Speaking at a televised town hall meeting with 225 college students and younger voters on Thursday, US President Barack Obama told the audience that he doesn't believe being gay or transsexual is a choice.
"I don't profess to be an expert," the president said in response to a question sent via Twitter. "I don't think it's a choice. I think people are born with a certain make up, and we're all children of God."
He continued that he believes "we don't make determinations about who we love. That's why I think discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong."
The two other LGBT-related questions dealt with online harassment and the recent suicides of young people who were bullied, and ending the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy. Read Whitehouse transcript here.
The hourlong event was presented by MTV News, BET News and Country Music Television as part of the effort to mobilise the youth vote in the run-up to mid-term elections next month.
His comments come shortly after White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett came under fire for remarking that a gay teen who committed suicide suffered because of his "lifestyle choice." She subsequently apologised for the comment and said she does not believe that sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice.
The Obama administration faces an increasing backlash from gay rights advocates for its lack of progress on issues like repealing the military's DADT policy and its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
The policy prohibits gay and lesbian service members from openly divulging their sexual orientation while serving in the armed forces.
As Obama reiterated during the meeting that the DADT policy on gays in the military “will end and it will end on my watch,” his Justice Department was appealing a judge’s ruling that would have allowed homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
Federal Judge Virginia Phillips of California had ruled in September that the DADT policy is fundamentally unconstitutional meaning the military would, in theory, have to stop the practice immediately.
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
In Israel, there are so many openly gay high-ranking officers, who serve their country with pride.
I expect nothing from Obama, who knows only to make nice speeches and sweet-talk.
As for "doing", he's a failure.
Giving him the Nobel Peace prize was a real joke.
My prediction is he will be just another load in the dustbin of history.
I might add from a partisan point of view - while the political party I align with does not support repealing don't ask, don't tell, at least they are honest about it, unlike the democrats, such as Bill Clinton ( enactor of this foolish policy and Obama - who "hates it" but won't do anything about it)
usually society changes and then the politicians follow not the reverse.
e.g. a leader in the mayor's race for the Oakland CA mayor is a lesbian woman being supported by a leading Mormon and a range of black churches some of whom/which supported Prop 8. There you go
i wonder what is the appropriate tittle of the AWARD.. ANY IDEA?
I am sure that the U.S.A is far more liberal than the country you are living in right now.
Small countries can be much more open, liberal and a better example for GLBT rights than "big" America.
It might be tiresome to listen to the facts but U.S.A is a bad example of how to treat gays.
Israel, with it's diversity, has equal legal rights for gays, domestic partnership and openly gays served the army as well as our parliament.
Quantity, my friend, isn't always quality.
Hope your slow process will finally give you what Israeli citizens share already for many years.
President Obama, to my opinion, will lead you to nowhere.
The Log Cabin Republicans need your help. They've lost almost all their money in the stock market crash and is down to one full-time staff member in Washington. Poor things...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/us/14cabin.html
but i think he may need to be more forceful in certain issues and i want to see more of this aspect from him
many politicians are just swaying to the moods and fancies of their supporters and hardly exercise their own ideas and ideals and i believe he wont be like them
of course i am talking more than just the LGBT or the DADT issues here - i meant in general and that includes the things that would be the best for the entire nation and maybe even the world for that matter
"The Advocate" -Oct 15th 2010.
How Obama Got It Wrong
By Aaron Belkin
Commentary: On Thursday, a questioner at an MTV town hall meeting asked President Barack Obama why he does not take advantage of his executive powers to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” unilaterally. The president responded, “Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy unilaterally. So this is not a situation in which with the stroke of a pen I can simply end the policy unilaterally.… I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there.”
Obama’s response was not entirely accurate. While it’s true, of course, that Congress enacted “don’t ask, don’t tell” into law in 1993, there are two ways in which the president could use executive authority to protect gay troops. A federal district court in California ruled in September that DADT is unconstitutional and on Tuesday imposed a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the 17-year-old law.
If the president declined to appeal the ruling, then “don’t ask, don’t tell” would be dead forever. As Palm Center legal codirector Diane Mazur has explained elsewhere, the president is well within his rights to decline to appeal the ruling. As of Thursday, he has declined to do so.
Typically, the Justice Department must defend a law when its constitutionality is challenged in court. In this case, however, the Administration has already mounted its defense — and failed. It's under no obligation to continue to fight in court. This is particularly true because the 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas striking down state sodomy laws renders “don’t ask, don’t tell” unconstitutional, which was not the case when Congress first enacted the law.
There is a second route through which Obama could exercise executive power on this issue. Congress enacted a law, 10 U.S.C. § 12305 (“Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement, and Separation”), which grants the president “stop loss” authority to suspend any provision of law relating to the separation of any member of the armed forces whom the president determines is essential to the national security of the United States, during any period of national emergency.
Congress goes on to define, explicitly, the meaning of “period of national emergency.” Currently, we are in such a period, which means that Obama does have unilateral authority to suspend “any provision of law” relating to separation of members of the armed forces, including involuntary separations under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
I am a strong supporter of President Obama, and I believe that he has done more for LGBT Americans than any president in the history of the United States. There may be reasons for him to decline to use his executive authority to suspend “don’t ask, don’t tell” via a stop-loss order, or to eliminate the law forever by deciding not to appeal the district court ruling. But it's not entirely correct to say that he lacks such authority.
(Belkin is the director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and testified in the federal challenge to "don't ask, don't tell" in July.)
and THE NEW YORK TIMES -EDITORIAL- OCT 16TH 2010 to add:
...."Clifford Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said in a court filing that ending the antigay policy would require training, and reworking regulations on issues like housing, benefits and standards of conduct. He said the Army had to consider the “rights and obligations of the chaplain corps.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the military had to consider whether barracks should be segregated and whether partners of gay soldiers should have benefits
.
This sounds disturbingly like the creation of a “separate but equal” system. The armed forces do not need to be protected from their gay and lesbian personnel. The military has always had its own culture and rules of behavior, but it has not been living in a cave.
Judge Phillips has hit on a simpler, more equitable solution: just stop enforcing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It has done more to harm military readiness than her injunction possibly could."
NOW we have a Obama that is doing the same thing, cuts down the Big Business, Say's the GOP is all for the RICH, YET he has done nothing but give TRILLIONS of US $'s to UNIONS of Big Business!!
He lives like a high roller and is all TALK and NO ACTION for the middle class!!
All he had been doing since in Office is Talking like he is still running for Election, HE even just admitted on TV just the other day HE WAS WRONG with saying he had Shovel Ready Programs to start things up! "he is under experienced to run a Nation" is on TV every dang DAY - Cutting down others and making divisions in our NATION, this is NOT the Job of the President Of The United States Of America!
no wonder he only has 30% approval rating ... and yet he does the what he wants and rejects the 70% of the nation !! WTF???
He makes Jimmy Carter, and Bill C. look GOOD!!!
SORRY if I seem P'd OFF but I am.. he is worse then the GOP! HE HAS shown that over 400 people in his Admin have been busted for not paying Tax's taking under the table funds, and more! Dang I am NOT sorry to say I will NOT vote DEM's this NOV!!!
Lairs and 2 faced ppl SUCK!
I believe this column does not offer room for political arguments on past and present Democrats' and Republicans' achievement outside gay issues.
The ideology of a party is -alas- not always projected by the elected candidate it represents. All arguments are debatable. However, in my book, those issues that
penalize gay lives and gay rights and equality are both the reflection of a party's thinking and its elected representative as well as that of the nation.
As a gay man, I have still in mind the Reagan years, his silence (=death) between 1981 and 1985, while the CDC was unfunded for research and by the time Reagan finally left office 80.000 gay men had died and some 150.000 or more were infected with no hope to survive until AZT, at last, was manufactured and got approval.
What Reagan did is criminal. And he was the elected representative of the Republican party which did nothing to persuade him to be aggressive confronted to a deadly health crisis. The word 'Aids' fell out of his mouth only in 1985 after several alarming reports from
the CDC.
A recap of what Reagan the Republican did (or did not) :
(all articles on Aids can be found on Kaisernetwork.org)
In 1981 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported the first known cases of AIDS, at that point known as gay cancer or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID).
According to press reports, Reagan never publicly addressed the disease until September 1985 when a reporter at a news conference asked him whether he would support government research initiatives to fight the disease.
According to the New York Times Reagan answered by saying that AIDS "is a top priority with us" and explaining that since he had taken office he had provided or appropriated about half a billion dollars to fight the epidemic.
Yet Reagan continued to clash with lawmakers and activists on his AIDS policies. According to press reports Reagan requested $85 million in 1986 for AIDS research, but Congress bumped that figure up to $244 million. Reagan unsuccessfully tried to rescind $50 million of that figure, according to the Boston Globe , but he ultimately agreed to Congress' figure. At the time the Globe reported that AIDS patients were dying at a rate of about 80 per week.
In 1987, Reagan proposed cutting the research budget for AIDS down to $214 million. Congress again responded by raising it to about $400 million, and Reagan again agreed to sign that figure into law.
I will stick to what I have said at the very beginning of this response to the two of you, gentlemen: only gay issues should take place in the space provided by Fridae.
I have said my piece on President Obama's position following Judge Phillips court decision.
However, it is time for Midterm elections and if the recent following graphic -as published by 'The Economist' on October 11th 2010- is a reflection on other and/or larger gay issues ''felt' by the nation, I won't hold President Obama responsible for delaying the implementation of the current DADT policy for a few months..although it bothers me a bit !
Attitudes to gay marriage among religious groups in America -'The Economist' -10/11/2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Since this graphic won't 'stick' to Fridae's site (I have tried) let me resume it:
(from 0% to 100%- in favor of gay marriage, in 2010)
-Atheist/agnostic 80%
-Jewish 75%
-Catholic -white 50%
hispanic 43%
-Protestant
white mainstream 50%
black 30%
-White Evangelical 20%
Vox populi !
As the sad campaign says: It gets better !
Regards.
I believe this column does not offer room for political arguments on past and present Democrats' and Republicans' achievement outside gay issues.
The ideology of a party is -alas- not always projected by the elected candidate it represents. All arguments are debatable. However, in my book, those issues that
penalize gay lives and gay rights and equality are both the reflection of a party's thinking and its elected representative as well as that of the nation.
As a gay man, I have still in mind the Reagan years, his silence (=death) between 1981 and 1985, while the CDC was unfunded for research and by the time Reagan finally left office 80.000 gay men had died and some 150.000 or more were infected with no hope to survive until AZT, at last, was manufactured and got approval.
What Reagan did is criminal. And he was the elected representative of the Republican party which did nothing to persuade him to be aggressive confronted to a deadly health crisis. The word 'Aids' fell out of his mouth only in 1985 after several alarming reports from
the CDC.
A recap of what Reagan the Republican did (or did not) :
(all articles on Aids can be found on Kaisernetwork.org)
In 1981 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported the first known cases of AIDS, at that point known as gay cancer or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID).
According to press reports, Reagan never publicly addressed the disease until September 1985 when a reporter at a news conference asked him whether he would support government research initiatives to fight the disease.
According to the New York Times Reagan answered by saying that AIDS "is a top priority with us" and explaining that since he had taken office he had provided or appropriated about half a billion dollars to fight the epidemic.
Yet Reagan continued to clash with lawmakers and activists on his AIDS policies. According to press reports Reagan requested $85 million in 1986 for AIDS research, but Congress bumped that figure up to $244 million. Reagan unsuccessfully tried to rescind $50 million of that figure, according to the Boston Globe , but he ultimately agreed to Congress' figure. At the time the Globe reported that AIDS patients were dying at a rate of about 80 per week.
In 1987, Reagan proposed cutting the research budget for AIDS down to $214 million. Congress again responded by raising it to about $400 million, and Reagan again agreed to sign that figure into law.
I will stick to what I have said at the very beginning of this response to the two of you, gentlemen: only gay issues should take place in the space provided by Fridae.
I have said my piece on President Obama's position following Judge Phillips court decision.
However, it is time for Midterm elections and if the recent following graphic -as published by 'The Economist' on October 11th 2010- is a reflection on other and/or larger gay issues ''felt' by the nation, I won't hold President Obama responsible for delaying the implementation of the current DADT policy for a few months..although it bothers me a bit !
Attitudes to gay marriage among religious groups in America -'The Economist' -10/11/2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Since this graphic won't 'stick' to Fridae's site (I have tried) let me resume it:
(from 0% to 100%- in favor of gay marriage, in 2010)
-Atheist/agnostic 80%
-Jewish 75%
-Catholic -white 50%
hispanic 43%
-Protestant
white mainstream 50%
black 30%
-White Evangelical 20%
Vox populi !
As the sad campaign says: It gets better !
Regards.
...the US has over 100 million people with an IQ below 100 and that is who the other side and their teaparty chimps try to appeal to by bashing everyone who is different ...scary...
The only problem is, he damn well should have gotten it done by now. Gonna be real hard to accomplish if the Democrats lose their majority in next month's elections.
Obama has been a fair disappointment to me, too, but I still maintain he's far, far better than a McCain/Palin administration. I just shudder at the thought of that.
Please log in to use this feature.