Fuck

It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that the reason President Obama hasn't done jack shit about Don't Ask Don't Tell...to say nothing of gay marriage...is because he really, really...doesn't want to.

Now he's saying that rather than repeal the insane law, he wants to "change" it. As though there was some way to make it work. Tip: There isn't. It's an insane law.

In the interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper pressed Obama as to why his administration had not moved on a key promise it made to the gay rights community -- that it would overturn the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy crafted during the Clinton years.

"Look," the president replied, "I've had conversations with [Defense Secretary] Bob Gates as well as Admiral [Mike] Mullen about the fact that I want to see this law change. I also want to make sure that we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the Executive Branch simply to say we will not enforce a law. It is our duty to enforce laws.

"But look, the bottom line is, I want to see this changed," Obama added, "and we've already contacted congressional allies.

Constitutional? Really?

You know, I've said this before--but I never thought I'd be saying it about a Democratic administration.

I would like to see somebody stand up and ask Obama two questions.

One : Do you think a homosexual is a person?

If yes, then, Two : Where by any reasonable standard in the Constitution does it say that any person does not have the same legal rights, responsibilities, and protections as any other?

I'm especially curious to hear the first black President's response to that, given as I know that the Constitution originally said that slaves only counted as three fifths of a person.

(The things you learn from television.)

If (as he sees it), it is our duty to enforce laws written to deny people their rights, then Barack Obama is only three fifths of a president.

(Or maybe 80%, given his parentage...I'm fuzzy on the math but you see my point.)

Back to his answer to the first question.

Do you think a homosexual is a person?

If no, then, Two: Why didn't you tell us that when you were running for office?

Of course, the thing is, I think I know the answer to both of those questions (and their permutations).

He didn't say that when he was running because he wanted money and votes.

There's nothing in the Constitution by which to reasonably deny people their rights and responsibilities.

The only reason to do this is if you are, at best, a craven opportunist; at worst, a bigot.

Does he think that a homosexual is a person?

I'm afraid the answer to that is becoming clearer to me, too.