Blogs and Stories
Can Obama Make Peace With Gays
Max Whittaker / Getty Images
As Obama prepares to give a speech to one of the most powerful gay groups in America tonight, Gabriel Arana says he has some explaining to do about his shocking inaction on gay rights.
In an attempt to regain dwindling gay support, President Barack Obama is set to address a room of decked-out, well-heeled politicos at the Human Rights Campaign on Saturday night. As the self-proclaimed “largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil-rights organization,” the HRC might seem the natural place for Obama to amass support. But the gay community is unlikely to be placated by either the speech or the venue. Members of the gay community who are already angry at the administration for its weak defense of gay rights are also turning on established gay-lobbying groups like the HRC that some say have traded protest signs for cocktail glasses.
“The administration is caught in a bit of a time warp, and they think it’s 1993,” says John Aravosis, founder of AmericaBlog. “They’re trying to get credit for very B- and C-list moves.”
The White House has been tight-lipped about what Obama plans to say, though an official source at the White House said he plans on highlighting "incremental advancements." But various bloggers and the gay lobby are demanding that the president make substantive moves: Suspend Don’t Ask Don’t Tell with an executive order until it can be formally repealed; push Congress on the Defense of Marriage Act; and campaign for the passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Many gay-rights supporters on the ground doubt any of it will happen.
In a post that sent ripples through the gay blogosphere this week, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan—typically the picture of equanimity—said Obama just needs to do something: "Until then, Mr. President, why don't you have a nice steaming cup of shut-the-fuck-up?"
"The administration is caught in a bit of a time warp, and they think it's 1993,” says John Aravosis, founder of AmericaBlog. “They're trying to get credit for very B- and C-list moves."
These moves include Obama's recent appointment of a gay ambassador and his extension of some federal benefits—though not health insurance—to gay spouses in June. Instead of really accomplishing anything for gay rights, the administration's accomplishments are symbolic gestures meant to make the president seem “cool” with gay people—and thereby appeal to moderate mainstream voters. But they don't secure anything substantive or new for gay people. Both Clinton and even virulently anti-gay Bush II-appointed gay officials, and spouses of federal employees already enjoyed some of the limited rights Obama ostensibly gave them, like hospital visitation.
• Jacob Bernstein: Breaking the Ice with Gay Activists
The gay movement's building frustration also has to do with the administration's failure to expend any political capital to repeal DOMA and DADT. And there have been a number of highly publicized affronts to the gay community: the Justice Department's defense of DOMA in court and the selection of anti-gay pastor Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration, to name two.
"This is 10 months into the legislative year, and we haven't even gotten the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill passed," said Jim Burroway, editor of the gay news site Box Turtle Bulletin. (The House passed the bill last week, and it is expected to make it through the Senate soon.) "Repealing DOMA during Obama's presidency is certainly out of the question." This might seem cynical, but it seems less so in light of National Security Adviser James Jones' recent remarks on CNN, in which he said that Obama just "has an awful lot on his desk" right now and might have to wait until Iraq is a “functioning and stable democracy” (i.e. until the "war" is over).
But at least some of the frustration among the gay community is directed at established gay-rights organizations like the HRC, whose leaders are increasingly seen as impotent political insiders who spend their time making fancy friends instead of advocating for gay rights. For example, in response to the Justice Department's court filings on behalf of DOMA—in which administration lawyers compared gays to pedophiles—the White House held a cocktail party, which seemed to appease them. The same tone-deafness will again be on display tonight as HRC patrons make light conversation inside the slick Walter E. Washington Convention Center and gay-rights groups protest the administration outside.
"[The administration] is still putting their eggs in the big-gay-group basket thinking they're the ones who control the entire community and they don't anymore," Aravosis said.
The real question for gay-rights supporters is whether anyone should be surprised by the administration's inaction given Obama's public opposition to gay marriage. In Maine, opponents of marriage equality are handing out flyers with quotes from the president, who has cited his "Christian values" as the motivation for supporting civil unions instead of marriage. In the run-up to the election, the hope was that he was concealing his true feelings in order to get elected. But the fact that gay-rights organizations and activists settled for this shows how far behind the political process trails the culture. The president and the gay lobby may wake up soon and find that, as the president said of Republicans at the Democratic National Convention, the ground has shifted beneath them.
Gabriel Arana works for The American Prospect and lives in Washington, D.C.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Look Who's Irish!
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Edwards Sex Tape Details
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
The Pure Greed of Obama's Phony Health-Care Reform
Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike’s Election Guide 2008.
sonofloud
This comes from HRC president Joe Solmonese's weekly update:
"I've written that we have actually covered a good deal of ground so far. But I'm not going to trot out those advances right now because I have something more relevant to say: It's not January 19, 2017.
That matters for two reasons: first, the accomplishments that we've seen thus far are not the Obama Administration's record. They are the Administration's record so far....
I am sure of this: on January 19, 2017, I will look back on the President's address to my community as an affirmation of his pledge to be our ally. I will remember it as the day when we all stood together and committed to finish what Senator Kennedy called our unfinished business. And I am sure of this: on January 19, 2017, I will also look back on many other victories that President Barack Obama made possible."
It is clear that under Joe's leadership the HRC is more concerned with supporting Obama than they are about supporting the gay community.
What happens if/when Obama loses re election in 2012?
Not another dime to the HRC until Joe Solmonese is gone.
so-cal-centrist
HE doesn't really have to appease the community. They will vote for him or not at all, so it's a win win. He's proven his inaction on big issues.
Glenda1976
But a speech is supposed to solve everything.
mcmchugh99
He's not going to lose in 2012. We are in a reform cycle now, and conservatism will not be coming back for at least a decade--unless the reformers default and fold.
Glenda1976
Famous last words.
sonofloud
I am not willing to take that gamble, especially with Obamas current approval rating at 52%.
deedsnotwords
I am SO tired of Obama's patronizing pats on the head and meaningless, vague promises of future action. (I'm sorry hate crimes is just not that big a deal for me. I want health care and social security benefits for my spouse and me--and the rest of the thousand rights we are due as tax-paying citizens.)
I also agree that Joe Solomonese has clearly drunk the kool-aid. What an idiot. You never count on a president having two terms. And Obama is likely to loose house seats, if not the House itself, after the mid-terms, so how the HRC can think that inexhaustible patience represents a sensible strategy is beyond me.
I really don't believe Obama cares about LGBT issues. He cares only about votes and his own career aspirations. THAT has been the true story of his life. At heart, he's a typical, ambitious, self-absorbed pol, whose only true accomplishments have been advancing himself--not legislative achievements. This former law school professor--who should understand the separation of church and state--holds out his Christian views (as if all Christians are monolithic on the subject!) as a critical reason for his opposing same sex marriage. Instead, we should just be happy for the crumbs of separate-but-unequal that he promises us: civil unions. (Oh, wait, that hasn't happened either!) However, on this point he has shown the slipperiness of his commitment--and perhaps his moral compass. In 1996, Obama told "The Windy Times" that he supported gay "marriage." (I guess that was before he understood how much being a Christian should affect his viewpoint!). Subsequently in running for the U.S. Senate he conveniently evolved into a more restrictive view of LGBT rights. Then he spoke merely of civil unions. No, Obama cares only about his image. The only way to drive him to action is by demanding accountability for his words--or holding him up as a man not of "promise" but of "empty promises." (Here is the link from "The Windy Times." http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20437)
Veronicaxy
The Bible says a lot of things, even support for human slavery.
It's interesting how sections of it are carted out to demonstrate God's will, piecemeal.
A black woman who had been in charge of diversity initiatives in a Fortune 500 company (one you'd think would be very progressive) explained to me why civil rights for gays and blacks was not the same:
Gays, she said, made a life style choice God didn't condone.
Gays can hide their status, so they don't face the same level of discrimination she did.
Gays have more disposable income because they tend not to have children.
The irony of all of this nearly left me speechless, but I finally understood 'why'. I brought up statistics that shot down last idea but there was no changing her mind: being gay was a selfish, hedonistic lifestyle option.
I love my God, but the religions build in his name are a double edged sword and full of human folly. Lyndon Johnson should be given hero status for civil rights. It wasn't popular to cut through bigotry and he did it stating the political price for the Democratic Party. He was right.
We're not there yet gay community, please don't give up and please remain civil in the face of ignorance and hate. It wins respect and hearts. Time is on your side.
"While 41 percent Americans under 45 support legalizing gay marriage, only 18 percent of Americans over 65 agree."
speakingout101
The thing is though, that religious beliefs should not, and legally, do not, have any bearing on policy. Unfortunately the reality is that they do, more so than most people realize.
simplicity
It's not acceptable to the gay members of my family. If Obama is listening, he would be aware his speech is of little value.
A statement of what will be done and by when is the only thing they want to hear.
robjh1
This group is hard to please. They want everything right now. You can change the laws but not the hearts of men.
"and we are not saved..."
JennferW
I'm a straight person who thinks gay people should have every single one of the rights that straight people have including health insurance, pension and also the right to call their unions marriage and to have their weddings held in churches including the Catholic church (which needs to wake up and smell the coffee). I applaud the HRC for their efforts to attain these rights and more.
JohnnyBeagle
Should all Americans have the "right" to declare their own personal definition of marriage, regardless of what that definition is or regardless of what it is lacking?
distantdrum
This group is really up against a wall. Chairman obama paid them lip service to insure their vote but has since turned his back on them. To add insult, Barney Frank mocked them saying that they were only putting pressure, "on the grass" with the demonstration this weekend. Imaging that ... Barney Frank is even dumping on them.
This user is no longer registered.
sonofloud
Barney Frank said "he would rather see gay rights supporters lobbying their elected officials".
Does he prefer cash or check?
mcmchugh99
The DOMA should never have been passed at all. That was just a typical republican wedge issue designed to appeal to their Confederate-evangelical base, by going after one of the most vulnerable minority groups in the country--an easy target for the Right.
I support gay marriage personally, but that is only going to be passed on the state and local level.
As far as gays and lesbians serving in the military, they always have, and should not be discharged or discriminated against simply because of who they are, no more than women, blacks or Hispanics should be.
I understand that Obama has been a little preoccupied with a depression, two wars and health care reform--and constant attacks from the Right. They'll find some reason to attack him if he says "Good morning"--I know that. I can understand why he doesn't want to give the Right yet another set of cultural issues to attack him on. Of all people, I understand that, so I'm not sure when he'll get around to dealing with these issues. He'd probably prefer Congress to do it, so then he can just sign something.
Has anyone else noticed just how much he defers to Congress? He's almost like a 19th century president in that respect, when Congress was stronger than the Executive most of the time.
eurydice9276
Don't Ask Don't Tell was enacted by Bill Clinton in 1993. DOMA was passed in 1996 by a majority of both Democrats and Republicans, in both the House and the Senate, and signed by Bill Clinton. Both parties are responsible for these policies, and yet the Democrats persist in this fiction that they're for gay rights. They've hidden behind George Bush and pretended they had nothing to do with it, and they've courted gay voters by promising to change the very thing they supported in the first place.
Now it's the 'wrong time" - well, that's not a new excuse. Somehow, it's always the wrong time.
crymeariver
That's because he was a constitutional scholar and likes to follow the constitution. He promised to curb the expansion of executive powers and he is doing exactly what he said he would. We don't need another Bush in the White House, nor do we need a KING as head of a DEMOCRACY. Congress MAKES laws and the executive branch SIGNS them into law.
sonofloud
Back in February, the Obama administration shocked many civil libertarians by filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue -- the Obama DOJ argued, as The New York Times's Charlie Savage put it, "that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush's legal team." Remember: these are not prisoners captured in Afghanistan on a battlefield. Many of them have nothing to do with Afghanistan and were captured far, far away from that country -- abducted from their homes and workplaces -- and then flown to Bagram to be imprisoned. Indeed, the Bagram detainees in the particular case in which the Obama DOJ filed its brief were Yemenis and Tunisians captured outside of Afghanistan (in Thailand or the UAE, for instance) and then flown to Bagram and locked away there as much as six years without any charges. That is what the Obama DOJ defended, and they argued that those individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind -- as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.
As Judge Bates noted, the prisoners shipped to Bagram actually have even fewer rights than the Guantanamo detainees did prior to Boudemiene, because at least the latter were given a sham Pentagon review (the CSRT tribunal), whereas the U.S. Government -- under both Bush and Obama -- maintain that Bagram prisoners have no rights of any kind.
In the wake of Judge Bates' ruling that foreign detainees shipped to Bagram at least have the right to a hearing to determine their guilt, what is the Obama DOJ doing? This:
The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight. . . .
Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.
"Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration's unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right," she said.
In late February, I interviewed the ACLU's Jonathan Hafetz, who said:
What happened was, these people were picked up in this global war on terror, were brought to Guantanamo in 2004, and once Guantanamo became subject to habeas corpus review, the administration basically, the Bush administration stopped bringing people there, and started bringing them to Bagram, and Bagram's population has shot up, and it's become in some sense the new Guantanamo. . . . And so what you have is you have a situation where the Bush administration, was free to, and the Obama administration will continue to be free to, create a prison outside the law.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html
JohnnyBeagle
Obama would be a fool to try and "make peace" with the militant homosexual groups. What is the upside to going to extremes to suit the radical demands of 1-3% of the population, if that? What's next, trying to make peace with Vegans?
eurydice9276
Show me one soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan who's in danger of being dismissed from the service for being a vegan.
JohnnyBeagle
What in the world does that have to do with this?
Obama is the president and is running for re-election.
He needs the support of the majority of Americans and if he caves in to the demands of the militant homosexual extremists, he loses the election.
Don't be silly.
sophia5
Once again,
what's the big deal about letting gays marry ?
They could hardly do any worse than so-called "traditional unions"
ending in a 50% divorce rate. Is that a "tradition" to be proud of ?
Got a solution for both secular and religious organizations.
Allow gay marriages, including those in the priesthood.
JohnnyBeagle
Homosexuals can get married in all 50 states and in every nation on earth.
franjen
Can anyone quote a vaild study in regards to the "seperation rate" of gay unions? I hear this argument all the time that gays should be allowed to marry because of the marriage divorce rate is so high and that straight marriages are failing. I have know many gay couples through my profession over the past decades and very few stay together long and many in "committed relationships" are far from monogamous. I'm just curious if gay couples are actually more successful since the traditional unions are doing so poorly.
JohnnyBeagle
Homosexual unions, AKA "marriage" are doing better recently, in part because hard economic times keep people together. It was Reagan, by the way, who damaged marriage when he signed "no-fault" divorce into law in California - the other 49 states followed. In any case, the divorce rate is a shame, but that is no reason to hurt marriage more, is it?
There have not been a lot of large scale studies about committed relationships with homosexuals in part because there are so few homosexuals to begin with (1-3% of the population). However, with regard to male homosexual committed relationships, their was one study (I forget who did it) and the findings were that, unlike in heterosexual relationships, a tolerance for promiscuity actually helps the relationship last longer. And this should be easy to understand. Male homosexuals cannot get pregnant and sex is seen as more of a recreation that a commitment .
Jswift
The whole "half of marriages end in divorce" talking point really isn't drawn up to make the point that gays would be much better at staying together than those allowed to marry under the current system. It's more to show that despite the claim that marriage is a sacred institution taken very seriously by heterosexuals, the numbers demonstrate that the vast majority don't.
I imagine if marriage were extended to all who would wanted it the rate of separation would actually be higher in the gay community. True there are those couples who have been together for 10 or 15 years and a marriage really won't change their lives. Those couples will likely stay together. However if we were to take a new cohort from the younger generation, separation will likely occur more often among gays simply because heterosexuals have the inconvenience of conveniently making babies. There are likely a number of couples who after they come to their senses and realize they didn't marry who they thought they did and discovered all their incompatibilities will have to stay with that person even though they'd be happier not doing so because they now have additional members of the family.
Gays aren't going to accidentally have children. If they want to build a family they have to go through a lot more so they have more time to discover the mistake they made in coupling before reaching a point where they'd be guilted into staying together. As a result, the bad straight couple stays together driving each other insane with passive aggressive power plays while the gay couple divorces and is off doing something else. The numbers on that, however, will read as heterosexuals being more monogamously minded while the gays spit in the face of god's holy union by making the more psychologically healthy decision.
To sum up: Gay's parts don't make more people when combined so they don't have any "accidental miracles" forcing a long-term committed relationship. Where as boys and girls who stay together for as long as a couple months risk that.
JohnnyBeagle
The divorce rate is not 50%, it's lower.
Homosexuals are allowed to get married in all 50 states.
tarryh
As you note the President was clear on the issue of marriage during his campaign. We cannot say he has disappointed us. On many of the other issues most of the people I know are far more practical. They recognize that the economy, Afghanistan, and health care take precedence. This is not a time to frighten the horses. I came out living in NYC during the Stonewall 70's and then DC in the 80's. I am wedded to activism but I also know patience is a virtue. We are on the right track. The train has left the station. Let's just keep it rolling inexorably toward full equality. When you live inside the DC bubble, Gabriel, it is tempting to want it all now, but it ain't gonna happen that way.
This user is no longer registered.
tonyjenson
"Conservative" used to be such a "rational" word.
franjen
Toleranance use to be a two-way word.
This user is no longer registered.
eroteme
Yes, a hard reality facing the gay and lesbian community is that one of their biggest enemies is the Christian black community who are virulently anti-gay and lesbian. That was clear during the campaigning for Proposition 8 in California. African American Christians who frame their opposition on the grounds that in their interpretation, homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, should remember that the Bible also does not condemn slavery, in fact it tells slaves to be obedient to their masters, and also the Bible can be used to condemn mixed marriages as a sin. In fact this was the main plank of white Christian opposition marriages across color lines. This was especially so with white/black marriages in that Christians also believed that the black races descended from Noah's son Ham who was condemned in the Bible as an evil doer and as a result all his decendents are considered as cursed. This latter point is still taught in some Christian fundamentalist churches today. To me it is shameful that having fought for years against racial discrimination, the African-American leadership is so vocal in its opposition to gay and lesbian rights.
crymeariver
Yet most of the Gay groups in California didn't care enough to leave their safe all WHITE neighborhoods and try to get support from Blacks and Latinos in THEIR neighborhoods. Racism in the Gay community is notorious. Yes there are a lot of religious minorities who are against Gay marriage. However, there are also GAY Blacks, Latinos, and Asians who are FOR Gay marriage. Gay organizations just have no credibility with those groups because they don't take the time to WELCOME them into their organizations.
sonofloud
Weston, 44, is one of an overwhelming number - 70 percent - of black voters in California who voted for Proposition 8 and helped secure its passage, according to exit polling conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.
African Americans, energized by Barack Obama's presidential bid, boosted their numbers at the polls this year to 10 percent of the state's electorate, up from 6 percent in 2004.
"The Obama people were thrilled to turn out high percentages of African Americans, but (Proposition 8) literally wouldn't have passed without those voters," said Gary Dietrich, president of Citizen Voice, a nonpartisan voter awareness organization.
Latinos were 18 percent of California's voters, and through sheer numbers also contributed to Proposition 8's success. But 53 percent of Latino voters supported the measure, a much lower percentage than black voters. Among white and Asian voters, 49 percent voted for the measure.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1378391.html
crymeariver
And I repeat: Racism in the Gay community is notorious.
Most of the Gay groups in California didn't care enough to leave their safe all WHITE neighborhoods and try to get support from Blacks and Latinos in THEIR neighborhoods.
Gay groups have FINALLY realized their racism problem and are trying to be more inclusive of Gay minorities. They understand that they LOST Prop 8 BECAUSE of their lack of campaigning. You can continue YOUR racist comments sonofloud but it's not going to get the Gay movement anywhere. Again thankfully there are smarter people in the movement who are trying to fix their mistakes.
crymeariver
1) "No on 8's White Bias" L.A. Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3295255.s tory
2) Gay groups lack of outreach to Gay minorites: Rachel Maddow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcZVAlSqNbA
Jswift
I'm not really sure why you feel the need to call out sonofloud's "racist" comments as if it were an attack on you. It's really just the numbers that back up the point you made. The fact of the matter is, that was the breakdown of votes by race. And why did it fall that way? Because, as you said, they didn't bother to approach all those groups. Although I'd argue that the prop 8 campaign had plenty of critical flaws besides that. 70% of a minority group can make or break you...but the fact that they didn't bother to rebut a lot of ridiculous claims that may have driven 49% of the majority group to vote for it was pretty suck-tastic. Not a great campaign on a lot of fronts. Hopefully all future efforts learn from this experience.
tonyjenson
If you want to enact DOMA, it really needs to defend marriage. In other words, it needs to outlaw divorce. Otherwise DOMA is hypocritcal and a lie.
crymeariver
co-sign.
JohnnyBeagle
Repeal of the "No-Fault" divorce would be a great step.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
JohnnyBeagle
Everyone does have that right. For the record.
jbo206
"everyone has a right to marry". Yes, we get it. Gay men can marry women and lesbians can marry men. You are oh-so-clever. Please clap for the cleverness of J-beagle everyone.
For people in real relationships though, this won't suffice to get you into a hospital room or make other emotional and financial decisions for someone you have shared your life with (someone you choose to marry vs. who the state approves of your marrying). Could you try to show a bit more respect for a subject you have no stake in.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.