Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama's Stonewall
In 1996, when Barack Obama was running for the Illinois Senate, he was asked in a survey by Outlines, a gay community newspaper in Chicago, if he supported same-sex marriage. Unlike most candidates, who merely indicated yes or no, Obama took the unusual step of typing in his response, to which he affixed his signature. Back then not a single state permitted same-sex marriage, and sodomy was a crime. Nonetheless, Obama took a position on the progressive edge of the Democratic Party, and he did so with unmistakable clarity: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
Since then, as Obama traced his dazzling arc to the presidency, his stance on gay rights has become murkier, wordier, less courageous, more Clintonian. During his 2004 US Senate bid, he stated that he supports domestic partnerships and civil unions instead of same-sex marriage. When speaking to gay audiences, he explained his new position as "primarily just...a strategic issue." But on bigger stages he cited his Christian faith as grounds for his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, a view he reiterated during the 2008 presidential election even while he also asserted, inconsistently, that religion should not dictate a state's approach to gay rights.As president, Obama has made similar equivocations on gay rights. As a senator and as a candidate, he won the vocal support of the vast majority of gays and lesbians by calling for the repeal of both the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the miserable failure that is "don't ask, don't tell," and by supporting full federal partnership rights (but not same-sex marriage) and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would make it illegal to fire someone because of his or her sexual orientation. But he has so far spent no political capital to turn these promises into reality. Quite to the contrary, Obama's slide hit what one hopes will be a nadir on June 12 when his administration filed a brief defending the legality of DOMA by comparing same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia.
It is impossible to accept that a president who owes so much to movements for civil rights and social justice, never mind the Obama of 1996, believes in such right-wing bigotry; the only plausible explanation can be one of political calculation. The memory of Bill Clinton's early failure to integrate the military, as well as the aftermath of the 2004 election, when same-sex marriage was blamed for John Kerry's loss, looms large in the minds of top Democratic strategists. Guided by veterans of the Clinton-era culture wars like chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, the prevailing wisdom in the White House seems to be that a forward push on gay rights can only endanger what the Democratic Party hopes will be a lasting majority and would squander precious political capital better used on issues like healthcare and economic reform.
Such logic, however, is quickly becoming obsolete. Six states have legalized gay marriage. Democrats like Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine have renounced support for civil unions and embraced same-sex marriage, with Corzine having done so as a centerpiece of his re-election bid. Gen. John Shalikashvili, Clinton's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a cadre of military leaders have publicly called for an end to "don't ask, don't tell." Huge majorities of Americans, 89 percent in a 2008 Gallup poll, support workplace rights for gays and lesbians. Steve Schmidt, John McCain's campaign manager, and former Vice President Cheney have announced their support for same-sex marriage; and Utah's Republican governor, Jon Huntsman, came out in favor of civil unions, a switch that has not eroded his popularity in Mormon country one bit. At this rate, Obama is in danger of being outpaced on gay rights not just by the American people but by the nonsuicidal wing of the Republican Party.
There is still time for a course correction. In the wake of an uproar from gay activists and progressives, Obama signed a memo extending limited benefits to partners of gay federal employees (but not healthcare or inheritance rights); reiterated his intent to repeal DOMA; and voiced support for legislation that would, in the interim, give healthcare to same-sex partners of federal workers. But words are no longer enough. Now is the time for Obama to act with the full authority of his office and his character to pass a gay rights agenda that, in the end, will be seen as neither particularly radical nor particularly partisan but as a simple matter of fairness under the law.
A promising first step would be to fast-track passage of ENDA. A previous version passed the House by a vote of 235 to 184 in 2007, with thirty-five Republicans in favor, before dying under the threat of a Bush veto. Congressman Barney Frank introduced a stronger version that includes protections for transgender people on June 24, just before the fortieth anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City, which ignited the modern gay rights movement.
In those forty years, and especially in the past decade, the arc of the moral universe, as Obama is fond of saying on other matters, has bent toward justice. So much so that the question is no longer, Can the Obama administration afford to support gay rights with full-throated passion--but rather, Can it afford not to?
10 Comments so far
Show AllJason Grant Garza here ... wow, I wonder what John Boswell (Yale University) would think? You know the guy that ACTUALLY did the research and found manuals on marriage in the Vatican where it is shown how to marry two GAYS ... google John Boswell. See the titles: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe or Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. Interesting concept that God our CREATOR (gays) would hate us or not want us to be happy; however, when as in crowd control you only have to please the stupid ones in charge ... most don't think and very very very few question and research ... they might be wrong. You know maybe true LOVE is a special gift given only by GOD and any fool or drunk can see love on someone face ... maybe. Sorry, back to reality ... I have stated and will continue to state the argument is moot - they will never concede gay rights - think about it ... if every gay person stood up, didn't particpate (pay taxes) ... they couldn't put 30 million gay people in jail ... BUT don't expect, demand or ask for nonexistant goal post moving help ... either were equal or not ... even under DOMA the proscribed citizen has the same standard of measurement as the prescribed citizen ... read, learn, demand and hold accountable. C'mon OBAMA you want a GAY CZAR ... I'll do it ... maybe, I shouldn't tell them about the GAY saints it in John's book ... if anyone is interested in reading or questioning the VATICAN ...
I agree with you Mordechai, in the end I believe that Obama will sell out the GLBT because he doen't see the need to allow our community to be equal under the law, rather, he is using the community in the same manner that Bush and his gang of criminals used the Right to Life and anti-abortion Community to further his political aims and keep his base in line.
Obama is too Clintonian and is surrounded with past Clinton ideological members of that Admin. Obama will chant his hopes of freedom for the GLBT but behind closed doors he will ignore and block the aims to achieve that freedom.
Just what moron gave the state the right to determine who can marry whom? The state has no legitimate authority in this area; it is clearly unconstitutional.
For you gays who don't wanna wait for Obama the Savior to "allow" you to marry, here's my advice. Just tell people you are "married". You think anyone but the government is gonna ask to see your marriage license?
And, the only reason the government will ask is because when you are "married", you become part of super special government-created group of Orwellian "more equal" people entitled to extra benefits because you fall in line and do what the state asks.
The fight over marriage masks the real issue: single people are the largest group of discriminated against people in the US.
" But on bigger stages he cited his Christian faith as grounds for his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, a view he reiterated during the 2008 presidential election even while he also asserted, inconsistently, that religion should not dictate a state's approach to gay rights."
***********
This is the heart of the problem. For people of faith--whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever else, the term "marriage" has always idicated the union between a man and a woman.
People of faith should not be required to compromise (nor allowed to impose) their faith on society at large any more than homosexuals should be forciblty prohibited from expressing their affection openly for one another.
The only reason this whole thing is an issue in the first place (besides efforts to distract the public from larger and more important political issues on the part of some political operatives) is due to the licensure of "marriage" (a distinctly religious institution) on the part of the state (which is suppossed to be a non-religious institution).
The solution is for the state to get out of the business of licensing "marriage" for any committed couples and turning all present "marriages" by statute into civil unions. Then language needs to be added to require all civil unions to have the same enforcability in matters of contract, inheritance, and benefit allocation as "marriages" now have.
This will immediately accomplish two things:
1. The religiously faithful can still have their "marriages" while the LBGT community can still have its legal rights.
2. Bigoted haters of LBGT people will at last be compelled to come face to face with their hatred stripped of the veneer of other obfuscational tactics behind which they have been hiding all these years.
Poet
"more Clintonian"
A euphemism for equivocation, cowardice, betrayal, outright lying, log rolling, the gentleman's gangsterism of Wall Street and the financial sector, the appreciation of a $2500 bottle of wine, swinging dickism for the "thoughtful" . . . in short, protect the strong, destroy the weak and GET REELECTED.
As a gay man who supported Obama from the beginning, I've been on a roller coaster with his presidency. A lot of anger, feelings of being betrayed, etc. But, I am beginning to see that his calculations, his unwillingness to rush issues before their time, his diplomacy, and perhaps his desire to ensure a few easy victories before he tackles the tougher issues, might in fact be a winning strategy. He is using the failures of Clinton as his guide and that is good, because Clinton failed big time. Could it be that Obama is giving this issue, in the same way he is giving the Iranian revolution, some breathing room, so that it might find its own legs and begin to walk on its own? After lots of disappointment, I am beginning to think that perhaps Obama needs to be given just a little more time to show us what his plan is. And now, I believe he has a plan.
I share your anger and disappointment----and your patience. Hope dope is all we have. There never has been a time that when the rich did not simply take what they wanted from the poor----nor the majority from the minority.
My sexual preference is straight, but as long as any minority is treated unfairly we all live in a repressive society. I hear this obvious truth repeated Ad Nauseam by politicians who apparently have no intention of changing anything.
tanguero, sorry friend, time to see the writing on the wall. I was worried about Obama before he even got the nomination because I saw what he was best at, which was double talking. If you could figure out what he was saying, it wasn't long before was saying something else in another speech.
Since taking office he seems to be trying to set a record for breaking campaign promises. He even joked to the press when asked when the kids were getting a dog, "Oh that was a promise made during the campaign. it doesn't count." That seems to be his operating philosophy.
I'm afraid we have to admit he just another jerk politician who has sold out. It would be nice if he would have a change of heart but don't hold your breath.
Obama's plan:
Let the activists, the LGBT community do the work. Then, take the credit to keep the money from the LGBT community rolling in.
He has no plan. He doesn't need more time. What you see now is what you get and what you will have for 3 1/2 more years.