As to Glenn Greenwald's piece today on Obama's nice words (though anonymous members of the administration [and/or his chief of staff] badmouth progressives who support the ends promoted) but lackluster deeds on gay rights (weekend events led him to address a topic he rarely talks about), I admit that I found his speech impressive. I found Bush's at times nice words of little value given his deeds. Also got the idea he was just reading stuff at times, it wasn't coming from his heart or as a reflection of his mission/deeds.
[A weekly discussion of news in this case is Gay USA; the hosts were split on last weekend's march, but neither are a big fan of HRC on this issue.]
So, you have to guard against that sort of thing now. Perspective also means, however, to remember the two simply are not on the same level. Justice Thomas (btw the Stevens' interview was straightforward but his down to earth style helped) noted that when writing his opinions, he had to address the wishes of the majority. So, he might only stop at sixty yards, even if he wished to go eighty. A similar metaphor can be applied here -- Obama doesn't go anywhere as far enough, even to the degree he is able, but does go further than some. And, he provides a possibility of going further that others might not.
Still ... red flags were raised during his campaign. In Audacity of Hope, Obama referenced a call from a lesbian upset at his reference of "my religious traditions in explaining my position" opposing same sex marriage. He admitted that he might be wrong and would be open to change. But, why should his personal religious beliefs matter here? Some oppose abortion in many cases as a personal religious matter, but still do not support a law that selectively favors their own religious beliefs. He had a more supportive stance as state legislator, which is not too shocking given the higher you go, the more compromises you sometimes make. But, pragmatics is one thing; use of religion in this way (a matter that was a red flag overall to me) is a selective slap.
Also, the "have patience" approach Obama and others promote also is harder to take since there are measures that can be done that are half-measures, but more than is being done. As with torture investigations -- a true full fledged investigation would have taken time, so other things could be on the front burner while a investigation slowly took place ... for instance, the military policy could be put on hold. There is in fact a special ability to do this while we "fight two wars." And, the solicitor general does not have an obligation to support unconstitutional DOMA legislation (just the opposite), but apparently Obama thinks it bad and all, but not that. Not sure how to defend that.
BTW, one comment on GG's thread spoke about the libertarian approach to marriage. But, it simply is not totally "private," even if you call it a "civil union," since there are so many public privileges and immunities involved. The recent book on same sex marriage I discussed recently underlines the point. Some want people to have the ability to set up a sort of Chinese menu approach to benefits, but putting aside how unwieldy this tends to be in practice, society will likely decide various rights/privileges are best supplied to civil union relationships. Or, at the very least, that category would be a special one. This also underlines my recent right to privacy discussion that reminds that little is totally private which doesn't mean important aspects are.
Obama, and this is amusing given some of the criticism, is at heart pretty conservative in various ways. There is potential to do some good, but he clearly will have to be pushed. This is aggravating and has potential in some equal measure.