by Michael dEstries
Tags: , .

California’s gay marriage trial questioning the constitutional legality of Proposition 8 kicked off today — with opponents of the legislation hoping the case eventually reaches all the way to the Supreme Court.

Glee star Jane Lynch, who has been openly gay for many years, talked briefly with the UK Guardian calling out President Obama on the issue — and expressing her frustration on his inaction. “Shouldn’t there be safeguards against the majority voting on the rights of a minority,” she asked. “If people voted on civil rights in the ’60s, it would have never happened. It took somebody like (U.S. President) Lyndon Johnson going, ‘F all of you! I’m going to do this.’ Obama won’t do it. He’s a huge disappointment to me.”

On the other side of the coin, Pope Bendict XVI today called gay marriage an “attack” on the natural differences between men and women. Speaking just after Portugal’s parliament voted to legalize same-sex marriage, the pontiff linked gay marriage to the environment — calling it part of a multifaceted prism of issues. “Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes,” he said.

This isn’t the first time the Pope has used the environment to promote his anti-gay agenda. Back in December 2008, he argued that saving people from leading homosexual lives was just as important as saving the rainforests. Uh huh.

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • Joe

    President Clinton made the mistake of taking on gays in the military as his first big issue after he was elected. It polarized the conservatives against him right at the beginning of his administration and prevented him from getting the cooperation he needed to make bigger things happen while he was president( like healthcare reform ).

    The time for a president to take on issues like this is after he is a confirmed lame duck president and he has done the other big issues on his agenda.

  • Tim K.

    Lynch is right that Obama is a disappointment in terms of gay rights, but he’s also been a disappointment in nearly every other way as well. His escallation of the war in the mid-East, his capitulations to the conservatives on healthcare. So far he has nothing to point to that hasn’t been a disappointment, and maybe this is what has clearly polarized conservatives against him. He didn’t have to take on gays in the military as his first big issue. All he had to do was do nothing for the first year of his presidency.

  • Reverend_Boony

    Unlike clinton, obama specificly said that he would fight for the rights of the G.L.B.T.

    The fact that he passed up many an oppurtunity to speak out against the unconstitutional measures such as proposition hate and the bible thumper agenda in maine, new york and new jersey not to mention the fact that he didnt publicly chastise his justice department for their ill thought out response on the court case against D.O.M.A. is a clear indication so far that he isnt a man of his word.

    Now…If he was keeping quite so as to get things done then he’s failed on that as well considering how much he’s compromised and given in to the repugnicons.

    President obama is showing himself to be a friend of neither the G.L.B.T. nor equality.

  • Joe

    I wouldn’t say that. He just gave the big position on his staff to that transexual woman.

  • ddpalmer

    Jane Lynch does realize that at it’s most basic a democracy means everybody votes and the majority wins?

    • Natasha

      I won’t speak for Jane Lynch, but she is right – a majority should not be able to dictate the rights of a minority. If that were the case, as she pointed out, the Civil Rights movement wouldn’t have happened. Women still wouldn’t have the right to vote. In fact, we wouldn’t have any equality and Hilary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid never would have happened (nor would she be Secretary of State, nor would Nancy Pelosi be Speaker of the House and so on). Basic civil rights should not be a political issue left to the majority to decide.

    • ddpalmer

      How do you reconcile your statement about women getting the right to vote with the fact that it was all men that voted to approve the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote?

      The women who had no right to vote (at least in most states) used peaceful demonstrations and protests to convince the majority of voters that they deserved the same right. So the minority can convince the majority to support them.

      And the votes that extended and ensured the rights of minorities in the Civil Rights movement were mostly cast by the non-minorities who had been convinced by the minority to support them.

      So Ms. Lynch and your examples are both proven wrong. The majority gave/affirmed rights to the minorities in both cases. In other words the basic democratic process worked.

      • WTF are you talking about?

        People don’t have the right to vote on other people’s rights. The point is that human rights should not be put up for a vote. Majority is not always right. That’s the point. America is not a direct democracy. It’s a democratic republic. Was the Civil Rights Act put on the ballot? No. Founders like James Madison understood that minority rights should still be protected. The whole point is that the minority shouldn’t convince everyone else that they should be given EQUAL protection. They’re already guaranteed by the Constitution, but bigots don’t see that

  • Pingback: Glee Star Jane Lynch Calls Obama “Huge Disappointment” : Gay News from Gay Agenda –

  • decklap

    I have a hard time understanding what the hell Jane Lynch is talking about. Obama has never favored gay marriage so how one could be hugely disappointed by his lack of support is more than a little obtuse. I think its fair to criticize him for the lack of movement on DADT but he did suspend the HIV Travel Ban and appointed a transgender person to his administration. But to criticize him for not working for something he has always been in open opposition to is to admit that you just aren’t paying any attention. Nice job Jane……

    • WTF are you talking about?

      I think she thought that he just said he was against it to get elected, but as president, he would realize that being against gay marriage is bigoted

  • Pingback: A Huge Disappointment | Best Gay Blogs()

  • Scrivener5

    If Obama had a pair

    …then he would sign an Executive Order banning discrimination against gays in the military.

    This singular act, which he has the power to do RIGHT NOW—if he so chose to do, certainly would shake up things. Some veterans groups might bristle at the executive order. Conservative groups would howl.

    But this is a fact: The ordinary soldier, marine, airman, or sailor would not blink an eye. As long as a military brother or sister can carry their own weight…as long as that military brother and sister can FIGHT, the ordinary military person doesn’t give a damn who sleeps with whom.

    Obama never served in the military. Harry S. Truman did serve.

    Harry Truman desegregated the military in 1948, nearly 20 years before the larger society followed suit. Harry Truman (though no social saint) served in the military and he knew that Black soldiers were integral to America’s success. Obama, having never served in the military, seems clueless how integral gay military personnel are to America’s success in fighting two wars simultaneously. Perhaps, one of Obama’s (bumblin and and clueless) “crack” Cabinet aides didn’t supply the necessary memo or focus group poll.

    Harry S. Truman didn’t govern by focus group. Harry S. Truman didn’t need photo ops and beer summits. Harry S. Truman didn’t need a staff of spin doctors and pollsters in order to govern effectively. Harry S. Truman originated the phrase “The buck stops here” and he certainly meant it.

    Being a military veteran is not necessary for being a good President…but it helps:

    “Truman was chosen to be an officer, and then battery commander in an artillery regiment in France. His unit was Battery D, 129th Field Artillery, 60th Brigade, 35th Infantry Division, known for its discipline problems.[23] During a sudden attack by the Germans in the Vosges Mountains, the battery started to disperse; Truman ordered them back into position using profanities that he had “learned while working on the Santa Fe railroad.”[23] Shocked by the outburst, his men reassembled and followed him to safety. Under Captain Truman’s command in France, the battery did not lose a single man.[23] On November 11, 1918 his artillery unit fired some of the last shots of World War I into German positions. The war was a transformative experience that brought out Truman’s leadership qualities; he later rose to the rank of Colonel in the Army Reserves,[24] and his war record made possible his later political career in Missouri.[23]”

    Yes, it is very obvious that Harry S. Truman had a pair.

    • Scrivener5

      President Obama made a great promise.

      Time will tell.

      I am happy for my brothers and sisters in the military who have put up with this silly and stupid discrimination for so long.

      It is 2010. It is about time.

      As an American FIGHTING man, I am glad that we can bury this discrimination nonsense and get back to the grim business of WAR.

  • Scrivener5

    Here’s from an article published on February 14, 2010:

    Obama’s national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the policy “has to evolve with the social norms of what is acceptable and what is not.”

    It is precisely this type of ignorance of history–this type of ignorance of how President Truman DEFIED the existing “social norms” of racist 1950s American society–this type of ignorance that so characteristically defines the bumbling, stumbling, and clueless Obama administration. Sad state of affairs.

    President Obama, enough is enough. Put up or shut up. Dilly-dally is only going to end up with you being shown the door when your first term is up. Then, the collective American public will bid you goodbye and advise you–in the old Southern saying–to not let the door knob hit you where the good Lord split you.

  • Scrivener5

    Discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans who are military fighting men and women is so anachronistic as to be no more than a vestigial limb on the body of the American military.

    Unlike President Obama, who never served a day in the military, President Harry S Truman WAS an American fighting man who displayed qualities of leadership, bravery, and courage under fire. President Truman desegrated the military in 1948…20 years before the rest of (racist) American society caught up–and President Truman was NO social liberal; he just realized that American fighting manpower was stronger WITH Blacks integrated than segregated.

    It is difficult for President Obama to stand up to the neanderthals under his command because the president lacks military experience…and credibility. That is why he often looks to be bumbling, stumbling, unsure, and clueless. That is why the idiots under his command treat him like a naive sissy who can be routinely pimp-slapped.

    After President Obama finishes his first (and only) term, it would seem as though the next president will have the military cred to completely dismantle the archaic practice of discrimination against gay military members.

    When fighting two simulaneous wars, every able and ready fighting man and fighting woman is gratefully welcomed by all liberty-loving Americans who realize that freedom is not free…and that freedom costs blood.

  • Limited Company

    Love knows no borders. Even in the animal kingdom there are same gender preferences. Why would humans be different ?