Illinois's civil unions bill, after passing a state House committee, was left to languish at the end of the session.
The bill is still alive, if barely: it can be passed by the state legislature anytime in the next two years.
It doesn't really surprise me that the bill hasn't moved this year. Despite neighboring Iowa's fantastic move to full marriage equality, Illinois's state legislature had other things to worry about, thanks to the corruption scandal surrounding Rod Blagojevich. It's also, despite it's tentative blue status, fairly conservative - note that the bill was for civil unions in a year when marriage is the biggest player at the table.
But that should have been its advantage.
Let's pause for a moment to consider this: Illinois is President Barack Obama's home state (at least as an adult). Obama has said - emphatically - that he is for civil unions, not marriage. And that he wants equal legal rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Why didn't Obama lobby for the bill?
Why didn't he say in a speech something like: "My own great state of Illinois is working now to further the equal rights of gay couples. I hope they pass the current civil unions bill."
Why didn't he call his former friends in the legislature, where he was a state senator, after all, and encourage them to do the right thing?
If he's not for equal marriage - and he's not (he prefers gays and lesbians to have "separate but equal" status instead) - why isn't he trumpeting the recent passage of domestic partnerships in Nevada, or partnerships in Washington state?
Easy. It's the same reason he hasn't moved on the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell military ban (which the majority of Americans support) and why he didn't issue a supportive statement on the Uniting American Families Act when it was being debated in Congress last week.
Gays and lesbians are not his priority. Which is why the only "accomplishment" his administration could claim in proclaiming the White House's support for Gay Pride month was this:
"I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration."
Except - ooops - the Advocate reported that this isn't true. President Clinton nominated Roberta Achtenberg as Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity and Bruce Lehman as Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, both within his first hundred days.
The White House's response?
"President Obama remains the first president to have openly LGBT candidates confirmed by the Senate during the first 100 days of an Administration."
Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like "fierce" advocacy to me. Things got worse this week when the Supreme Court turned down the opportunity to review Don't Ask, Don't Tell - partly because the Obama Administration argued that it was a "rational" policy.
Obama has been mostly silent on our issues since taking office. Insiders tell us that he will keep his promises. They tell us to be patient. They tell us to wait.
Maybe they're right. Maybe not. Maybe the Obama Administration really is working like crazy behind the scenes to dismantle DOMA and Don't Ask, to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Uniting American Families Act. Maybe they're just hoping if they placate us enough, we'll go away.
All we know for sure when it comes to this Administration is that hope is not enough. Promises of "change" are not enough. We supported Obama with our dollars and our labor, and it is time he supports us in return.
But until he does, the good people of Illinois - like good people all over the country - have to wait for their rights.
6 Comments for “Another Shrug from Obama”
posted by Pat on
Just another example of inaction by Obama. So much for hope and change. Also, I guess I missed the mass email from HRC and other gay organizations criticizing Obama’s inactions and condemning him for issuing an argument to the Supreme Court favoring DADT.
posted by Ralf on
Indeed. I donated, attended rallies, had the lawn sign, did Facebook ‘activism’ etc for Obama.
I understand patience. But I also understand the Rev. Dr. King when he says “wait” almost always means “no”.
We’re done with “wait” coming from the Democratic establishment. Thye’ve played this game with us since Clinton’s first run run in 1992. We’ve waited 17 years for a Democrat with a spine on our issues.
I do worry that our impatience may lead to imprudence. I am not optimistic about the ability to pull off a March in D.C. in October followed by a major campaign in CA in 2010.
I’m more in favor of an Obama style grassroots campaign similar to the one Organizing for America is doing now for healthcare. It’s distributed, local, grassroots, builds capacity for social change making and is accessible to folks who don’t have the cash to travel to D.C. or write big checks to CA orgs and the biggies (HRC, etc…).
posted by Mark on
Maybe the White House realizes that gay people vote Republican? In higher numbers for Sarah Palin than anyone before? Explaining that will go a long way to explaining Obama’s disinterest in taking political lumps that your state legislature won’t.
posted by Arizona Michael on
In replay to Mark above: Where is the data that support your statement. I am surprised that I’ve never seen that before anywhere since the election results were posted .
Please link to the source of that statement that gays vote Republican and in higher numbers than anyone. That’s absolutely astonishing if true!
posted by Mark on
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-outperforms-kerry-among-virtually.html
Kerry: 77/23 among gay voters
Obama: 70/30 among gay voters
First, the overall vote swung 5% to Obama, while LG voters (BT not surveyed) swung 7% to Palin. Also, Women voted 56% for Obama vs 49% for men. Can we assume the same split exists between gay men and lesbians? And some unwillingness of conservative gay men to self-identify to an exit pollster? I think you could make a compelling that over 40% of gay men did not support Obama. If, as a group, gay people are so ambivalent towards him, why would you expect him to fall on grenades in 50 states for you?
posted by Catherine on
The Democratic Party did have some bitter splits. I know some feminists and gay men who really liked Hillary and felt like she had been un-fairly treated and thus were lukewarm about Obama.
I suspect that President Obama is going to do lots of things behind the scenes, because that is — frankly — how things tend to get done. If he made a public endorsement of the bill it probably would not help it get passed, and would likely just rehash the same basic controversy, with the same basic result.
Furthermore, we may not really want the federal government having a public opinion on a State civil unions bill. Right now, the States are ahead of Uncle Sam and the FMA is dead.
President Clinton tried to be out front on gay rights issues, early in his term, and got badly burned for it. Their has to be broad based support for gay rights bills to be go anywhere.