It seems like if Obama doesn’t win the election, it won’t be because of GetEQUAL, but because of his actual or perceived failures as POTUS.

        I don’t and won’t “Obama-bash” —  I may even vote for him — but I believe it is our responsibility to continue an issue-oriented conversation.  I disagree with Obama on: (1) legal marriage being only between a man and a woman; and (2) his refusal to sign the EO. 

        Wow – sorry for the length of the commentary.  It’s a subject of great interest to me and an excellent topic to discuss social justice strategies within the context of a political campaign.

      • Jay, I love long comments that add “meat” to a discussion.

        When I say that GetEqual may even help elect a GOP President, it has nothing to do with current numbers. Actually Obama’s approval ratings are higher and climbing. Any current drop in polls re: election can also be attributed to Romeney’s sealing the GOP nomination which would create a temp boost for him, just as the conventions always produce a boost. No, my comment is based more on what we saw in 2010. The increase in negativity towards Obama, who has done more for LGBT equality than any other President EVER, had an effect on many Dems who stayed home and that aided in the GOP huge win.

        I both understand your comment about remaining “issue-oriented” and I can’t say that I totally disagree. I’m not sure the GetEqual efforts are about conversation, but that is another post.

        And while I may not personaly agree with this specific action, I completely agree that movement forward does not happen by sitting back and waiting for it.

        But I also believe that anyone is naive if they think it doesn’t matter who wins the Presidency, and your comment that you “may vote for Obama” is the most frightening thing you have said, in my opinion. WE can not afford a GOP President. If that happens it wil be hugely because the turnout of Democrats is low.Cite what you want about how people feel about the economy. Polls are just polls, and there are too many which conflict, that little real value can be derived by trying to use them as justification. The only thing that will really matter in terms of numbers is turnout and support.

        In my way of seeing things, I can remain wanting more from this President AND fully back him for re-election. I wish you were in that same position, but alas, you are not, and that scares me.

        I just wonder if there aren’t other ways to “continue an issue-oriented conversation,” that may be equally or more potentially productive. Anyway, thanks for all of the discussion.

      • Don’t misunderstand me when I say I may vote for Obama. That does not mean that I would ever cast a vote for the GOP. Dr. Jill Stein has caught my eye. Too many people feel there are only two options, and as long as we act as such there will always be two options.

        If you recall from history books, when suffragettes launched protests against the President for failing to move women’s rights forward, the chorus (even within their own ranks) rang out with, “How dare you protest a wartime President!”. This to me is similar. If Romney where President and refused the EO, this post would read very differently and likely call our populace to immediate action. However, because Obama has “done more for us than any other president” the criticism and actions are taboo.

        However, the bar is set very, very low for doing anything as President that furthers LGBT rights.

        Check out Paul Yandura’s interview at if you get a chance. I found it insightful.

      • Jay,
        I was more inclined to support this GetEqual effort before reading this. But I have a few questions for you:
        1) How many people would be impacted by the executive order that you are demanding?
        2) Of the companies that employ those workers, which do and do not already provide nondiscrimination protection?
        3) Were the suffragettes seeking an executive order? How do you see their issue to ber like an EO for nondiscrimination for a small number of employers?
        4) The opposition to protest a “wartime President” represents a nationalistic mentality. I don’t see that same thing apply here. How do you see it as similar?
        4) How do you compare the overasll climate for employment to the overall climate for the suffragettes issues? Many many employers across the country already offier nondiscrimination protection?

        I think you utterly misunderstand the opposition to GetEqual’s actions. I don’t think it has anything to do with what Obama has done but rather it is about the danger in not re-electing him.

        Looking forward to your answers.

      • Jay, my other comment would be to remind you that the general mindset was that DADT couldn’t pass either, and look what happened?