Apparently our vigilance has paid off. Much of the original wording has now been restored.

Yes, I’ve noticed re: DADT they’ve tweaked it again so that instead of “change” it now again says “repeal”.

I can’t imagine that the Republicans will produce a person that I am willing to vote for during my lifetime, but I sure as hell am not going to vote for Obama in 2012 unless he produces tangible results on the gay rights goals he set for his administration. There is no reason for me to support him, if he doesn’t support me and my family.

Websites aren’t totally representative of a person or organization. Nor are campaign promises. Matter of fact, a politician’s own words aren’t representative. Only actions matter.

Strengthen Anti-Discrimination Laws
On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act to ensure that all Americans receive equal pay for equal work. The President is committed to expanding funding for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to ensure that voting rights are protected and Americans do not suffer from increased discrimination during a time of economic distress. 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 changing 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.

So instead of support a repeal of DADT, now he supports “changing” DADT.

What I ask, is what does that mean, exactly?.

Either you include gays openly in military services or you don’t.

I digress—the bottom line is, I’m guessing that Mr. Obama is like any other cynical Democrat—backpeddles to the polls when it comes to social, civil and human issues.

And yet, because of the wisdom my liberal friends seem to posses, I’ve adopted a “wait and see” approach to Mr. Obama like I do to any other elected official. I also know that 100 days is too short of a time to gauge how this administration will do for us LBGT Americans. And no, he is not a “king” like Dubyuh was (but with a Democrat Congress, he can be!). After all, talk is cheap and his “statements” have that “feel.” I do, however, have the “audacity of hope” that Mr. Obama isn’t just any mamby-pamby liberal and that he actually walks his talk.

I’m watching Mr. Obama. I’m watching.

If the above decide to shine a light on this it could force the white house to address this issue instead of them acting in the dark without anybody calling them on it. —Dan

I’d say that’s happening, and it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few weeks at whitehouse.gov, too.

I would hesitate to say the change to the Civil Rights page of the Obama administration legislative agenda was made “in the dark”, perhaps without fanfare, but not in a way meant to deceive. The language has changed there, most certainly, and opponents of DADT have reason for renewed concern.

I do think we should continue to let President Obama know what we think about his positions as they evolve, but the real engine of change is Congress, so make sure to let your representatives know what you think, too.