White House Speechless on Marriage Progress

[madbrain]

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/white-house-speechless-on_b_198321.html

I am afraid when you combine this with Obama's silence on AIDS (as reported by Peter Staley), it really appears that Obama is shying away from gay issues. I hope this silence doesn't last long.

[veritas]

Obama has a different way of doing things:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a0AEPStem.zY&refer=home

As reported by Freewillie 99 in the research forum.

This certainly isn't shying away from the HIV problem!



v

[Peter Staley]

Obama has a different way of doing things:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a0AEPStem.zY&refer=home

As reported by Freewillie 99 in the research forum.

This certainly isn't shying away from the HIV problem!

v

V -- Obama had little to do with this extra $10 billion for the NIH -- we actually have Arlen Specter to thank for it.  My blog entry about this came more than 2 months before the poorly headlined Bloomberg story you linked to.  Here's my entry:

http://blogs.poz.com/peter/archives/2009/02/aids_research_g.html

[veritas]

Peter,

I agree that Arlen Specter was the driving force for the increase in funding, however, the administration had to agree to the full increase for it to be part of the budget.  Washington is a "quid pro quo" city. Let's face it, Obama has an entire economy on the brink and the decisions he makes must reflect what is best for the nation. I truly believe that Obama will not be a roadblock on the path to a cure. He also has a healthcare issue that must be adressed. An aids cure or even a functional cure would put a dent in the healthcare problem.
No one wants a cure more than I do. I would love to see the hiv issue back on the front burner, but we must also be realistic. The fact that Obama accepted the "quid pro quo" from Specter (which, as reflected in your blog ,is a 34% increase for the NIH budget)  without trying to adjust the figure, tells me he basically agreed  with the concept to begin with. Obama deserves our praise.

v

[madbrain]

v,

Peter,

I agree that Arlen Specter was the driving force for the increase in funding, however, the administration had to agree to the full increase for it to be part of the budget.  Washington is a "quid pro quo" city. Let's face it, Obama has an entire economy on the brink and the decisions he makes must reflect what is best for the nation. I truly believe that Obama will not be a roadblock on the path to a cure. He also has a healthcare issue that must be adressed. An aids cure or even a functional cure would put a dent in the healthcare problem.
No one wants a cure more than I do. I would love to see the hiv issue back on the front burner, but we must also be realistic. The fact that Obama accepted the "quid pro quo" from Specter (which, as reflected in your blog ,is a 34% increase for the NIH budget)  without trying to adjust the figure, tells me he basically agreed  with the concept to begin with. Obama deserves our praise.

v

I am not sure that I follow your reasoning. Obama deserves our praise for not opposing increases to the NIH budget ? I know we are just coming off 8 years of Bush, but still, my bar for praise is a little higher than that. If Obama had put that in his original stimulus proposal himself, then yes, it would have been praise worthy. As it is, it looks more like an afterthought, we were forgotten, but fortunately not by Sen. Specter . I don't disagree in any way that this NIH budget increase is a good thing. But that part of the stimulus didn't originate in the White House, although it is in step with Obama's policies of increasing funding for science.

In any case, I started this thread more to discuss the White House reaction to marriage equality progress in many states recently, as I thought its positions on AIDS (or lack thereof) had already been discussed in other threads. Unlike AIDS recently, same-sex marriage progress has been front page news. But similarly, we hear little or nothing from the White House about it.

IMO, this silence isn't good at all . I just did some googling .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil_rights/ no longer mentions anything about the repeal of the defense of marriage :

President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.  He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

The anti-DOMA stance was big news during Obama's campaign, and after his inauguation, even : see http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42233 .

Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.

Apparently, the right wingers have lobbied, and taken note at the removal of the anti-DOMA language from the White House web site :

http://americansfortruth.com/news/white-house-pulls-anti-doma-language-from-website.html

This is the language that used to be on whitehouse.gov, and is no longer :


    Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

    Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage
Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.


I hope HRC and other gay lobbies are on top of this.

[veritas]

Sorry for the hijack of the thread. Your right our comments should be in another thread. 

To answer your inquiry: Obama accepted the overall increase ( a substantial one ) in an atmoshere of eliminating non-productive budget items thus telling me his position on research is favorable. Again,he must make decisions for the majority and this "quid pro quo"allowed a substantial increase in funding for science along with a helping hand to pass his stimulus bill. Two birds with one stone. Smart and praiseworthy as far as I'm concerned.

v,
 I don't disagree in any way that this NIH budget increase is a good thing. But that part of the stimulus didn't originate in the White House, although it is in step with Obama's policies of increasing funding for science.

I will not post on this subject again in this thread. Again, sorry for the hijack.

v