Why you should care about Obama’s waffling on gay issues
In the past few months, activists for gay and lesbian causes have learned to expect very little from Washington and instead look for successes at the local level. With gay marriage now, or soon to be, a reality in Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine, things are looking up for the LGBT movement after the depressing passage of Proposition 8 in California, which eliminated gay marriage after it had been allowed for six months. Despite these great successes, those concerned with the rights of gays and lesbians ought to be upset, because the Obama administration has moved painfully slowly.
Although few expect gay marriage to be recognized or authorized at the federal level any time soon, many thought that banning discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation could happen federally. Twenty states have passed laws that expand employment discrimination protections to cover sexual orientation. But despite an employment discrimination bill passing the House in 2007, the federal government still hasn’t included sexual orientation along with race, gender, age or national origin as categories that are protected against discrimination. The fate of employment discrimination protection is just a small example of how Congress and the White House have generally been slow to move or downright hostile toward the demands of gay rights activists and their supporters.
While no one expects movement on these issues when Republicans are in office, more is generally expected of Democrats. That’s because the overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian voters vote for Democrats, and gays and lesbians have ascended to fairly lofty positions in the Democratic apparatus. Bill Clinton famously pledged to revise the military’s ban on homosexual soldiers and was the first president to win with substantial open gay support. But he also turned out to be the movement’s biggest disappointment. Despite having prominent gay supporters and acquaintances, Clinton was responsible for two of the biggest setbacks at the federal level for gay rights.
The first was his squirrely compromise on gays in the military. His Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, authored by the late Charlie Moskos, which banned open disclosure of a soldier’s homosexuality as well as inquiry by superiors into a soldier’s sexuality, has been infamously ineffective at protecting the privacy of gay soldiers – in fact, an Arabic linguist has recently been expelled under the policy, making him the first casualty of this misguided policy since Obama took office.
The second capitulation of gay rights was the Defense of Marriage Act, which exempted states from recognizing same-sex marriage performed in other states and banned the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. Traditionally, marriage had been a province of the states, and other states (as well as the federal government) tended to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. On a practical level, this meant that some 1,138 benefits granted to married couples at the federal level are denied to same sex couples, even if they are legally married or are in a civil union in their home state. And even if it weren’t constitutionally dubious, it represented a sop to regressive forces in response to (at the time) a purely hypothetical threat. For the second time, Clinton sold out his gay supporters for the sake of looking like a centrist.
Obama, during his campaign, promised to be different. He pledged to support the overturning of DADT, the repeal of DOMA and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. So, after more than 100 days of his term, what’s happened? Nothing. Sure, there’s been speculation about him picking a lesbian for the supreme Court, but on the signature gay civil rights issue of his campaign, there has been no movement.
Now, perhaps one shouldn’t get too agitated over this. Barely 1/15th of his term has passed and Obama has a lot of other stuff on his plate. But the explanations proffered by members of the administration as well as important Democrats in Congress indicate that we won’t be seeing any efforts on the gay front for a while.
Let’s look first at Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. There’s basically a consensus that the policy is pointless when it comes to maintaining cohesion in the military, not to mention the fact that it’s blatantly discriminatory. Even before it was discovered that Arabic linguists were being discharged under DADT, the military and defense communities started realizing what a big mistake they had made. Two of the legislation’s biggest supporters, Sam Nunn, a former Democratic senator from Georgia, and Colin Powell, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when DADT was passed, have both urged revisiting the law, while many retired officers support its outright repeal.
But what has the Obama administration done? First, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, “I think the president and I feel like we’ve got a lot on our plates right now… Let’s push that one down the road a little bit.” It then came out that, by the beginning of April, Gates and Obama had had only one conversation on DADT. Although it’s true that Obama has a lot to worry about regarding the military, it’s likely that he’ll have a lot on his plate for the entirety of his first term, so there will always be an excuse not to push on DADT right now. But if right now lasts for eight years, then we’ll be stuck with this horrible policy. So much for the “fierce urgency of now.”
But what about federal benefits for same-sex couples? Surely the administration and Congress could show some urgency on this basic issue of fairness. Once again, however, now just isn’t the time. Nancy Pelosi, who is generally perceived as being very gay friendly, plainly stated when asked about pushing through an anti-discrimination bill, “Right now our agenda is jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.” And while it’s true that Congress has a lot of work to do in supporting Obama’s economic agenda, it’s not like eventually they’ll have nothing left to do and will be able to get around to protecting the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
And just to put the hypocrisy and disappointment in stark perspective, the White House altered language on its Web site that turned what had previously been calls for repeals of DADT and DOMA to just “change” to DADT and DOMA. Even though the original commitment for the repeal of DADT was restored after activists complained, there was perhaps no better signal of how the Obama administration has become unwilling to take political heat over implementing his campaign promises.
Gay rights are one of those issues that should make you sad about politics. Even when the party in power of the White House and Congress has made a public stand on expanding rights and protections for gays and lesbians, and even when they personally believe that it’s the right thing to do, they still find an excuse to procrastinate and prevaricate on their commitment to basic fairness and equality. And if we don’t call them out on it, they’ll continue to do so.
| Print
So what did Obama do in those first hundred days? Or you can return home.
Just take a look at Northwestern, are we liberal enough? to demonstrate gender equality as well as having adequate LGBT resources? I doubted.
Gay rights, of course, have to be legitimized and respected. However, we have to start from the fundamentals to make it happen.
On campus, being a lesbian is like a crime, even being a bisexual sounds wrong in NU’s social scene. A lot of my friends told me “it’s better to keep these matter underground”.
How could we, believe that we will have gay rights when this generation that we live with, are being conservative and not supportive at all?
I used to have high hopes for the equal American society, but now, I start to lose faith.
in the closet, who knows.
May 11, 2009 at 11:42 pm
to “in the closet”: that’s really disappointing to hear about bad experiences w/ being gay at Northwestern–it was my impression that higher levels of education were associated with higher levels of acceptance.
Either way, why don’t you just give coming out a shot? In my experience coming out to new people rarely turns out as badly as I expect. Sure it causes anxiety, and some people may even reject you, but how can you expect to change your peers’ anti-gay attitudes if you don’t speak up? Gays and our straight allies need to stand up for ourselves if we want to move forward–we can’t just hope on Obama, particularly now that he’s backing off from his earlier campaign promises.
Elizabeth
May 12, 2009 at 12:07 am
Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head.?Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.? Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, “That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all.” ?Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.? Stop gay apartheid.
Tom
May 12, 2009 at 5:27 am
to “in the closet, who knows”
I’m not sure who your friends are, but that’s really a shame. I don’t think it’s “like a crime” to be a lesbian on campus at all. Sure, there are only like 2 of them, but from my own personal experience, I’ve found nothing but acceptance and easy jokes to make about myself with straight friends.
Also I feel like if you’re a bisexual female, that’s nothing but cool/hot to bros who think threesomes are cool. In that case, your friends might just be jealous of how much hotter you might appear to these dudes. hahaha
Btw, 66% of this generation supports gay marriage compared to like 44% of our parents. I don’t think your experience reflects the whole at all.
come out, come out, wherever you are
May 12, 2009 at 11:53 am
Please do not compare gay marriage to slave rights or the Apartheid in Africa. There is nothing sinful or unnatural about race. Even if your conscience does not twinge when you’re sexually attracted to a person of your same gender, a basic knowledge of human anatomy makes the relationship undeniably unnatural.
perspective
May 12, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Dear “in the closet, who knows” (and everyone else who wants a more queer-friendly Northwestern),
One way to make your coming out (or oh-my-goodness-I-may-be-bi-or-a-lesbian-AHH) experience better is to meet some like-minded individuals over at Rainbow Alliance! Whatever your sexuality or gender identity may be, we are here as a resource of friends. If you’re interested, check out the website (http://groups.northwestern.edu/rainbow/Welcome.html), join the facebook group, and come to a meeting (every other Thursday). We’re a great group of people and we would love to get to know you!
On an equally important note, the LGBTQA community at Northwestern needs more allies! If more people were open about the fact that they support their LGBTQA peers, if more people declared themselves friends of the community, coming out might not be such a difficult experience.
If you consider yourself an ally, come to Rainbow meetings and events to show your support! Or, if you can’t make those, do your best to speak up in support of your LGBTQA peers. Really, when you get right down to it, it’s the everyday acts of support that make all the difference for someone who is trying to figure out their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Here’s to a better Northwestern!
One of the "two" lesbians
May 12, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I’m probably not going to change your mind and it’s ridiculous to argue with conservatives anyway (I usually make it a rule not to do so). I really can’t help myself. I hope “perspective” isn’t a Northwestern student because that is the most uneducated argument I’ve heard outside of rural Texas.
Dear Perspective,
what are you even talking about? A basic knowledge of human anatomy ( that you appear to claim to have) makes gay relationships seem entirely natural. Men’s prostrate gland extends far enough so that their love-making is pleasurable. Women’s sexual organs extend to the outside so that no penetration is necessary.
Since you used the term “sin,” I’ll make the easy assumption that you believe in God. If your creator doesn’t make any mistakes, why did he sexual deviance so pleasurable?
Also, the Bible says a lot of things that most modern people don’t agree with. Do you think that women should never talk, just listen to men? (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) Do you think wives should always submit to their husbands? (Ephesians 5:22-24). The Bible is also pretty chill with slavery. Considers it just a fact of life, etc. Are you in agreement with the bible on these topics.
Maybe you do. But The Bible is a big book. And it contradicts itself many times. I think the main thing that Christians should do is try to remember the big picture. Jesus loved everyone. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Beyond all that, even if you are just are going to be a literalist, I think there’s a passage that says that God sees every sin as equal in that they’re all sins to him. So even if you think being gay is a sin, you’re sinning by not loving your neighbor as yourself. And God sees those as the same.
At least being gay can be fun for those who are, whereas hating just breeds negativity and makes you an unhappy person.
NU might not be competitive enough
May 12, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Perspective needs to get some perspective.
He (or she) can’t differentiate between one’s sexual orientation and one’s sexual activity. News flash! Sexuality is something from within that we tend to discover during puberty. It is wholly natural whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Denying people civil rights under the law because of one’s narrow and bigoted religious belief is perfectly comparable to how slaves were treated. Denying gays equality under the law because their natural sexuality isn’t your natural sexuality is untenable, evil, ignorant, and immoral. One is gay with or without the act of sodomy. How is being gay a sin is said gay person hasn’t even had sex but is still gay? Clearly the only true sin here is believing that only your kind exists and therefore anyone inherently different must be punished to please your make-believe God of choice.
ajax
May 12, 2009 at 9:52 pm
OK, I’ll take these one at a time
1. Something “feeling good” does not mean it’s natural or moral. I’m not sure why you assume these two are automatically connected. Sex is meant for reproduction, which is obviously only possible if the sex if between a man and a woman.
2. The Bible does not contradict itself, and I would challenge you to read it through to realize that. The excerpts you’re referencing are out of context in some cases (woman not talking, submitting to their husbands) and completely wrong in others (the Bible being “cool” with slavery). The one passage in particular which contains both “wives submit to your husbands” and “slaves obey your masters” is talking about being content and peaceful and not causing unnecessary trouble for those in authority over you. The two specific positions were merely examples from the time of people who answered to authorities, and both were followed by commands for those in authority to treat wives and slaves with love.
3. Loving someone and thinking their behavior is moral are two different things. Jesus commands us to love everyone, but that does not mean that no matter what people do Christians are commanded to sit by and send love from afar. On the contrary, Jesus confronted sinners (like the money-changers in the temple). Speaking out against immoral behavior is a command just as loving your neighbor is a command.
4. Please stop the personal attacks. They make civil debate all but impossible. If you want to push tolerance of all viewpoints/”sexual orientations,” why does the conservative stance not deserve tolerance as well?
perspective
May 13, 2009 at 8:14 am
To “come out, come out”
Your second paragraph is a clear demonstration of why bisexuality has the stigma it does on campus. Bisexuality isn’t just something cool/hot that people laugh about… its a legitimate and important part of people’s identities, and I assume (though I cannot speak for anyone else) that people want more acceptance than just random dudes who want to have a threesome with you. That’s like saying, “Oh you’re Asian, you’re exotic, dudes who think Asians are cool will like you.” While being able to joke and laugh is great, it’s also unfair to make it sound as simple as that.
Anyway, I’m not trying to start anything at all in the comments section. Originally I just wanted to comment that this is a great article, brings up interesting and valid points, and is definitely something that I enjoyed reading.
bc
May 13, 2009 at 1:10 pm
You said “Please do not compare gay marriage to slave rights or the Apartheid in Africa. There is nothing sinful or unnatural about race.”
At one time, the justification for slavery was Biblical. Jefferson Davis once said that “slavery was established by decree of almighty God.” Genesis 9:25-27 says “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.” It was believed that the Canaan then settled in Africa and his descendants were the Africans that were enslaved and discriminated against throughout the world.
So you may say that there is nothing sinful or unnatural about race, but at one time, the pro-slavery and pro-segregation arguments had the same basis as your anti-gay argument today. And much in the same way, one or two hundred years from now, our descendants will look back and wonder what the hell the majority of Americans in our time were thinking.
To perspective
May 13, 2009 at 1:42 pm
People with perspective and experience (read: almost no hyper left-wing commentators) know that don’t ask don’t tell is the best and most realistic way to address homosexuality in the military. For every one or two hackneyed situation you can cite regarding it’s failures, countless problems are avoided by simply making sexual orientation irrelevant, the way it should be. Homosexuals should not be barred from serving in the military, but simply asking them to make it irrelevant (the policy does more but not much) is by no means too much to ask.
tb
May 13, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I agree with you, as would most liberals, that sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to military service. However, there are soldiers being discharged from the military due to their sexual orientation, which means that under the current statute, it obviously isn’t irrelevant. That is why don’t ask, don’t tell needs to be changed.
To perspective (but to tb this time)
May 13, 2009 at 10:31 pm
to perspective:
How dare you tell others to be respectful and not attack! Who are you to say that homosexuality is sinful or unnatural? Not only is it incredibly presumptive and arrogant on your part, but it is also an insult to me and to anyone who doesn’t agree with your twisted interpretation of the Bible. What do YOU know about what is natural and what is not? Who made you God? Talk about offensive!
You conveniently interpret the passages about slavery and submission of wives to “fit with the context of the times” but you don’t do the same for issues around homosexuality. Not all heterosexual marriages result in pro-creation and not all sex acts engaged in by heterosexuals are with the intent of pro-creating. Is oral sex (for example) therefore also undeniably unnatural?
You can go ahead and continue to rationalize away the passages that justify slavery yet stick to literal interpretations of passages on homosexuality. And you can continue to hypocritically interpret the Bible to fit your own prejudice and discomfort with people that you don’t understand. I don’t give a flip. But keep it to yourself and keep it inside the walls of your church.
Dave
May 14, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Speaking as an outsider, I think that you Americans seriously need to wake up to yourselves about LGBT people in the Military. Look at those of us over here in Australia for example. We’ve allowed Lesbians and Gays to openly serve in the military for years, ditto with Police officers and it hasn’t hurt our preparation levels one bit. If anything, its made our military more effective and robust, as once straight servicepeople saw that LGBT service people are only interested in doing their jobs, they were more willing to get in an do their own.
If you jokers want to remain a world power, stop letting ideology get in the way of practical matters. If they can preform the job just as well as what a straight person can, they should be allowed to serve.
Kate Doak
May 20, 2009 at 7:29 am
I think it is far better to stop the activism. It is scaring people especially when San Fransisco and the Fulsome street parade is becoming the image of what being gay is. It isn’t helping the cause. It is guaranteeing the eventual passage of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman forever. Since 2007 support for gay marriage has dropped almost ten points and some polls show as much a 77% as being in support of traditional values. This take over the world idea for homosexual kind is failing horribly. It looks like Gay marriage will be turned back in Iowa and Maine and it would be turned back in CT and even in VT if the people could vote on it. Why not live and let live? Pushing gay oriented anti-bullying and foolish programs forcing kindergartners to be exposed to gay marriage is not winning any converts. It is causing people who would support the cause on other fronts to abandon it. Also it is unifying opposition with groups like http://www.narth.com beginning to rise in prominence. Their conventions have been growing every year. People may be out of the closet but living in denial is a closet of its own.
Mael
May 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Mael,
I’m not sure where you’re getting your evidence, because support for marriage equality is growing, especially among younger generations. A quick glance at all of the polling done on the issue in the United States…
http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm
… shows that at the very least, support for marriage equality hasn’t dropped. Nate Silver offered a fairly good analysis not too long ago on this polling:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-by-numbers.html
And, in addition to that, two national polls have given full marriage equality (as opposed to civil unions) a plurality:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/two-national-polls-for-first-time-show.html
But even setting all of that aside, supposing you were right and “support for gay marriage has dropped,” that doesn’t mean anybody should stop their activism.
The biggest enemy of equal rights is ignorance. Many people who oppose marriage equality and equal rights do so because they don’t realize the pain that the current situation can cause. They don’t know the human face of it. They don’t realize everything that denying marriage rights involves. We need more people to speak out. It’s not impossible to change minds.
Also, what makes you think that Iowa will turn back? The state legislative leadership has said it won’t do it, so any such attempts are effectively dead for a year. By then, I’m guessing people will discover (1) that gay people having equal rights isn’t going to destroy society and (2) there are even economic benefits to allowing same-sex marriage.
And, by the way, tossing in San Francisco as a negative image does you no favors, either. It turns out that most Americans actually have a favorable opinion of San Francisco:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/13/719435/-Poll:-Americans-love-France,-San-Francisco,-Europe,-and-NYC
You’d better find a new bogeyman.
TD
May 31, 2009 at 12:49 am