At first this seemed too silly to bother with, but it’s getting attention from both LGBT and religious right media, so it warrants some acknowledgment.
In an interview with YouTube personality (if that’s the right word) GloZell Green (pictured here), Obama said he hopes the Supreme Court makes the “right decision” on marriage rights for same-sex couples, adding: “I think people know that treating folks unfairly—even if you disagree with their lifestyle choice, the fact of the matter is they’re not bothering you.”
As reported by the Washington Blade:
President Obama deviated this week from the language considered acceptable for talking about gay people when he described the lives of same-sex couples as a “lifestyle choice”—but virtually no one cares.
The Washington Blade reached out to various LGBT groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, the National LGBTQ Task Force and GLAAD, to ask whether they objected to Obama’s use of the phrase. None of those groups responded to a request to comment on that language, which is widely considered unacceptable and offensive because it suggests that sexual orientation is a choice.
Well, apparently the religious right cares. The religious conservative website WND reported (if that’s the right word):
His answer, which seemed to undermine the foundation for claims across America that homosexuals are a class of people with defined characteristics and deserve minority protections, came recently during a recorded interview with GloZell Green, a green-lipstick-wearing, milk and cereal bath-taking YouTube personality who was picked by the White House to visit with the president after his recent 2015 State of the Union address. She begins her videos asking, “Hello this is Glozell! Is you OK? Is you? Good, ’cause I wanted to know!’”
As to treating people fairly because “even if you disagree with their lifestyle choices, the fact of the matter is they’re not bothering you,” one commenter on the WND site wondered if Obama was “finally telling the homosexual lobby to stop suing Christians?”
A few days later, the Blade reported that the White House responds to Obama ‘lifestyle choice’ remark. But it was actually a nonresponse:
In a news conference that marked the first time an openly gay person conducted an on-camera White House news conference, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz addressed questions Wednesday over President Obama’s remark that being gay is a “lifestyle choice.” In response to a question…on whether Obama regrets using the phrase, which he used in a YouTube interview with GloZell Green last week, Schultz replied he hasn’t talked to Obama about the matter.
So, a linguistic tempest in a teabag? Obama probably was revealing, off the cuff, his personal view, and it doesn’t help. That’s what happens when he doesn’t have a teleprompter. But it essentially is inconsequential. The only point worth remarking on is how even inconsequential minutia becomes fodder for media buzz these days.
On the other hand, if a prominent GOP politician made such a remark, there would have been a firestorm of criticism, while the Blade couldn’t get any of the big LGBT activist organizations to call Obama out on this.
35 Comments for “A ‘Lifestyle Choice’ Brouhaha”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So, a linguistic tempest in a teabag? Obama probably was revealing, off the cuff, his personal view, and it doesn’t help. That’s what happens when he doesn’t have a teleprompter. But it essentially is inconsequential. The only point worth remarking on is how even inconsequential minutia becomes fodder for media buzz these days.
Exactly.
Sexual orientation may or may not be hard-wired (the science suggests that men tend to be more hard-wired in that respect than women) but everyone, regardless sexual orientation, has to decide how to live their lives — that is, make “lifestyle choices”. Michael and I choose to be married, as have many of our friends. I have friends who choose to be celibate. I have friends who choose to live in monogamous relationships of one sort and another, and I have other friends who choose to live in open relationships. I have friends who are, well, promiscuous. And that is just as true of my straight friends as it is of my gay friends.
The question of hard-wiring doesn’t make any difference, really, to constitutional analysis of marriage equality, given that the rationale advanced for marriage discrimination cannot even pass the “rational basis” test.
I have no idea what President Obama meant by the phrase — maybe it says something about his private views, or maybe he was expressing his views about fair play in a way that he hoped would connect with other Christians, or maybe he was thinking about something else entirely.
The important thing is that he — and this is what differentiates him from the conservative Christians who are driving the anti-discrimination movement — understands and accepts (at long last) that marriage equality is cornerstone and keystone of “equal means equal” at this point in our nation’s history, and is fighting for marriage equality rather than against it.
President Obama’s use of the phrase “lifestyle choice” pricked up my ears, too, because it has been used by conservative Christians with a snarl for so many years, as a hammer to pound on gays and lesbians. But, like many words, context is everything. The President used the phrase in a sentence that we will never hear uttered by the anti-gay crowd, and that makes all the difference.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… and this is what differentiates him from the conservative Christians who are driving the anti-discrimination movement …
Should read “… and this is what differentiates him from the conservative Christians who are driving the anti-gay movement …”
A further thought: I suspect that the reason why the anti-gay movement is making much of the President’s turn of phrase is that, in their minds, “lifestyle choice’ is a term of art with a specific meaning.
“Lifestyle choice” means, in their world, (a) homosexuality is not in-born or genetic in nature, (b) all humans are heterosexual, (c) homosexuality is a God-defying, Satan-influence choice to put parts together in ways that are unnatural, and so on. The idea that gays and lesbians might be born “that way” is contrary to their core understanding of God and creation.
Homosexuality, in other words, is defined entirely in terms of sexual behavior rather than sexual orientation.
I suspect that their excitement about President Obama’s use of the phrase is that the phrase is an “admission” that they are right about the nature of homosexuality.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It is possible that this was a fairly simple case of trying to explain his views within a “aw, shucks” language that a particular heterosexual audience would comprehend.
Speech writers (or the politicians themselves) do not have much experience in how to talk about the important of gay rights with the general audience, largely because gay rights was rarely seen as a “important” issue worth supporting (by the mainstream press and politicians) until the 1990s.
Yes, the issue of improving gay rights at the federal level existed far longer — at least going back to the 1970s — but what say, President Carter or Reagan said publicly about gay rights was not treated by the mainstream press as a “important” civil rights or civil liberties policy question.
The AIDS/HIV pandemic change this — albeit mostly from a public health perspective — but I suspect that it was not really until the 1990s that gay rights became treated as a civil rights or liberties issue that the mainstream press and major politicians and serious candidates for federal office had to have opinions on/answers ready for.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Language can be a complicated and nuanced thing….(as we seen with the discussion on how Arabic and Persian language talks about gay people and their sexuality)
Within the United States I do sometimes see social conservatives use “sexual preference” (as opposed to sexual orientation or affinity orientation) as a means of trying to belittle/judge the issue of gay rights.
Yet, the English language — outside of the United States — is often used by folks who often use both terms interchangeable, without any intended putdown or belittling or comment on why people are gay or straight.
Within the Spanish-speaking world — when translated into English — I notice a certain taboo about using the term “sexual” (outside of something “adult), so it is much more common to use the term (as translated) “personal preference” or “affinity identity” or “affectional identity” or something like that.
posted by Jorge on
The important thing is that he — and this is what differentiates him from the conservative Christians who are driving the anti-discrimination movement — understands and accepts (at long last) that marriage equality is cornerstone and keystone of “equal means equal” at this point in our nation’s history, and is fighting for marriage equality rather than against it.
I honestly doubt that if President Obama thinks homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice” that the he thinks legalized same sex marriage is a part of “equal means equal”, at least, not in the way most people understand it. I think it is more likely he considers it more like a Ninth Amendment right to privacy issue. (I’m being very generous here but I think the President has earned it.) That’s not much different, but it is enough to provide evidence against the socially acceptable view.
It bothers me a little, but not much, because the liberal orthodoxy is wacko. I have little doubt that Barack Obama does not believe in gay marriage, but when President Obama says he supports recognizing (“legalizing”) them, I have come to believe him. That is what the Democratic party is supposed to represent. Both parts of the personally against/politically “pro-choice” position represent a belief in something greater than oneself.
Think on this: even if homosexuality is not a choice, gay marriage is still a lifestyle choice. This country’s largest religious denomination condemns that choice even knowing it for what it is.
So, a linguistic tempest in a teabag?
I think not.
Obama probably was revealing, off the cuff, his personal view
I agree.
and it doesn’t help.
I disagree.
posted by Houndentenor on
Not being Catholic I don’t care what the largest denomination says about anything. Or the second largest for that matter as an ex-member of that. So long as they aren’t attempting to influence the laws that affect me (which both quite often do) it’s none of my concern. I also don’t care what Obama or anyone else *personally* thinks about gay rights. Their thoughts have no affect on my life or anyone else’s. Their actions do. So if my choice is between a president who personally doesn’t like gay people but will treat gay people fairly anyway vs someone who personally is okay with gay people but will discriminate for political purposes, I’ll take the former. People can think whatever they want. I don’t care. What they do matters. I don’t know how we got into this mess where minutiae of wording is more significant than actual policy and legislation but we need to bring it to a screeching halt. It’s certainly not doing anyone any good.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t know how we got into this mess where minutiae of wording is more significant than actual policy and legislation but we need to bring it to a screeching halt. It’s certainly not doing anyone any good.
Well, I think Mr. Miller’s point here is that for some reason, it’s not being made an issue of by the left even though he reportedly “deviated” from “acceptable language, so it’s not like I can try to give an explanation where there is no foul. The implicit suspicion is that the President is getting a pass because he is a so-called “liberal.”
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t know about “the left” but Andy Humm mentioned it on Gay USA last week. It hasn’t been ignored. Just not talked about as much as Stephen would like. And as I’ve already stated, I don’t think that’s what the President meant. Perhaps he should issue a clarification.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Jorge;
WTF?
posted by Jorge on
My viewpoint is well within the mainstream, and very logical.
posted by JohnInCA on
You know, once, just *once*, I want to hear a politician refer to religion as a “lifestyle choice”.
Other then that… whatever. Regardless of what this does or doesn’t reveal about his “real” beliefs, his political beliefs, and what he’s willing to take action on (however tepid) is the part I care about.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You know, once, just *once*, I want to hear a politician refer to religion as a “lifestyle choice”.
It would crack me up. And particularly if the politician had a sufficient sense of humor to point out that they “recruit children to their lifestyle”, sometimes even going to the lengths of adopting.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Religion is a lifestyle choice… a highly protected one at that — both legally and socially.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m looking at it from a different angle. Why are so many people obsessing over three little words, which happened to pop out of a politician’s mouth? They’re either fawning over him as if he’s a divine being.
The Emperor has spoken! Now what has he said?!
He made a remark that didn’t go over quite the way he probably meant it. I doubt if he intended either to sic the PC Gestapo on himself, or to send religious lunatics into opportunistic ecstasy.
He is a human being, just like everybody else, and he probably misspoke.
I neither know what he meant, nor do I care. And I think all the people out there hyperventilating over it, from their rival political bubbles, ought to just breathe.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s emblematic of our sick media culture that saying the wrong words while doing the right thing is considered by some as the same as doing the wrong thing while using pretty words to do it. I’ll take a flawed speech and a good action any day over the right-wing tendency to use deceptive language to give cover to anti-gay bigots. And to hear anti-gay bigots make hay over this is hilarious. And of course their apologists like Stephen. Six of one….
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m not outraged because that’s not actually what he said. He referenced people who think being gay is a choice who are opposed to gay marriage. He was not referencing that as HIS opinion. I admit that the statement was a bit muddled.
The only reason it matters that some people claim that being gay is a choice is that they use that as a reason to deny rights to gay people. If someone thinks being gay is a choice but is for gay rights, what difference does their thinking make to me? What matters is the law and the policies are they affect me. I’m sick of this idea that I care what everyone thinks. I don’t. I care what they do, and even then only when it affects other people.
posted by Lori Heine on
I quite agree. Those in high political office have a staggering amount of power. We don’t dare not care what they’re going to do to us next.
To me, committing for life to the most important human being in one’s life rates as something far higher than “a lifestyle choice.” I would certainly think the President felt that way when he was marrying Michelle.
Now, when fifty thousand half-wits gather in a football stadium to watch an artificially-contrived “contest” between steroid-pumped monsters, THAT is a lifestyle choice. Especially when, as a friend informed me last night, in the last rush to the game the price of a single ticket was $3,500.
Is spending that money on a Super Bowl ticket a better lifestyle choice than feeding five hungry families for a year–which this same amount of money could likely accomplish?
One wonders why all those “Christians” out there who are so obsessed with “homosexuality” never think to ask that.
posted by Houndentenor on
It has annoyed me that right wingers who don’t give a crap about gay rights have been using this comment by the President as a “gotcha” moment. It’s like the right-winger last week on Bill Maher’s show who invoked the treatment of gays in the middle east as if he actually gives a crap about that. (Note: I do and so do most gay people but there’s not a damn thing we can do about it.) Our politics and public discourse has devolved into a minefield in which small minded people are eager to snare people who dare misspeak. And FSM forbid you should ever change your mind about anything! None of this involved discussing important issues or accomplishing anything. It’s just a pathetic little game. Look, your “favorite” said something we agree with but you don’t so why don’t you hate on him like you hate on us! I’m so tired of this and the other Washington games.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I honestly doubt that if President Obama thinks … legalized same sex marriage is a part of “equal means equal”, at least, not in the way most people understand it. I think it is more likely he considers it more like a Ninth Amendment right to privacy issue.
I think you are dead wrong, based on the statements he has made over the years. In 2008 he spoke quite a number of times about the issue; he proposed nationwide civil unions that would “give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights.”
President Obama clearly has been focused on the question of same-sex relationship recognition from the standpoint of “equal legal rights and privileges”, not from the standpoint of the 9th Amendment right to privacy.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Notice that President Obama’s 2016 budget includes equal Social Security benefits for legally married same-sex couples… I’d say his actions give him a pretty wide pass on momentary lapses in rhetorical flourish.
posted by Jorge on
I think you are dead wrong, based on the statements he has made over the years.
You’re kidding.
…
Nothing in your reply tells me why he takes the positions that he does or what they’re based on. His quotes aren’t exactly original thinking. Just Obama eat a cracker and mimic. Why has Obama chosen to take this political position? I do not think you can come to any conclusion on this question without taking a look at his personal beliefs, which is something I believe you have ruled out doing.
posted by Houndentenor on
Why do we care about their personal beliefs? I don’t think Bush had any personal animosity towards gay people. He did show public animosity. One had an effect on gay people and the other did not. We don’t actually know what anyone else is “really” thinking. It’s a waste of time and effort to try to separate out why people do what they do. What matters is WHAT they do. We get this when someone donates a lot of money to a good cause but someone complains that it was for the “wrong reasons”? I’m sure the people who need food or housing really care about the motivation for the donations? This is nonsense. I don’t know how our culture got so focused on this bullshit but it’s insanity and needs to end.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Nothing in your reply tells me why he takes the positions that he does or what they’re based on.
I am not a psychic; I cannot see into his soul, or know his motivations. I don’t think that his motivations are relevant to the question. I can listen to what he says, read what he writes, and see what he does. That is all anyone needs to sort this out.
President Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He knows the difference between the 9th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, and he knows the difference in the legal theories based on those differing amendments, and the language used to speak about them.
He has consistently used language that is consistent with 14th Amendment theories of equal treatment under the law when speaking about government recognition of same-sex relationships. He used that language in 2008 when speaking about marriage-equivalent civil unions, and he has used that language when speaking about marriage equality.
He as never, to my knowledge, used the language of the 9th Amendment when speaking about either issue.
His quotes aren’t exactly original thinking.
Of course not. The whole history of the marriage equality cases has been pinned to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, starting with Nelson in 1974. And when it is decided in June, if we are successful, it is almost certain that the decision will be grounded on 14th Amendment language.
Just Obama eat a cracker and mimic.
I’ve heard the President called a “coon” and a lot worse, hanging out as I do around conservatives, but a fucking parrot? That’s a new low, even for conservatives. You ought to get a job with Fox News, if you don’t already work for them.
posted by Jorge on
I’ve heard the President called a “coon” and a lot worse, hanging out as I do around conservatives, but a fucking parrot? That’s a new low, even for conservatives. You ought to get a job with Fox News, if you don’t already work for them.
I’m a moderate. That doesn’t mean I don’t break the imaginary rules. It just means I break more of them, and only when it’s deserved. I suggest you get used to it and get over it.
If you think President Obama’s motivations are irrelevant then I stand by what I said.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
–If you think President Obama’s motivations are irrelevant then I stand by what I said.
You can stand by whatever you want, but you can’t get around the fact that the President has never said a word that would give support to your contention that he supports marriage equality based on a 9th Amendment rationale, but has made numerous statements consistent with a 14th Amendment analysis and rationale, and has made those statements consistently since at least 2007.
posted by Houndentenor on
To be fair, I almost NEVER hear anyone reference the 9th Amendment. I think no one in either party wants to admit that the rights are ours and the state has to demonstrate limits on them. Instead they’d rather the government be the one that bestows rights upon citizens which is a perversion of the Bill of Rights itself.
posted by Mike Alexander on
Interesting that I come across this on the same day that stories where Mike Huckabee is being called out for calling being gay a lifestyle choice.
Of course, Obama didn’t compare being gay to drinking, but still. Yes, I fine it quite appropriate to call Obama out on this.
PS. Can we PLEASE stop with the whole “telepromter” thing. All and all, Obama is much better on his feet than some of the GOP Presidential candidates are.
posted by Houndentenor on
The teleprompter meme just reveals Stephen to be a rightwing sockpuppet and destroys his credibility with moderates much less liberals. That he uses phrases like that so often shows where he gets most of his news and commentary.
posted by Mike Alexander on
PS. I didn’t vote for Obama either time. I have blasted him when I thought it was appropriate, and issues praise too.
posted by Kosh III on
I voted for him both times, not my first choice but still preferable to a war-monger, a half-term governor or an amoral plutocrat.
I’ll criticize Obama when needed.
posted by Kosh III on
Houndtendor said: “I don’t think Bush had any personal animosity towards gay people. He did show public animosity.”
I don’t think one can show public animosity without personal animosity; one’s sense of ethics and morality would not allow such a conflict. Wait! this is Bush, he has no ethics or morals.
Nevermind.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A legal note: The 11th Circuit denied Alabama’s motion for a stay continuing beyond Monday, February 9. Alabama will now petition the Supreme Court for a stay, and we’ll see if anything has changed at that level in light of the Court’s grant of cert in the 6th Circuit cases.
The Supreme Court has heretofore denied petitions for a stay in other cases. If the Supreme Court denies Alabama’s request for a stay, marriages could start in Alabama on Monday.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A second legal note: The 8th Circuit issued an order scheduling oral arguments in appeals from marriage equality decisions in Arkansas (Crane v. Jernigan), Missouri (Kelly v. Lawson) and South Dakota (Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard. The appeals have been consolidated and the court issued an expedited briefing schedule. Oral arguments are scheduled for the week of May 11.
Although it is unlikely that the 8th Circuit will issue a decision before the Supreme Court’s decision in the 6th Circuit cases, the court’s order puts the court in position to issue a marriage equality order covering the circuit expeditiously if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It is interesting to note that the North Dakota cases (which is in the 8th Circuit)– I believe that their are two challenging the state ban on federal grounds — may put the (district) judge in a position of not having to do anything buy obey what the higher courts say.
Technically, a ruling was suppose to be issued….sometime….but I wouldn’t be surprise if the judge decides to wait and see…..
posted by Tom Jeff on
I suspect that in this case — getting back to the topic addressed in this thread — the usage of “life style” was probably more about the language that (for better or for the worse) is still used by a significant number of straight people (even as they become more educated/more supportive of equality). The term “sexual orientation” is certainly more accurate, but, again, I suspect that a fair number of straight people still find it easier to use the term “life-style”.
I reminds me of a situation in a fairly modest sized city in Minnesota — Moorhead (about 30,000 pop). Some years ago the city elected its first openly gay city councilman (he since gone on to do other stuff, but was generally popular/well liked). Lots of straight people — even those that voted for him — would still refer to him as the ‘gay cop’.