By the end of Barack Obama's first 100 days, it became clear: gays and lesbians are not this president's priority.
He stopped mentioning us, except for two notable cases: the brouhaha surrounding the invitation of Rev. Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer, and the call to Congress to support including sexual orientation and gender identity in hate crimes.
Then, at just about the 100 day mark, bloggers started pointing out something disturbing: WhiteHouse.gov had stripped its "civil rights" page of almost all things gay.
It narrowed down promises to the LGBT community from eight to three, and from a full half-page to a few sentences.
When bloggers called the White House to protest, some of the promises came back, including a full repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - but talk of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act had disappeared.
What also disappeared was this moving quote from Obama himself, on June 1, 2007, when he was still in campaign mode and working for our votes:
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
When blogger John Aravosis called the White House to ask what was going on, this is what he was told:
"Recently we overhauled the issues section to concisely reflect the President's broad agenda, and will continue to update these pages. The President's commitment on LGBT issues has not changed, and any suggestions to the contrary are false."
Well. Maybe we'd believe that Obama's commitment hasn't changed if we saw some action on our issues, instead of almost complete avoidance.
Obama made that call for hate crimes legislation, great. Of course, that was the easiest of our issues to get behind - it is supported by the majority of our police forces and attorneys general, after all.
And yes, he's facing big issues - the economic meltdown, two wars, now a retiring Supreme Court Justice. But in his first 100 days, he was somehow able to make it easier for women to sue for equal pay, lift Bush's ban on stem cell research, lift the traveling restrictions for Cuban-Americans to Cuba, and protect two million acres of wilderness.
In other words, he made significant, sweeping change in government and for some groups of people, change that is only tangentially related - if at all - to the economy, or to the wars.
We've seen change, all right. Good change. For others. But we haven't seen change for gays and lesbians and we haven't seen proof of commitment to our issues.
Campaign promises are campaign promises. It is not enough that Obama said he was our "fierce advocate" during the campaign. He needs to now show us that he is our president as well.
Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Clinton, pointed out in the Washington Post that Obama has no gay friends close to him in the administration. He does, however, seem to have evangelical friends.
If it's true that you can tell a person by the company they keep, then we may be in deeper trouble than we know. We'll have to see what the next 100 days brings.
Obama is a good president. But we are clearly not his priority. He has forgotten, perhaps, that we are part of America's "founding promise." Which means we need to stop being patient, stop giving him time, and start raising our voices until we are heard.
17 Comments for “Obama’s No-Show”
posted by esurience on
I can’t shake the feeling that we’ve been thrown under the bus, but regarding the defense of marriage act, it does say:
“He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples”
So, the phrasing has changed and become a little less confrontational. I think this is probably a better phrasing of the issue. A majority of Americans support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. But if you asked Americans what they thought about “repealing the defense of marriage act,” you might get a different and not-so-pleasant response. It makes it sound like you don’t want to defend marriage 🙂
posted by TS on
You are surprised by this? I said it the second I saw the guy! I said “he thinks he is a great man, some kind of magic conciliator. He wants to go down in history as the African-American president that singlehandedly healed the USA. To do so, he will gladly ignore LGBTs.”
Obama was silent on his intentions toward us on the campaign trail. And I expect his continued silence. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose for his real agenda by working with us.
And honestly, I don’t think that’s the end of the world. I personally don’t think there’s honestly much for LGBT activism to do on the federal level. The hate crimes concept is stupid and should not exist. Federalism is an ingenious way of dealing with social issues, and should be allowed to work toward gay marriage. The one thing that comes to mind Obama has the constitutional power to affect is Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But like I said above, he won’t touch this until perhaps the later half of the second term he is currently on track to win.
posted by Bobby on
All I can say is, “I told you so.”
“He has nothing to gain and everything to lose for his real agenda by working with us. ”
—You should have said that BEFORE all those gays voted for him.
posted by Jorge on
“all those gays who voted for him” are an unmovable, mostly blind force led by the blindness and corruption of the powers that be in the gay (Democratic/liberal) establishment. There was little that could be done.
Thinking a bit, I find Obama’s failure to act on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell completely irrational, hypocritical, and irresponsible, but not at all surprising. Jennifer Vanasco does not mention that President Obama enacted major policy changes to the way we are treating War on Terror detainees: he ordered the shutdown of Guantanamo Bay and an end to specific enhanced interrogation techniques which he all but identified as torture.
Most of us who are ideologically skeptical of Obama are the same people who understood the wisdom expressed on this site that moving too fast on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell is politically risky. Yet on these things Obama acted almost immediately, and without a clear contingency plan (where to put the detainees, what actions will be taken to ensure we get actionable information from detainees). It is almost certain he saw these as moral issues that could not wait, he had to correct an immediate problem.
Well where’s the moral clarity on our side? Where’s the recognition that “The United States does not discriminate?” Why doesn’t he believe that the continued prohibition on self-affirming gay and lesbian servicemembers is a moral issue? He’s obviously willing to start a fight he can easily lose.
I would suggest there is absolutely no justification for putting the moral and justice interests of War on Terror detainees ahead of gay and lesbian servicemembers.
posted by Clint on
Also note that he has backpedaled on any previous priority he placed on fairness and equality for pedophiles and necrophiles, as well as bigamy, incest and bestiality. It is hard to imagine but I think he does not really understand the voice of the GLBT community and the importance of the right to sodomy in a free society. Let’s all be sure not to be duped in the next election. This is discrimination at the highest levels of public office folks, and the American people are against it! Is there no freedom of choice? And they talk about Perez Hilton being narrow-minded. It’s unconscionable.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby says he told us so. Told us what? That Obama wouldn’t enact the gay agenda (about which IGF readers should know there is considerable disagreement) in his first 100 days? I voted for Obama for President, not Fairy Godmother. I did so with my eyes open, and overall I am quite pleased with him, though we have our disagreements. What Bobby did before the election was mostly knock down straw men and hurl a lot of ad hominem insults.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Yes, I have to laugh at Bobby saying he told us so as well. I never expected Obama to do anything to advance LGBT equality in the first 100 days. If four years go by and he hasn’t done anything I might complain but even then at least he won’t have done anything to actively further harm gays like Bush would have done. That gays like Bobby proudly exclaim their fondness for shouting themselves in the foot by voting for bigots never fails to amuse me.
posted by Jorge on
Clint: It’s a shame your parents weren’t gay.
posted by Pat on
Richard, maybe 100 days is too early for Obama to propose civil unions and ending DADT to Congress. When should he do it? Wait until after the midterm elections, or after his re-election, if that happens? And hear all the tiring reasons of political expedience for doing so?
But I’ll be patient. I’ll wait and listen to his State of the Union address next January, and see if these issues will be addressed as he promised. If not, then he still will be better than Bush on gay rights, who made a point of twice pushing for FMA in two of his SOTU addresses, but only marginally better.
Anyway, I’m glad that Obama is being criticized by the gay left as well. It’s refreshing that more people are not going to accept political expedience reasons for being thrown under the bus yet again.
posted by Bobby on
You guys really need to re-read Animal Farm. The pigs are lying to you, they’re promising you a 3-day workweek while working you to death!
You don’t expect anything from Obama in 100 days? Good ol’ Barry has done plenty in 100 days, for everyone but us.
“That gays like Bobby proudly exclaim their fondness for shouting themselves in the foot by voting for bigots never fails to amuse me.”
—At least my bigots don’t raise my taxes, don’t raise capital gains, don’t promote socialism, don’t hug Hugo Chavez, don’t bend over for Saudi Kings, don’t yell mea culpa before the europeans, and don’t make Bush look thrifty.
posted by Rob on
Not good enough! The research and details concerning the impact of DADT and DOMA has already been done, so they can’t use that as an excuse. As for the excuse of the economy being a higher priority, it shows that they simply can’t multitask. End of sessions that resets everything and committee blocks are also ridiculous. Needless to say, the US federal government legislature system is highly inefficient and is led by incompetent fools. It shouldn’t take more than a month and minimal staff to have it repealed. The Dems and that awful Nancy Pelosi, who’s as useless as tits on a bull, should repeal it NOW! Someone challenge her for the Democratic primary in San Francisco.
posted by TS on
Rob, hate to break it to you buddy, but this is not a matter of the politicians being too lazy to “get around to” repealing DADT and dismantling DOMA. The Democratic party’s priorities are to raise taxes (i’m in favor), cut defense spending (i’m in favor), increase welfare, programs, and social security (i’m opposed barring a better system), and liberalize education (i’m opposed). We are off the table and have been all along. To try to do the few meager things they can for us (federalism LIVES), they would be jeapordizing the rest of their plans. They aren’t forgetting about us. They are throwing us under the bus, which is to say trying to keep us in the coalition without letting us cause trouble.
posted by Rob on
Well then, what’s the point for gay Americans to vote for Democrats? You might as well vote for the Libertarians or Greens. Please do get rid of Nancy Pelosi.
posted by Jorge on
Well, that’s where I guess that issue with primary challenges is relevant.
Right. Everyone knows incumbents almost never lose primaries. The system’s very corrupt there. That’s why the grass-roots part is more important.
I have doubts that grass-roots activism can work.
posted by mademark on
Expectations are disappointments waiting to happen. I expected little or nothing on the gay front from Obama, so I’m not particularly disappointed. I am, however, amused at the continuing emotional roller coaster many in the LGBT-o-sphere keep riding at every whisp of a promise. Lesbian Surpreme Court Justice? The suggestion is unserious. If he didn’t appoint one to his cabinet, he sure as hell won’t go through the dust up of trying to put a gay man or woman on the Court. He won’t touch DADT or DOMA or any other D-whatever that involves risking the distraction of a Christian/conservative meltdown. The man’s a consummate politician, and we remain as expendable as ever.
posted by Andrew Hochberg on
Obama’s thrown us under the bus.
The only question is why he lied so much and so boldy.
And the answer is: Donations. Deception-based shakedowns of rich LGBT folks for campaign funds.
And then when he doesn’t need the gays anymore, under the bus they go.
But, do get ready, people: come the 2nd election campaign, after doing nothing, he’s going to say, ‘Now’s our big chance, you homos. Give me money and your vote and I will make all the good things happen magically’.
And then we’ll get thrown under the bus again. Money and votes is what he wants.
And frankly, I’ll be living in NY or CA come election time, and my current decision is that I’m not going to vote unless there’s some _amazing_ repub running.
Obama betrayed us, he will continue doing so, and he’s lost my vote.
posted by TS on
Hochberg,
Obama didn’t lie. He carefully presented himself as some kind of above-the-fray conciliator on all culture war issues throughout his campaign. This is somewhat pretentious but also rather refreshing. He promised us nothing and he’s giving us nothing. We are a special interest and he’s not into that.
Obama is, in my opinion, about as good as presidents get. Which is not great, but whatever. I guess I’d vote for him again.
How would you respond to the claim that there’s actually not much for LGBT activism to do on the federal level? Repeal DADT, make sure ridiculous antigay shit doesn’t get enshrined in our sacred consitution, and it’d be nice to have a decriminalization of homosexuality and transgenderedness statute on the books in case a future strict constructionist supreme ct repeals lawrence v texas. DADT is in Obama’s sphere, but not the other things. There should be no national hate crimes or gay marriage laws. Federalism is all about there being a real diversity of states in which to live. Some states can make gay marriage legal. Some states can prosecute hate crimes. Some states can make it miserable for gays to live there. Whatever.
Our activism should be focused on community and state issues. We should support or oppose Obama on the basis of his federal economic and diplomatic policies. He’s not working against us, which is a treat by the standards of the last 20 years of presidents.