Democrats should not make a move on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" until the senate seats in Minn, Illinois, Colorado and New York are resolved.

All I have to say is that after the choice of Rick Warren, Obama needs to end DADT in 2009 if he wants to win back the hearts of the progressive left.

You can't call yourself a "fierce advocate of equality" and leave DADT in place.

Harry Reid will be Obama's biggest road block for the next two years

And isn't this depressing? I've read that Reid is supposedly very effective behind the scenes, but it's hard to see why, or even if, that's the case.

Gay marriage and "don't ask, don't tell" need to be in the same national conversation. The question is the same in both instances; should gay Americans be given the rights afforded to straight Americans?

There is nothing more important than ensuring the rights of American citizens. So no, I don't think "don't ask, don't tell" should be moved to the back burner.

I can understand the attitudes of both hollywood and freerider - it is a shock to see someone such as Warren awarded a prominent position at the Inaugeration. That move, while consistent with Mr. Obama's standard mode of operations; ie, maintain contacts with people you don't necessarily agree with, it does leave a bad impression (to say the least) among those affected by Mr. Warren's less-than-Christian rhetoric. Immediate repeal of DADT would ameliorate that impression.
Personally, I think the repeal of DADT would have more of an impact than many realize - as it would signal the recognition by what is considered the most conservative bastion in the Federal government that being gay is not a "perversion" and is fully consistent with service in any part of the military.
And there is also the point that, with the Federal government officially taking the stand that there is nothing incompatible with being actively gay and serving in the military, one more right-wing "talking point" (sorry about that) will have been removed.
And I do think that, while the guilt-by-association argument against Mr. Obama may be understandable, is will do nothing to further equal civil rights for gays, whether in or out of the military.

What doesn't make sense to me is a statement like the following:

“It ought to be re-examined and it ought to be on the agenda, but it shouldn’t be very high on the agenda,” Levin said. “There are just too many other more important things to do."

Since when is the government restricted to doing only one thing at a time? How does the presence of other non-exclusive priorities somehow conflict with the ability to end DADT? This line of thinking, that there are "other, more important things to do" seems like a really poor smokescreen for saying "I don't think the gays should be so uppity".

Pointing to the Clinton administration's difficulty after repealing the gay service ban may be part of the argument against getting rid of DADT right away, but it's the start of the conversation, not the end. A hell of a lot has changed in 15 years.

"coward, a bigot, a homophobe, a traitor"

Sums up the celebtity pick for me.

It is absolutely ridiculous to lump together some angry posts by gay posters on certain liberal blogs and make assumptions about all gay people. It's even worse to make a verdict on the status of their civil rights struggle.

I can only speak for myself. I am saddened and disappoineted by Obama's pick of Warren for the invocation. Though I understand his inclusive intentions, I found this to be insensitive and a bit tone-deaf in the wake of the passage of Prop 8. I had hoped that his inauguration would be a moment for all of America to celebrate his glorious victory. And yes, that includes people who don't agree with him and his supporters. But I can't help but feel alienated by Warren's presence primarily because he was at the forefront of the effort to deny me my civil rights.

Does this mean that I think Obama is a "bigot" or a "homophobe"? Absolutely NOT. But I feel a bit nervous about his commitment to LGBT rights. It does seem disingenuous of him to claim to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights when he has openly said that he does not favor gay marriage and then has someone who equates homosexuality with pedophilia and polygamy give the invocation at his inauguration.

I think the true measure will be in the actual policies. If he is able to end DADT and sign ENDA, then that will show that he is serious. I just hope that he doesn't cave into the Republicans' bullying the way that Clinton did. I really hope that he can maintain a balance of principle and pragmatism. That is why I supported him and gave his campaign money and proudly voted for him. I still know in my heart that he will be a good president and will set this country back on the course toward progress.

There is a strategically correct way to go about this," said Luna. "This policy has been in place for a number of years. It's not going to be repealed overnight."

Of course not, because that would be, you know, change. I don't know where anyone got the idea that this administration might be interested in change.

Besides, changing the policy would enhance America's military effectiveness, save money, and help win the war on terror, but, on the downside, bigots might not like it.