Obama addresses gay rights for the first time as President
Isn’t that a crazy thing to be able to write nearly 6 months into his presidency? Here’s the his response to Brian Williams’ asking him if gay and lesbians have a friend in the White House:
I think gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House because I’ve consistently committed myself to civil unions, making sure that they have the ability to visit each other in hospitals, that they are able to access benefits, that they have a whole host of legal rights that they currently do not have. I don’t think that it makes sense for the federal government to get into the business of determining what marriage is; that isn’t traditionally the federal government’s role.
Hey, Obama. Not to be a harpy nitpicker, but the only person who’s actually done anything yet regarding those rights we do not currently have is that lady you used to out-gaylove back when a couple million people were interviewing you for your job.
He literally hasn’t said one word out loud until now, unless you count this really awkward no-homoesque joke from the correspondents’ dinner. And these three uncomfortable dodges from his press secretary that strongly indicate that there is no discussion of these things, say, at staff meetings.
It’s not like the opportunity hasn’t presented itself. Indeed, there is an extensive list of LGBT rights advances from the past six months – Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire have legalized marriage since he was sworn in, Washington and Nevada have passed all-but-marriage bills, and D.C. voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. And of course, Congress, i.e. the federal government, has the ability to overrule the D.C. city council’s decision.
Just to review, there are a whole slew of things that could have happened by now to show that his answer to Brian Willams isn’t just politicking to placate a huge donor base: end the HIV travel ban, ask Congress to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell instead of sending people you fired, Mr. Commander-in-Chief, letters saying that you are sorry for firing them (sort of), or pass ENDA so non-military people can’t get fired for being gay, invite Adam Lambert to the White House.
Alternatively, you could say that you wanted to do any of these things into a microphone at any point after you were inaugurated, just like you did all the time in the debates and on the campaign trail. And yes, there is a difference between saying “gay people should have legal rights” and “I am asking Congress to give gay people their rights by repealing DOMA as soon as possible.”
Cynisism aside, I can totally sympathize now with how much my mom hates having to nag. It really sucks, but it always (eventually, at least) resulted in my picking up my socks or passing legislation or whatever when I lived at home.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
I completely agree that it’s ridiculous that these thing’s haven’t been done already. That being said, I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt for a few reasons.
a) Gay rights are making huge leaps right now without Obama wading into the issue. If Obama holds off until he’s actually needed to do things like repeal DOMA, that means he’s conserving his political capital now to accomplish other things. (And frankly being able to get married will become somewhat bittersweet if it happens at the expense of not passing legislation to make the world economy unbroked.)
c) There’s a better argument for repealing DOMA and forcing all states to recognize marriages in other states as there become more issues/confusion with more people being married and having issues like not being able to get divorced in their non-gay-marriage state of residence.
As a corollary, the longer he waits, the less political capital it will take to make strides in federal gay rights legislation. This is clearly beneficial since, among other things, he’s liable to be able to do more for the same amount of political capital when he does get down to this.
d) Al Franken hasn’t been seated yet. Having read his books, I think he will be quite important to the debate both by providing a 60th vote and his skill in making conservative opposition out to be the joke it is.
e.1) We’re not used to this after eight years of Bush, but quite simply Obama knows what the fuck he’s doing. I never ceased to be amazed at his calculated political moves, and how often people criticize him for doing something politically unwise, only for everyone to later realize how brilliant he was. I’ve had many of the same initial concerns, but I’ve learned to sit back and give him a chance; it’s admittedly kind of shocking that we can has a president who’s doin it rite.
e.2) This probably says it better: http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6178/politicalpicturesbarackpp0.jpg
f) I don’t think we’re quite at a tipping point yet in times of acceptance of gay marriage. I think if he stays silent for now, an extremely well-timed endorsement of gay marriage from him (and Hillary!) could be the final nail in the coffin to officially banish NOM and its supporters back to LOLcat meme status. The longer he holds off and waits to speak until SSM support hits a critical mass (I’d say it’d be when VA/IN/AZ/CO and other such swing states get to be where NY is now.) the more sway his turnaround on the issue will have in shifting public opinion.
Oh, and with DADT, he’s in a tough spot because he can’t do anything right now. If he’s not going to tackle it legislatively immediately, he’s kind of trapped in terms of doing anything by himself. If he accepts the idea that as President he can sidestep the rule (he could probably legally ban military funds being spent on investigating gay allegations of current members) it means congress won’t end up considering DADT since there wouldn’t be as much pressure (an opponents could argue the status quo is actually a middle ground), and also that another President could undo it.
Also, he is doing stuff on this. Just yesterday he appointed a Republican US Rep from NY to be Army Secretary. In addition to being like the 30th most liberal Republican in congress (thereby making the Republican caucus even more conservative/insane courtesy of the the remaining members) the dude also supports repealing DADT, not to mention takes a republican out of congress. NY has 30-or-something US Reps. Now 2 Republicans are left.
PS: You can’t edit these things after you post them, so apologies for my clearly not-so-good grasp on the English Alphabet or spelling/grammar.
Thanks for such a thoughtful reply, Mike. I hope you don’t mind that I’m only going to explicitly respond to your (e.1). Your other points may make for good future posts.
I also am surprised on a regular basis at how well Obama can make political calculations. I just also think it’s important that one of the variables in his calculation is that gays will not be placated with just symbolic appointments and proclamations commemorating Stonewall; we require and demand tangible progress via legislation, leadership, and advocacy. Patience has never been an effective political lobbying technique, especially in civil rights. Giving politicians the benefit of the doubt and allowing compromise is what got us DADT in the first place. Which, admittedly, was a better alternative than an all-out ban.
Going through the list of 24 issues on the Whitehouse website, the Civil Rights category looks pretty sparse compared to the rest of the issues. He can walk and chew gum, he’s just chosen to prioritize LGBT rights at the bottom of his agenda. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point this out, and I don’t think it’s incompatible with believing that he has the ability and intention to fulfill his promises to us.
Haha. Didn’t expect you to reply to my thesis in response to your post. (I’m kind of flattered though, that you think what I wrote is post-worthy haha.)
But yeah, you’re completely right that patience isn’t a lobbying technique. That presupposes, however, that passing the law is your main goal. Forcing through one law and trying to do it any way you can requires only the political might to do so. But this doesn’t ensure that the law sticks (i.e. Prop
as forcing it through can cause political casualties.
To me though, the goal of the gay rights movement is to achieve a major shift in our society’s approach and attitudes toward homosexuality. In order to accomplish this, you need to navigate the sociological/psycological obstacle course that is our culture and human nature, and earn public support.
That sort of thing requires careful planning and thoughtful (and, yes, patient) execution. Part of such may include waiting for support to build before making pronouncements or taking positions. I am in no way suggesting the gay community should stay quiet now. I just think it’s unfair to accuse Obama of neglecting the issue when he deserves a presumption of good faith that he might in fact be pursuing a larger goal.