The ONLY bone I want is an end to DOMA, end to DADT, and full marriage rights. Nothing other than equality will do and if he is not working hard in those directions he is just boning us.

This is all kind of alarming.  As others have been asking, does the President actually have any kind of plan whatsoever to accomplish his promised agenda?  It doesn't appear that he does.  He should be working actively and alongside LGBT organizations to develop a plan.  But as far as I can tell, his Admin is being very insular and secretive about it.  As his OPM Director says:

Berry: We're going to have to - there's a lot of good support there - [Senators] Lieberman and Collins - a lot of people, I think, are going to be willing to help. I believe that that energy is going to come together. This administration has got some really smart people, and we're going to work together to do this right and do it in a way that's going to last.

Seriously, I thought this was supposed to be the campaign and the administration of amazing people powered grassroots involvement.  But ever since the election all I hear is this Club of Genius sh*t.

This "benefits but not healthcare benefits" debacle just sounds like Lucy with the football...although I suspect the whole notion of suddenly announcing that they were going to give "benefits" to same-sex couples was decided without thinking through that the DOMA wouldn't allow giving healthcare.

Of course, prez could repeal DOMA...but I digress.

Have your DOJ file an unneccessarily ugly brief, that lumps homosexuality in with incest, to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, and then get out your super-duper presidential pen and sign a memorandum that gives some sort of token benefit to same-sex partners of some federal employees.

See? All better now.  He really does care about the gay community - well, those that work for the government - or does he care about their money?

So, the bright side is that LGBT will not lose the benefits once Obama leaves office, but the downside, is Obama isn't giving them anything in the FIRST PLACE

Link

KOS: "The DNC needs to reschedule next week's gay fundraiser until after the administration gets its act together on its plan for gay rights. I'm pretty confident the administration eventually will, but until it does, out of simple common courtesy, it should refrain from treating the gay community like an ATM."

We need to stop taking the GLBT community's support for granted, especially if we're going to continue playing a very cruel political shell game with their human rights issues.

And frankly, while this is purely anecdotal, I think they're getting very tired of being treated like that generous but childless uncle and aunt every family seems to have, to whom the nieces and nephews always suck up whenever they want something, and simply ignore the rest of the time.

When Hawaii State Senate Democrats recently amended the civil unions bill at the last second to kill it for this year -- and rest assured, it was the Dems, because they outnumber the Republicans in the Senate, 23-2 -- gays and lesbians and PFLAGs apparently responded by quietly closing their wallets. I heard that the annual state party fundraiser held the following week saw its take reduced by nearly 60% from the previous two years.

And I say, good for them. My wife and I were so embarrassed that we stayed away that night, and I'm the chair for our district. How can I dare to even look GLBTs in the face after the cheap stunt our own elected officials just pulled, and especially after Senate President Colleen Hanabusa actually had the chutzpah to once again assure the GLBT community that if they can just wait until after the next election ...

It has to be asked: If our own Senate Democrats won't pass something so fundamentally right when we outnumber the GOP 23-2, when will we do the right thing? When we're up 24-1?

TAPPER: Does the president stand by the legal brief that the Justice Department filed last week that argued in favor the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?

GIBBS: Well, as you know, that the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the president believes that that law should be repealed.

TAPPER: I understand that, but a lot of legal experts say that the brief didn't have to be as comprehensive and make all the arguments that it made, such as comparing same-sex unions to incestuous ones, in one controversial paragraph...

GIBBS: Well...

TAPPER: ...that's upset a lot of the president's supporters. Does the president stand by the content, the arguments made in that brief?

GIBBS: Well, again, it's the president's Justice Department. And, again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the president has stated and will work with Congress to change that law.

OH man.

Bonus!  From the Advocate Oct 2007:

Look, when I went to Rick Warren's church at Saddleback, he was under enormous heat because, among his constituency, my position on LGBT issues and my position on abortion is anathema. So his position could have been, we will not have Obama speak because he does not subscribe to our views on these two issues. To his credit, he allowed me to speak, in his church, from his pulpit, to 2,000 evangelicals. And I didn't trim my remarks, I specifically told them, "I think you guys are wrong when it comes to issues like condom distribution." And by the way, I got a standing ovation.

My views on gay issues and on choice issues are well-known. I did not trim my sails in the conversation I had with them. And I think as a consequence of appearances like that, I am helping to encourage understanding that will ultimately strengthen the cause of LGBT rights.

And stop giving the Democrats money.

For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

Help me out here:

non-biological, non-adopted children

It won't amount to a rat's ass but will make me feel better to write to Holder, copy to Obama, to say if they can't find the guts to do the right thing by the LGBT community to push Congress to rescind DOMA and nix DADT by exec order (within prez's authority per UCSB committee of military law experts in May 2009), they have the power -- and the obligation to voters -- to get rid of all Bush-appointed/Bush-minded holdovers in the entire executive branch.

He's flip flopped on just about every progressive issue (even before the election. Remember FISA) But as far as gay rights, he's consistantly shown he has no interest in advancing the agenda.

He hides behind the smoke screen that this is an issue that has to be won at the "grass roots" state level. (An easy way to pass the buck down the road). I wonder what his political chances would have been had LBJ taken that same approach? I doubt seriously if he would be sitting in the WH today.