The New Gay » No, Thank You, Mr. President

Home » Civil Rights, Commentary, Politics

No, Thank You, Mr. President

23 June 2009, 2:00 pm 11 Comments

obamadoma This post was submitted by former TNGer, Margaret.

I have a confession to make: I am one of those silly people who subscribes to Mrs. O, a fashion blog that analyzes the sartorial choices of the First Lady. And really, she’s very pretty and very creative and such a lovely avatar for the administration that I have placed a lot of hope in. Yet over the past week and maybe a little more, I have been “marking as read” all of the Mrs. O posts that come up in my Google Reader without even glancing over them.

This ambivalence towards following Mrs. Obama (I haven’t yet unsubscribed from Mrs. O) reflects my feelings about the President himself. I knew it would happen one day: the pride and pleasure that I used to receive from following the goings-on of the Administration and of the First Couple has been tarnished. The vultures have been circling since the Inauguration, but it wasn’t until last Friday that the death knell of my hero worship rang. The culprit? The brief supporting DOMA, in the back, with a knife.

The first I heard about the brief was a link to AmericaBlog (also the first time I had heard of AmericaBlog), which summarized the brief. I have not actually read the brief and relied upon this analysis to feed my anger. Yes, if I had to actually read the thing, my outrage would be far less because I wouldn’t have done so. Thank you, technology.

John Avarosis on AmericaBlog takes us through the various arguments against DOMA that the administration made in the brief: the plaintiffs have no standing, DOMA is in fact constitutional, withholding marital benefits from the gay community saves the federal government money, and DOMA should be upheld on its merits for protecting an institution that takes its power and position in society – in all societies – from tradition. Oh, and if Your Honors really need precedent, there are comparable cases where the court found a marriage between an uncle and a niece and one between an adult and a minor invalid because they didn’t conform to society’s standards of acceptable nuptial partners. AmericaBlog went on to assert that an administration is not required to defend the law (though it typically does), and that the writer of the brief is a Bush holdover and a Mormon.

A Mormon.

This analysis of the brief confirmed a trend I was witnessing thanks to Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox: that the Obama administration is really just ignoring the gay community. He has ignored current events to such an extent that when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked questions about DADT and Prop 8 by reporters, he had nothing prepared to say. (See the transcript from May 21 here, for example. The conversation with Cox is 4/5 of the way down the page.) Why should gay rights issues not be asked about in the briefing room? This is not 1970. We are not criminals in any state for the clothes we wear or the sex we practice; we are not judged to have a psychological condition on these bases either. We are citizens of the United States in all of our same-sex loving glory. (Well, I am, at least.) And yet we are being ignored by the Office of the President of the United States, as if none of that was true. As evidenced even by the choice of Rick Warren as deliverer of the benediction at the Inauguration.

So in the stages of grief, I had so far covered disbelief and anger – and I mean absolute, spitting, damning fury – mourning the faith I had placed in my new president. Then the bargaining started. Obama is an excellent politician. Isn’t there any chance that he knows what he’s doing?

Progressives as a group have placed a lot of hope in Obama. And by and large, he is living up to these expectations. He is figuring out the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison. He made a to-do out of signing the Letty Ledbetter Act and revoking the Global Gag rule. He is working through health care reform. He is bringing our financial system a little further from fake pure-capitalism and reinstituting regulation. Michelle is growing an organic garden and working with DC non-profits like Miriam’s Kitchen. The administration is hitting the highlights. And yet, he has shown a blind spot when it comes to our community – highly disappointing.

So over the past week, I thought more about it, read a little more, and listened to John Berry, the head of the Office of Personnel Management, one of the people responsible for extending benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees, on The Diane Rehm Show. (It’s a decent interview.) I also listened to Joe Salmonese debate a Christian bishop who is anti-gay-rights because it’s a slippery slope toward marriage. (Same show. A little hard to listen to.)

I had hopes, in the very back of my mind, that Obama would be the one to lead us out of the wilderness. And the reason that I was so furious at the brief wasn’t because it contained wildly ridiculous and insulting arguments, but because it is a sign that Obama is not the politician he promised to be. And really, we need a leader. We need a latter-day Harvey Milk who can strategize on a national level and bring together the various groups – political and grassroots and fundraising and education – to really gain traction so that granting our civil rights is a no-brainer to our neighbors and our politicians.

It is this realization that brought me to acceptance. For now, I accept the fact that my rights are second-tier on the list of the President’s priorities. Not because he has a plethora of other things to do (the man has shown that he can multitask, after all), but because this is as far as our rights have ever gotten in the White House. President Clinton, as far as I can tell, dealt with gay issues by acknowledging them and then asking them to go far, far away; there hasn’t been another president who would have them on his radar (including Jimmy “lust in my heart” Carter).

By the same token, I accept that President Obama is not going to be the leader that I had planned on him being. It is possible that the President is more politically savvy than I gave him credit for when it comes to the gay community. By keeping us out of the limelight, he may be taking away a club that the Right has to beat him over the head with—and they really are grasping at straws. Maybe what Berry said is true, that there is a long-term strategy that will bring our rights into focus, that we have to be patient and make sure that he remembers who we are and that we helped get him there. But before we can move together as a movement, we need to find someone to strategize, to hold him accountable, and that leader has to be one of our own.

And although I accept all of this, I’m not sufficiently healed to start reading Mrs. O again.

11 Comments »

steph said:

am i the only one still daydreaming of a president hillary clinton?

23 June 2009 at 2:23 pm

kevin said:

on the other hand, to be completely frank, what has the gay community done to prove it deserves the president’s support?

so far: fuck up a campaign and look amazing shirtless.

there needs to be more done on the part of gay activitists/organizations to prove that it’s a worthy cause.

i know “civil rights” blah blah blah and “oppression” blah blah blah and “it just isn’t right” blah blah blah. i’m pissed off as much as the ‘mo that this is something the proverbial we even have to do. but that holds true for plenty of other causes. put your money where your mouth is or shut up.

on a certain level, the progress is amazing. we’ve gained some marriage states and chris “typical old white dude” dodd has supported full marriage (while even in the last election cycle, common wisdom was that civil unions were the farthest a “smart” politician could take it).

yet, there’s still plenty to be done.

23 June 2009 at 3:03 pm

Kyle said:

I am so tired of hearing whiny queer-folk ragging on President Obama. He was not elected to enact our narrow slate of issues. I supported him because I want him to work on the economy, work on healthcare, work on international relations, and finally, not be Bush. If he worked on LGBT rights, fine, but I wasn’t counting on it. He’s still in the early months of his presidency, but I suspect he will still be a fine president.

We should be working on defending our jobs by way of the state and national legislatures. That’s where the focus should be. As for marriage, don’t get me started, because that is a titanic screw-up we’ve done to ourselves as a community. Civil unions would have been just as good, and much more easily achievable. Not that it is Mr. Obama’s business to cater to that issue either. Again, legislatures.

We need to get the hell over ourselves and look at the bigger picture – the economy, the environment, the various international crises, health care, jobs, etc.

23 June 2009 at 3:07 pm

steph said:

kyle, that is your belief; which, of course, you are entitled to. however, i think it relates to your life as you live it, and you can’t necessarily tell all gays to “get the hell over themselves.” maybe everything you want in life can be fulfilled despite being gay; however, for many gays, the current treatment and prejudices against gay people is stifling – personally, professionally, politically. of course the big picture is extremely important – if we don’t have a planet to live on, or the peace to live comfortably, then we obviously can’t enjoy anything. however, if we’re going to be subjected to prejudice whether it’s de facto or de jure, then we’ll never fully be able to enjoy the big picture. whatever. but telling gays to “get over themselves” is arrogant and literally accomplishes nothing. maybe it is the legislature’s job to create equality through legislation, but it is also the president’s job to set the tone and create an agenda. you may not find it disturbing that obama has hardly glanced towards gay rights, but i find it disturbing that he has no problem using “gay people and straight people” as part of his tired equality rhetoric in speech after speech, yet does nothing to acknowledge the reality of the issue.

23 June 2009 at 7:44 pm

John said:

It’s not unprecedented for a progressive president to drag his feet on civil rights. This sounds a lot like how JFK treated African Americans during his presidency. He has been posthumously and erroneously remembered as some hero of racial equality, but he kept an arm’s length with the movement and did very little as president. He did know how to make a symbolic gesture here and there, such as calling Coretta Scott King when MLK was imprisoned. I see parallels here so maybe there is something to be learned and applied to this case. I think that lesson is to keep up the pressure. The Civil Rights movement was successful because they kept the heat on the Democratic Party, not because the Democratic Party simply realized that equality was the right thing to do.

I am also getting impatient with Obama, but I’m not ready to write him off. I think it’s bullshit that a guy who campaigned as someone capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time can’t deal with gay rights at the same time he deals with other supposedly more important issues. It would take very little on his part to make small amounts of progress. The Democratic Party learned all the wrong lessons from the DADT debacle of the early 90s. That lesson: be wary of seeming to0 pro-gay because it can blow up your whole agenda. What they don’t realize is that’s 2009 and a lot has changed. DADT is wildly unpopular by a count of 2-1 in opinion polls. I understand that there are different dynamics within the military itself on this issue and it may not be as easy as the snap of his fingers, but at least put a moratorium on enforcing DADT. You’re the Commander-in-Chief, so grow a pair and at least do that.

At the same time, it is only 6 months into his presidency, and I don’t think his slow pace on these issues is somehow unique to him. Do I think Hillary would be any better on these issues? Absolutely not. Her husband perfected the art of bilking gays for their money and then stabbing them in the back (see DOMA) and I am not convinced that her political instincts are much different than his. This is a problem with the party, not with any particular leader. The solution lies within our power, not theirs.

24 June 2009 at 10:47 am

Ed said:

@ Kevin: YOU ROCK!!!

@ Kyle: Civil unions would not give us marriage equality. New Jersey, Vermont, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, all researched the issue and found that the word “marriage” matters. Anything else is tantamount to “separate and unequal.” Plus, state legislatures will not fix the part of DOMA that prohibits us from receiving federal benefits. The bigger picture in my life is having to file tons of paper work and get lawyers and accountants to do the things that hetero couples get automatically. We are already in a “domestic partnership,” and it is a crappy distant 3rd compared to our hetero friends’ marriages. But I agree with you otherwise. :-)

@ Step: You say, “but i find it disturbing that he has no problem using ‘gay people and straight people’ as part of his tired equality rhetoric in speech after speech, yet does nothing to acknowledge the reality of the issue.” The “reality of the issue” is that we aren’t the only people in the US. There is opposition to our issues that could derail the President’s agenda, and then he gets nothing done. Check out the 1993 fiasco with Clinton and DADT. The reality of the issue is that you are disturbed about “tone” and an “agenda,” but the last time I checked, legislation still starts in Congress. You put all of this on the President, but where does our responsibility as a community come into play? When do we start fighting for our own rights and stop letting someone else set our tone and our agenda for us?

@ John: I totally agree that, “The solution lies within our power, not theirs.” The Civil Rights Movement was “successful” because people took responsibility for their own rights and freedoms. They didn’t pass the buck and wait for the President. They engaged in campaign to win the hearts of Americans. We need to do that. If we learned anything from DADT in 1993, it should have been we can’t count on anyone but ourselves, but, as you point out, we didn’t learn that lesson. We got Clinton reelected and he screwed us on DOMA.

When are we going to learn to do for ourselves?

24 June 2009 at 5:09 pm

golikewater said:

You do understand that the Department of Justice is not the same thing as the President and that Obama did not write that brief, right?

Here’s another perspective for you:

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/06/hes_not_your_daddy.php

25 June 2009 at 7:01 am

John said:

Wow, there were some fair points made in the link you left there, golikewater, but she also adopts an incredibly condescending and petty tone that seems to contradict her idea that all of these other gay activists aren’t playing nice.

On substance, I have a few problems with drawing too bright a line between DOJ and the President and with the arguments in the essay you linked to. To argue that DOJ isn’t the president and therefore we shouldn’t be pissed off about that brief is sort of like saying “the buck stops everywhere else.” If Ashcroft or Gonzalez were AG and those briefs were filed, we would be pissed at Bush. Obama gets the same standard. It’s his DOJ, and whether he wrote the brief or even knew about the brief or not, it’s his responsibility. That language should not have appeared in an Obama DOJ brief. Period.

As for the link, the author is puzzled as to why people are pissed at Obama, whereas I am glad people are pissed at him. We should be all over him (and others) even at the slightest appearance of opposition to our goals. That’s how you get things done. It doesn’t mean we’re getting a case for impeachment ready. It means we’re letting them know we’re paying attention. That’s a good thing. We also have a history of supporting candidates and then getting a shit sandwich in return when it comes to policy. If the reaction seems overwrought, I’d say that’s quite understandable given our troubled relationship with the Democratic Party in recent years.

The essay also informs us that Obama is “no longer your candidate” as if working to get someone elected is the end in and of itself. We worked to get him elected because he made certain promises about how he would govern. This is democratic theory 101. This is accountability. I would much rather have people overreact to perceived slights than not react at all. I would rather have people be impatient than complacent. This is all part of the process.

25 June 2009 at 11:12 am

RDM said:

I am astounded and aghast at the Obama apologists here.

Shame on folks for apologizing for bigotry.

Kevin: What has the president done to deserve our support? That is the most arrogant phrasing of the question I have ever heard. He is our president, he campaigned on a promise to advocate for us, he took our money and our votes, and we have nothing to show for it.

But like every president, Obama is sworn to uphold the US Constitution. But, like very president, he has turned a blind eye to the way states trample the rights of gay and lesbian citizens and denied us equal treatment before the law.

And as for his other priorities?

FUCK THEM.

If the democratic party and the progressives think that fighting for gay rights will jeopardize their agenda, wait til they see what NOT fighting for them will do.

That position may be a bit extreme, but I am NOT a back burner issue.

25 June 2009 at 3:23 pm

timncguy said:

golikewater:

You do understand that the President’s Press Secretary told the nation that Obama fully stands behind that DOJ brief on DOMA in its entirety and would not say anything against it, right?

to the author:

Berry claims the White House has a long-tern stratehy for gaining our rights. Why does that strategy have to be a “secret Obama needs to articulate that strategy so it can be judged and he can be held accountable to it.

26 June 2009 at 8:39 am

J. Clarence said:

Obama has put himself in a very awkward position. While his rhetoric is very positive and reaffirming (sometimes) his actions are the stark opposite, as a result conservatives still label him as an “extreme lefty” but he angers his base because he only goes so far. So it’s a lose/lose situation for him.

I wish it would just do it and get it over with. The public is behind repealing DADT, and while there is less support for repealing DOMA, Democrats can and should argue the conservative argument–which is to leave it up to the states rather than having the federal government step in and take over.

Nevertheless, on gay-rights issue Obama has been a major let down, and that might just be temporary. However, up until at least last week Wednesday he signed the executive memorandum, there was indication that he would seriously be pressing Congress to send him the legislation to sign. Arguably that still hasn’t been done.

28 June 2009 at 2:22 pm