This is the last straw for me. I took Americablog's pledge.
Melody Barnes seems to be a shining example of the kind of person I expected Barack Obama to surround himself with when I voted for him for President. She is Obama's Senior Domestic Policy Advisor, and Director of his Domestic Policy Council. A tape of a speech she gave at the Boston College of Law included a response to a question about same-sex marriage. When the White House got the tape, they went through the Agonies of the Damned over two full days determining whether they'd let Boston College make it public or not. Eventually the White House saw that it would be futile to try and censor it.
Like the President she works for, and so many others in the administration, Barnes is articulate, humane, self-possessed, good-humored and exceptionally intelligent. But look at the damage done to all that because of the administration's decision to side with the Catholic Church and the National Organization for Marriage. I was going to say the administration is incoherent on same-sex marriage, but it is not - the Obama administration opposes our equality.
That prevents the most senior advisors like Barnes from issuing a simple declarative sentence - "I support same-sex marriage" - even when it is clear that is her position. Instead, when asked a direct question, she has to speak in the wild circumlocutions and detours that are now becoming characteristic of this administration on this topic:
"I guess I would respond in a couple of different ways. One, I appreciate, I really appreciate your frustration and your disappointment with the president's position on this issue. He has taken a position, and at the same time, he has also articulated the number of ways that he wants to try and move the ball forward for gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans, including signing the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and a whole host of other things that we've started to do to model as a leader in terms of what the federal government is doing, as well as to encourage changes both in the military, in the workplace, and certainly with regard to hate crimes."
For the record, the President's position in same-sex marriage is this: "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
While that is a position, it is not an argument. Rather, it is indistinguishable from the positions (not arguments) adopted by the Vatican and NOM - which is to say, it is unchallengeable in any civic forum. And it is intended to be unchallengeable in any civic forum. References to tradition and particularly sanctification have little purpose other than to short circuit any opposition - certainly any secular opposition, which is what the President was being asked about.
So when Barnes says . . .
"when I walk into the White House . . . I work to put all arguments in front of the president, [but] as you say, I also work for the president. And we have very robust policy conversations, very robust constitutional conversations with the White House counsel, and others about these issues, and we'll see what happens from there"
. . . it's hard to believe she's talking about same-sex marriage. What policy or "robust constitutional" conversation can you have with a man who tells all of the American people in response to a secular question that his religious beliefs say that marriage is "something sanctified between a man and a woman"?
The tragedy of this - for both the President and for us - is that he knows better, and we all know that he knows better. He is presiding over the historical turning point, not for gay rights in general, but for marriage in particular, and he is stuck in reverse. The President's opposition is giving support to the very people who hate him as much as they resist us.
It says everything that the most articulate president in my lifetime - on the most controversial issues like race, the Middle East, war, and all the rest - is reduced to verbal sputters and clichés on gay marriage. That's all there is on the other side - on his side; if there were anything reasonable to argue, he'd have done so.
This has to be hard on his own conscience; he has to know that his opposition to equality will stain his legacy. But it is our lives - and the hopes we had - that he is playing with here. And it is decent people like Melody Barnes whose best is being corrupted and tortured to serve the Administration's retrograde cynicism.
Sadly, the President's party has to follow his lead. That's why I had to take the pledge, and I urge others to do so. The President is encouraging a rot in his own party, the same rot of prejudice that is invigorating the worst of the Republicans, and terrifying their best.
That is not what I voted for, and I cannot possibly support it.
30 Comments for “No Argument”
posted by Jorge on
I have to admit I was surprised to learn shortly after he was elected that Obama actually did make campaign promises about DADT and even DOMA.
It’s not just that Obama opposes marriage. Most of the high-profile Democrats of a certain age do, and it’s a hopeless cause. But I never got the same feeling or sense of passion from Obama that I got from Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. When they’re asked if they support gay marriage they say no and then stick up for us.
posted by Lymis on
I agree. While I was going to vote against a Republican in any case, one of the reasons I was so proud to vote FOR Obama was my belief that we would see a lot of changes to the lockstep approach of the Bush Administration, where nobody every disagreed with anything, and anything the President said was Holy Writ.
Sure, if any advisor came out with a statement that “I think the President is an idiot” or some such, of course they should be disciplined or terminated. But this was a case of someone clearly going out of her way to say “Here is the policy, and I will professionally support it, and on the other hand, here is my personal opinion on the matter.”
This is ridiculous. And unacceptable. Obama needs to come out with a specific statement addressing this.
posted by Debrah on
“The tragedy of this ? for both the President and for us ? is that he knows better, and we all know that he knows better.”
******************************
Well, your tautology is, you obviously assume that any politician will give such an issue the same degree of significance you do.
In order to “know better”, one would have to identify with the angst.
I supported Obama in 2008; however, I never deluded myself into believing that he is an authentic person—with regard to any issue.
He’s an eloquent and elegant man who does well onstage; however, as I can personally attest, you have to know your material and believe in your material when you are delivering it cold without a tele-prompter.
Obama seems to talk in circles and go into a realm of incoherence on those occasions when he’s forced to talk off-the-cuff.
That should tell you something….provided anyone wants an honest analysis as to why he won’t be more forthcoming regarding his views on same-sex marriage.
How does anyone know what his and Michelle’s pillow talk involves?
How does anyone not know that he might be personally turned-off by the often touted (by some) lubricity of gay culture?
Why are such questions not asked instead of excuses made for him?
“This has to be hard on his own conscience; he has to know that his opposition to equality will stain his legacy.”
******************************
Obama is will be opposed to anything inimical to the best interests of his legacy.
“It’s not just that Obama opposes marriage. Most of the high-profile Democrats of a certain age do, and it’s a hopeless cause.”
*******************************
This is yet another emollient used to grease over so many truths and realities about the way many people feel—of all ages, backgrounds, religions, and geographic locations—regarding this issue.
It’s being said by some that when those in their teens reach voting age, all will be different.
The “young” are the ones who will part the skies and a wondrous freedom will flow.
Or whatever…..
Although most of us were for just about everything in our teens and twenties, I think this scenario is a chimera, used as a tool to avoid discussing some hard truths……
……..which have nothing to do, whatsoever, with anyone’s religion or politics.
posted by John Howard on
I support repealing DOMA and DADT also. DOMA should be replaced with the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, which would give federal recognition as marriage to state Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and provide a uniform blueprint for states to enact full strength “everything but marriage” Civil Unions that would not be construed as stepping stones to marriage, or overturned by courts as unconstitutional because they should have the same name if they have the same rights. It would also preserve the right of every marriage to conceive offspring of the marriage using the couple’s own genes, and prohibit creating people by any means other than joining a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg.
This is the solution Obama is looking for, and it will be good for every same-sex couple and gay person.
posted by BobN on
First off, I am not defending Obama. He lost me when he failed to say a damn thing about Maine.
BUT please do not conflate his position with that of the Vatican and NOM. You just encourage them to lie and say they have the same position as the President. They don’t. Neither the Vatican nor NOM support civil unions, no matter what their form.
Until Maine, I would also have pointed out that neither the Vatican nor NOM oppose referenda on civil rights. Indeed, they are among the biggest financial supporters for them. Until Maine, Obama was supposedly opposed to such issues on the ballot. Then he said nothing. I assume he has changed his mind…
posted by jimmy on
Debrah-
Is there some standard gays and lesbians need to attain in order to assuage the sensibilities of those you refer to? I suppose it has to do with these “hard truths” you allude to, but never really spell out.
posted by Debrah on
So what do you want to talk about, Jimmy?
posted by jimmy on
I’m interested in your recommendations, Debrah, since I now know they come from a place of love. What is it you would have us do?
posted by Debrah on
“……..since I now know they come from a place of love.”
*****************************************
Ah, but Jimmy, I’m just not feelin’ the love from your sarcasm.
Where am I going wrong?
posted by jimmy on
Obama cloaks his view of same-sex marriage in theological dressing as a way to camoflauge his real antipathy towards homosexuals. That antipathy, fueled by religious concerns and a general feeling of ickiness at the “lubricity of gay culture” is widely shared by a large number of Americans given the way same-sex marriage has faired at the ballot box.
Most, if not all, of this can be placed at the feet of gay men, and this is something with which gay men refuse to come to terms. Gay culture just can not expect to carry on as a non-stop bacchanal and have its participants be taken seriously by the turned-off, heterosexist ruling majority.
Is that something like a hard truth, Debrah?
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy, that’s brilliant.
Even as it drips with controlled hostility.
I didn’t say Obama has “antipathy” toward anyone. He may or may not.
Just as you may or may not have “antipathy” toward hetero women.
Until recently, I never entertained the thought of being inside a conversation such as this one. My background is in fine arts, so, consequently, have been around self-defined “gays” all my life. I simply never spent a lot of time—by design—thinking and talking about the subject of how gay men actually make love.
Theoretically and intellectually, one can discuss this topic dispassionately all day long; however, I—and I would venture a large segment of the population as well—wonder how an orifice designed for the elimination process can possibly be used, enthusiastically, for making love to someone.
The “brown stains” to which Throbert so eloquently alludes seem to be something almost foreign when thoughts of making love might surface.
People find other people attractive all the time—same-sex or not. No big deal.
But this highly-touted, exhibited, and promoted aspect of gay culture is a deal-breaker for many—when you can even coax someone into discussing it.
This is not an issue of who’s “the majority” or who’s “in charge”.
It’s a question of—“What will a man willingly have done to his own body?”
posted by jimmy on
“I—and I would venture a large segment of the population as well—wonder how an orifice designed for the elimination process can possibly be used, enthusiastically, for making love to someone.”
I think you do more than wonder, Debrah; I think you are fixated on these mechanics. And perhaps this fixation is shared by the rest of the straight, missionary-position only sex having part of the population that is anti-gay marriage/gay equality.
But, there is hope.
http://nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/
And, thanks to W’s abstinence-only regime, straight teens are getting more creative all of the time.
But I digress. It always irks me when there is the attitude that gay culture occurs in some sort of vacuum when, in fact, it exists within the context of the larger American culture that is both youth and sex obsessed. That gay culture should be scapegoated for being honest smacks of a provincialism that I thought you eschewed.
posted by Debrah on
“I think you do more than wonder, Debrah…”
************************************
No, you’ll have to take my word for it. I just wonder on occasion.
But not in a general sense. Only when I think of the brilliant men I know, adore, and love. Everything with me is personal. I don’t worry about you and people I don’t know.
Consequently, I truthfully do not care what the general population of gays do.
I don’t spend that much time thinking about other people….for which I’ve sometimes been chastised.
We all know the hype regarding the creative methods of teens. Don’t get your hopes up that it’s a trend. The topic is not about what teens are doing as experimentation.
We’re talking about adult lifestyle.
“And perhaps this fixation is shared by the rest of the straight, missionary-position only sex having part of the population that is anti-gay marriage/gay equality.”
***************************************
I can’t speak for other people, but I’m not personally tethered to the “missionary position only”. LIS!
As I’ve said many times, I wouldn’t work against gay marriage.
I simply find the whole concept ridiculous. If I were gay, I’d be as gay as I wanted and I wouldn’t be screaming like a little girl about not being “married”. Some of us get embarrassed seeing grown men—many with successful careers—behaving like lovesick hetero women with apron strings.
My G/d, live your lives and stop wasting time thinking anyone cares about the “happiness” of anyone else.
This is all so silly when there are real life-and-death problems in the world.
Civil unions are all anyone—gay or hetero—really need.
But who am I to care one way or the other?
Why stand in the way of someone being miserable? Go ahead. Tie the knot!
posted by jimmy on
“I simply find the whole concept ridiculous. If I were gay, I’d be as gay as I wanted and I wouldn’t be screaming like a little girl about not being “married”.
I get the feeling that if someone were to deny you something you deeply felt you were due, both as a tax-paying citizen, and as a human being, you could heard from someone on the moon.
posted by Debrah on
“I get the feeling that if someone were to deny you something you deeply felt you were due……………you could heard from someone on the moon.”
**************************************
Yes, you’re probably right about that.
However, if I were a man who wanted to live my life with another man, I wouldn’t be silly enough to think it should be called “marriage”.
I should say that I’m very attracted to men who possess a few “metro” characteristics like dressing well, taking care of their bodies, and especially those with a highbrow, sexy voice……
……..but there’s something very creepy about watching a supremely intelligent middle-aged man wallow in angst like a premenstrual teen because he can’t “marry” his lover.
I don’t rely on other people to approve or disapprove of much.
I wouldn’t be wasting time trying to own the concept of “marriage” utilized by another group of people.
Civil unions take care of the financial constructs.
Man-up and handle the private side on your own.
Lastly, I’ve been shocked to the extent that some gay men rely so much on a little network of “friends” when conflict arises. I suppose because I generally take care of private problems on my own and never rely on what other people think I should do.
Some of the tendencies I’ve discovered are wholly and completely adolescent.
It’s like some in the gay community are oblivious to emotional and social independence.
Extraordinary, really.
posted by jimmy on
It’s convenient to hold that viewpoint when all you need to do to legally obtain all of the benefits of marriage is show up with a beau and file the paperwork, avoiding all of the circumnavigation that same-sex couples have to travel. The fact is, civil unions don’t provide the myriad of federal protections that marriage does. There’s no need to build some other edifice when the current brick-house will do.
“I don’t rely on other people to approve or disapprove of much.”
Who would when they already benefit from the status-quo?
Calling us ‘little girls’ is indeed evidence that you do think like a man. It’s too bad that that man is a dick.
posted by Debrah on
“Calling us ‘little girls’ is indeed evidence that you do think like a man. It’s too bad that that man is a dick.”
*********************************************
It was “screaming like a little girl”……..(witness the love interest of Harvey Milk in “Milk”.)
Well, at least your scatology is confined to the comment section—(I’ve been known to use it on an occasional comment thread, myself)—this time and not as a label or as a heading as you’ve done so freely on your website.
You must love the word “c*nt” since some of you guys use it as a bold title atop some of your “writing”.
You see, that’s the difference. Most people who want to “get over” on serious issues don’t couch their work inside the muck.
But it’s different with gay culture, eh?
Monikers with “douche” as a prefix or suffix must send a message about what the guy has to offer…as in “bottom”?
Or perhaps one might wish to sign up as a “member” on a “man forum” and let everyone know such delightful lovemaking tidbits—- “HIV+” or “HIV-“.
Lots of specialness that a “c*nt” wouldn’t quite appreciate, I suppose.
posted by Jorge on
First off, I am not defending Obama. He lost me when he failed to say a damn thing about Maine.
BUT please do not conflate his position with that of the Vatican and NOM. You just encourage them to lie and say they have the same position as the President. They don’t. Neither the Vatican nor NOM support civil unions, no matter what their form.
The positions may be different, but now that I think of it, I think on the gay community Obama is just a moderate, hypocritical version of the current Pope (who I like): say nice things about us but do nothing nice for us and leave us in the cold.
What if even Obama’s support for civil unions and opposition to DOMA and DADT was really just the price of admission to the Democratic nomination?
posted by jimmy on
I never use that word in the plural. It is only reserved for specific, exemplary cases, and sometimes, even a term of endearment.
“Or perhaps one might wish to sign up as a “member” on a “man forum” and let everyone know such delightful lovemaking tidbits—- “HIV+” or “HIV-“.
It cuts through the BS and wastes a lot less time.
posted by John Culhane on
With respect, Obama’s position on marriage equality IS what you voted on. It was known during the campaign, and articulated during the debates, where he promised to support civil unions (but not marriage equality). Nothing has changed on that front.
It seems your real point is that he’s too rigid, and that you’ve (only now?) discovered that “civil” (as opposed to religious) debate isn’t possible. But he’s expressly said otherwise, and he’s shown himself to be flexible and capable of changing his mind. Had you read “The Audacity of Hope,” you would have seen this passage:
[It is] “my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided?.” (For a fuller context to this comment, see my post: http:wordinedgewise.org/?p=131)
It also seems clear that his religious views don’t uniformly color his stance on political issues. Moreover, the “pledge” you’re signing onto is likely to be self-defeating. Do we really want to withhold support until ALL THREE of our main issues are enacted into law: DADT, ENDA, and DOMA? By withholding support, we’re just going to contribute to the election of people who will make passing these measures that much harder.
I expect more care from this site, and from this writer.
posted by David Link on
John Culhane, you make a couple of excellent points, and I’m particularly glad you brought up Obama’s more nuanced statement about his faith. And your broader political point is also well-taken, which is something I’d been thinking about myself. I think the Democratic party (my party) is showing some responsiveness, even on full marriage rights (as in California and Maine). I can’t explain New York and New Jersey, but I think it is fair to hold their feet to the fire — and that has to go for the national party as well.
The compromise I’ve been thinking about would be to withhold donations to the national party on a sliding “Courage Scale” — the more political courage it takes to cast a vote, the more money I would be willing to give. Maybe a 10-point scale would work. Thus, hate crimes laws get a point or two, ENDA gets about 4 or 5, DADT *should* only get hate crimes level points, since it is now widely supported by the public, civil unions gets 8 points, and marriage gets a full 10. No money at all for the party, unless it formally takes a stand. Individual members would get any donor’s chosen level of contribution multiplied by the votes actually cast by a specific member.
What I like about this is that it illustrates how “gay rights” is not a uniform vote. Getting rid of existing legal discrimination is the most important, and hardest vote, which is why getting rid of DOMA is most important to me — and why I’m willing to fudge a bit on eliminating DADT’s value. Adding new protections doesn’t get rid of the existing discrimination in the law, itself, but with ENDA still has some value, and deserves points for members in anti-gay districts who have the courage to do something that’s hard but right.
I don’t know if this is more like what you expect from the site, but I do appreciate your having high expectations.
posted by BobN on
The “brown stains” to which Throbert so eloquently alludes seem to be something almost foreign when thoughts of making love might surface.
I swear, you’d think that all these folks so effing obsessed with anal sex would go out, rent some gay porn, and INFORM themselves about how messy it is or isn’t. You might be surprised.
I had a straight roommate in college. I have seen the aftermath of heterosexual sex. It wasn’t pretty.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can’t explain New York and New Jersey, but I think it is fair to hold their feet to the fire — and that has to go for the national party as well.
So let’s see; this “boycott” is essentially a group of people who have stated they will always vote for and support the Obama Party in every instance saying that they will withhold money from the Obama Party as long as it acts in a fashion calculated to avoid turning off other voters and to attract more people to vote for it and contribute to it. Meanwhile, they will continue to attack and badmouth the Republican Party at every opportunity, gratis.
With that in mind, I can explain New York and New Jersey to you very easily; there is no reason to pander to a group of people who will support and endorse you and will attack your opponents no matter what you do because of your party affiliation, especially if it will potentially harm you with other voters.
In short, Link, why should Obama bother to take an unpopular position that could harm him with other voters when he has your vote and the vote of the gay community regardless of what position he takes, and he knows you’re going to attack and badmouth Republicans for free?
posted by Debrah on
“In short, Link, why should Obama bother to take an unpopular position that could harm him with other voters when he has your vote and the vote of the gay community regardless of what position he takes, and he knows you’re going to attack and badmouth Republicans for free?”
**************************************
Bingo!
Finally, someone has stated the obvious; however, I suppose it’s much easier to obfuscate and have everyone witness grown adult men and women howling and screaming at the easier targets who disagree with them……
…….even when said targets essentially have no power except to illustrate that the “younger” demographic will not hold the key to the future on this issue as some might fantasize.
Whipping up a feeding frenzy on all their blogs…..and for what?
Cowardly, that.
Not to mention, futile.
posted by Jorge on
Eh. Staying home is half as devestating as voting for the opponent.
posted by Term Paper on
I’m going to work on it…I’ll see if I can come up with something…
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jorge, staying home is hlaf as devasting as voting for the opponent and it’s why conservative gay men like me hammer my fellow conservatives who found McCain to be wanting in the PurityLitmusTest for TruBelievers.
I hope far Left gays who sold our movement to a back porch on the Democrat’s Plantation will rethink their viscercal, hardened support of Obama and all things Democrat Party.
I don’t expect them to vote for Mitt in 2012… but if they just stay home on Election Day it will be a strong enough message for the Democrat FatCats.
I hope.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I would even add to the above; not only does Obama know that the gay community will badmouth Republicans for him at every opportunity for free, he also knows that they will continue to support, promote, and praise him no matter what he does and they will viciously attack gays who dare to challenge or criticize Obama as racist and self-loathing — also for free.
In short, he continues to get free publicity, free attacks on his opposition, and the free votes of the gay community, PLUS the opportunity to avoid taking an unpopular position — for what amounts to pocket change being lost to him directly, and which he knows will be given to “progressive” organizations that will just launder it to him anyway.
This is what happens, Link, when you link sexual orientation to political affiliation. You and your fellow leftists like Rosendall have made it impossible to be a good gay without also being a blind supporter of the Obama Party, just as the black community has made anyone who doesn’t mindlessly support the Obama Party into an Uncle Tom. You have sold yourselves as slaves, and you are rightly being treated as one.
posted by Jimmy on
Ultimately, it’s about getting legislation signed into law. Does anyone really imagine that John McCain, as president, would sign legislation sent to his desk by a democrat controlled congress that rescinds DOMA, DADT, or strengthened ENDA? The realities of party politics makes gay rights advocates choose a path of least resistance, which admittedly, depending on which way the wind is blowing, can be hard to discern at times. But, the pledges have been made by the Obama administration to act on these measures, and in turn, we should continue to pledge our support while still applying as much political pressure as is necessary.
Since the next GOP nominee will likely be well to the right of John McCain, this is our best opportunity.
posted by Debrah on
“This is what happens, Link, when you link sexual orientation to political affiliation. You and your fellow leftists like Rosendall have made it impossible to be a good gay without also being a blind supporter of the Obama Party, just as the black community has made anyone who doesn’t mindlessly support the Obama Party into an Uncle Tom. You have sold yourselves as slaves, and you are rightly being treated as one.”
**********************************
Tough, but so very true.
It would appear to even the most casual observer that a majority of gays approach this whole issue as if they’re devising the next line for an episode of a soap opera.
They love to bring in the nausea-inducing melodrama of being a “minority” and how “prejudiced” the world is against them…….yada…..yada…….yada.
The world isn’t fixated on this until so many contaminate every proceeding they can with plaintive calls (more like bellowing) of how everyone needs to know wtf they’re doing in their bedrooms—(and you had better give it high praise!).
Even the most serious bloggers, scholars, and journalists just can’t help but bring that sh!t into their other work so that their successes will be contaminated with this tired issue.
(Try taking a cue from Pete Williams, Anderson Cooper, the late Roy Cohn, Ed Koch, David Geffen…etc….etc…. Do what you want to do and shut the eff up!)
How can the world not talk about the behavior of some? They spend every waking hour shouting about every trivial occurrence of the day and somehow…..SOMEHOW…..relate it to what is going on with them, personally.
This gives navel-gazing a whole new meaning.
Would these people even have a life without talking about their “gayness”?
One wonders.
Read a few of those obnoxious gay and lesbian bloggers. Some of the most mundane and uninteresting people in the world.
And so many seem to love the vulnerable schtick and beat it to death.
The trouble with your issue is that no one gives an eff! — Fundamentally.
Most people are dealing with serious problems of survival and negotiating the tasks of life each day to give an eff who sticks what where and if Bobby can “marry” Robby…….or if Annie can “marry” Sally.
This is how your president feels as well—bet on it.
Check how the votes come down on this issue in even the most liberal areas, but you guys try to blame the same old “boogie men”………
………when your enemies are right beside you.