A post over at Daily Kos on the potental impassability of the DADT repeal and the consequences of such.

These activists share not a common organizer, but rather a common complaint: "Our needs are not being addressed. We are tired of being marginalized and ignored. It is not OK to toss us out of the coalitionas was done in the healthcare reform legislation and may well still happen on comprehensive immigration reform. We matter. Our contributions to the coalition are worth fighting for."

This really isn't a threat. It's just an insider's observation. There will be trouble. The gay community has done its work, by making our case to the American people. The poll numbers didn't move themselves, we've made it politically viable for Democrats to vote in our interests. It's time to do it. The solution to avoid all this angst and in-fighting, seems remarkably easy: Pass ENDA, repeal DADT. The valve will release. The storm will turn 180 degrees back out to sea.

The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld has a piece up on the non-impact of the White House LGBT liaison, Brian Bond.

The problem for Obama is ? no one knows Brian Bond, except Beltway insiders and selected A-gay ?leaders? with whom he apparently holds private meetings to presumably discuss the LGBT ?agenda.? It is impossible to know what is being discussed because the A-gays do not report back to the community either.

That very disconnect is an ongoing source of frustration for those of us who are very much not on the A-list. 

Failure to repeal DADT (or pass ENDA) is a sad reflection that the A-list is not the same as A-game. 

Groan.  Colonel Richard Young of Texas, formerly of Ellwood Cty has a letter to the editor in the Trib.  He argues against the repeal of DADT because it will impinge on military chaplains. 

While chaplains are willing to minister to everyone, including people they disagree with, they cannot allow the government to censor parts of their faith. Not only would chaplains lose religious freedom, but so would service members who wouldn't have the benefit of the full counsel of God if chaplains  are muzzled.

Pitting "religious liberty" against LGBTQ equality always frustrates me.  There are no freedoms to be lost for homophobic military chaplains if gay soldiers live openly.  Colonel Young disagrees:

Teaching on sexual morality would be endangered. Counseling biblically could generate charges of "discrimination." Declining to perform same-sex "marriages" could bring the ire of activists. And these scenarios could easily bring about career-ending Officer Efficiency Reports for chaplains who obey God rather than man.

Not true, Colonel.  The repeal of DADT won't have any impact on your ability to counsel soldiers.  Your argument would carry more weight if you could provide evidence that desegragating the military had an adverse impact on chaplains who found that decision offensive.  Other than personal angst ...

Gay activists don't care if you perform same sex marriages.  Seriously. The obey God, not man piece is quite a nugget -- this is the military, for God's sake. It is all about obeying men (and some women). 

Stll, Colonel Young took the time to write and submit his point of view in socially conservative SW Pennsylvania.  Are we effectively exercising our First Amendment freedom to do the same?