Normally, I'm not a big fan of protest theatrics, to my mind, Code Pink frequently does more harm than good to the cause, but I have to approve of ACT-UP's chaining themselves to the Capitol Rotunda today.

What's going on here is that during the campaign, Barack Obama promised to lift the ban on funding needle exchange programs, which:

• Do not encourage drug use.
• Reduce AIDS transmission.
• Reduce the cost to society.
• Provide an entry point with addicts for counseling.

The problem is that the White House submitted a budget to Congress still contained the ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs.

So this wasn't even a matter of his not fighting for the program, it's a matter of him submitting language reauthorizing a program that he explicitly campaigned against in his budget.

A president's budget is purely advisory. Congress can, and does, amend it, or ignore it, as they see fit, but he is unwilling to even leave out a bit of language authorizing a program he claims to oppose.

I'm with John Aravosis's take on this

1. The candidate promised to lift the ban.
2. The White House Web site reaffirmed the president's commitment to lifting the ban.
3. The White House Web site no longer reaffirms his commitment to lifting the ban.
4. The president now refuses to lift the ban.
5. The president actually affirmatively makes things worse by administratively supporting [and] defending the ban.
6. The spokesman reiterates the president's support for lifting the ban, some day, once Congress gets around to it.

There is a pattern to all this, whether it's his sucking up to homophobic screeds "reformed homosexual" Donnie McKlurkin, using legal arguments equating gay marriage with pedophilia and incest, refusing to take administrative actions to even modestly impede the anti-gay witch hunt in the military, and now affirmatively submitting anti-gay legislation to Congress.

Either there is some real homophobia here, or there has been a political calculus made that appealing to homophobia is a political win, because the opposition wants gay people dead.

At best, it's no different than the prosecutors in and around Baltimore who will routinely demand more severe sentences in plea bargains for black defendants, because they know that they have a better chance to convict a black man, even in front of a black jury.

I believe that this action has been taken because it can be seen as a gay issue, not in spite of it.

This is dog-whistle gay bashing, and it is quite deliberate.

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.