IGF CultureWatch

Dale Carpenter's tart question about the President's options on DADT suggested to me that we may be invoking the wrong political analogy. While the discussion has tended to focus on whether we are or aren't similar to African-Americans in their struggle for equality, the more apt comparison might be whether we are to the Obama administration what the religious right was to George W. Bush.

For eight years, Bush got away with condescension and empty gestures: faith-based this and that, a limp, piety-draped announcement of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and all the cooing and coddling and coded insider messaging any insulated special interest could ask for. It's clear that his administration seldom viewed the right as a group needing anything more than stroking - and that's when they weren't expressing outright contempt for the religious leaders to one another. For their part, the religious zealots knew they had no reasonable political alternative, and hoped (and prayed) for the best. At least they were inside the White House.

I am hopeful the Obama administration doesn't view us, in private, with the derision and cynicism that was so characteristic of the Bush advisors. But we know Rahm Emanuel, in particular, is haunted by what he calls "the consequences of '94." I don't think it's unreasonable to believe he views lesbians and gay men as a kind of political irritation, an itch that must be scratched, as his Republican predecessors in the White House viewed the far right.

I'm not alone in that fear, as gay criticism of Monday night's cocktail party demonstrates. It was an event designed for our insiders, by insiders to cater to insiders. The President said many very good things, up to and including, "I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps."

That expression of accountability is fine as far as it goes. But kept promises don't include cocktail parties or gestures. The administration certainly needs some time to address the overt discrimination against homosexuals that federal law demands to this very day. But it is up to us to determine how long the President (or Emanuel) can exploit our hopes and string us along.

To me, that means, not cuddling up to us in private, but using this President's phenomenal resources of good will and articulation to nudge the public discussion forward. And he can't do that by just talking to us.

It is that, above all, that makes him so radically different from Bush. His speech to us on Monday suggests that he understands our issues well enough to take on that task. Not today, and maybe not even this summer. But at some point he needs to say something publicly.

As a whole, Americans are past ready for repeal of DADT. If the problem is truly the military, then Obama needs to speak publicly to the military. If Stephen Colbert can rib the troops about DADT, I think they're probably willing to listen to their Commander-in-Chief.

And while the public is still not entirely ready for nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, Obama cannot continue to allow federal law to recognize only the lowest common denominator of state discrimination against same-sex couples. DOMA is, and will continue to be, the wall that politics bangs its - and our - head against time after time until it is changed. He cannot assure success by addressing the American public. But he can continue to indulge prejudice by commiserating only with us.

Rahm Emanuel has reason to fear public reaction to gay equality. But that's because he lacks the rhetorical skills his boss possesses. He has to follow, and cater to public opinion because his strength is not in changing it.

The President, though, does have that talent - in abundance. He has addressed the Muslim world directly, and showed himself fearless during the campaign in defending himself against the most demeaning political charges, absurd claims that would have reduced a lesser candidate to fits of frustration.

It is that promise, explicitly, that I want him to keep for us: the promise of representing us to those portions of the public who still harbor fear and misunderstanding. He can't do that by holding cocktail parties for us, or weakly asking Congress to act. Congress is not famous for leading - that is the President's job. We will continue to do our part, but now we need his eloquence. The rest will follow.

I'm usually skeptical of initial reports about incidents that have political consequences, since there is so much room for misunderstanding, misinterpretation and other mischief. I approached the first stories about Saturday night's police raid of a gay bar in Fort Worth, Texas with that wariness. Seriously? A raid on a gay bar on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots?

The first stories I read described some pretty drunk patrons, and I assumed some partying had gotten out of hand. But that sort of thing is hardly uncommon in bars, and it's not often the police show up. Box Turtle Bulletin is covering this story extremely well, and the only statement I could see about why the police came to the Rainbow Lounge is that the police said they had "anonymous tips" possibly from "disgruntled ex-bartenders." The first excuse is pretty thin, but might be true -- however implausible, or indefensible if such anonymous tips are not also relied on to conduct similar raids on heterosexual bars. The second, though, borders on lying malpractice. The bar had only been open for a week. Is that really the best they could come up with? I'm not that familiar with the ways of Texas, but can they really get fired and disgruntled that fast there?

But the big news here, judging from the statement by Joel Burns, a Forth Worth city councilman, is that there may even be some political accountability for any officials who got out of line:

I want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws and ordinances of our great State and City will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement. I consider this to be part of "The Fort Worth Way" here. As an elected representative of the city of Fort Worth, I am calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the City of Fort Worth Police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning, June 28, 2009.

It is unfortunate that this incident occurred in Fort Worth and even more so to have occurred on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall protests. Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all of its citizens are protected. I are working together with our Mayor, Police Chief, the City of Fort Worth Human Relations Commission, and our State Legislative colleagues to get a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.

Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And know that the GLBT Community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.

Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and I am working aggressively toward that end.

This is something -- a politician making a statement recognizing the role of lesbians and gay men in the community -- that could not have happened t in 1969, even in New York. And its simple fairness (even if Mr. Burns is in the minority in his sentiments) cannot be impugned. It is entirely fair and proper to have the police explain, in public, their side of the story. And I can't wait to hear what they have to say.

Frank Rich's Sunday essay in the NY Times is about gay rights and Stonewall, and it goes without saying it's worth reading.

A couple of sentences struck me:

After the gay liberation movement was born at Stonewall, this strand of history advanced haltingly until the 1980s. It took AIDS and the new wave of gay activism it engendered to fully awaken many, including me, to the gay people all around them.

This is true, but goes deeper than I think Rich realizes. He was, after all, a theater critic for Time magazine during the 70s, after which he took up the same role for the New York Times.

It's worth thinking about that for a bit. A man writing about the theater in America in the 1970s and 80s could not possibly have been a stranger to gay people. So what, exactly, did the new wave of gay activism enlighten him to?

Simply asking that question implicates the unique role - or non-role - that lesbians and gay men played in the minds of Americans prior to Stonewall. And it shows why Stonewall - and the earlier Black Cat riots in L.A., and other uprisings of the time - were not only necessary but inevitable. We were, in fact, there, all along, but existed in a parallel universe of indeterminacy; somehow not quite real -- or, at least, not the same sort of beings as everyone else.

The events at Stonewall and the Black Cat bar occurred roughly simultaneously on opposite ends of the country, and apparently had no direct connection to one another. Each was a reaction to its own form of local police harassment, the kind of thing we'd gotten used to over the years. But their similarities can't be ignored. Without anyone making any conscious decision, the injustice and the isolation -- the lack of any formal role in the society -- boiled over. Stonewall and Black Cat were fundamental assertions of our existence. It would take another quarter of a century for us to find the articulation those protesters could have used: We're here, we're queer, get used to it.

But they didn't need slogans to make their point. They showed up, and in those days that was plenty. Some of their stories are now available at a place few of them could ever have imagined: AARP has a section devoted to Stonewall.

Tomorrow will be an important anniversary, both to look back and to look forward. But Frank Rich inadvertently reminds us that we should think a bit about the trip from there to here - the journey from citizenship without rights to, well, whatever we can obtain through the grace of the political branches.

I would not have wished for Mark Sanford's correspondence with his Argentine lover to have been made public. Most of us, I think, who have impulsively committed such intimate and passionate feelings to writing would cringe to have them published - and certainly would not want them tossed into the crass and dehumanizing environment that Sanford is now confronting.

But they are public, and I could not help myself. I read them. And, honestly, I found them quite beautiful. They are not momentous or articulate or consequential in the way that literature can be. But they are affecting and passionate and deeply, deeply human. In their poignant clumsiness, they reveal, not only two adults very much in one another's complicated thrall, but something very important about the unpredictable, irresistible imperative of love.

Which is another way of saying that I think this anti-gay Republican politician from South Carolina has helped make the argument for gay marriage in a way that few of us have been able to.

Take this passage, from Maria, about their feelings for one another: "Sometimes you don't choose things, they just happen ..." Could there be a more universal, recognizable definition of how feelings of love have no identifiable provenance? Even though it was written by a woman who seems quite heterosexual, can anyone who is homosexual avoid hearing echoes of "I didn't choose to be gay" in this expression of futility in the face of love? Maria goes on, in words that any lesbian or gay man who has finally stopped resisting their truest, inner self could recognize: "I can't redirect my feelings and I am very happy with mine towards you."

Or compare this passage Sanford wrote, with what we have argued so invariably for decades: "The rarest of all commodities in this world is love. It is that thing that we all yearn for at some level - to be simply loved unconditionally for nothing more than who we are - not what we can get, give or become." It is sentiments like this that separate Sanford from some politicians whose scandals have been swept in with his - Elliot Spitzer, Larry Craig and David Vitter. There is no (fair) comparison between their pursuit of sexual gratification and Sanford's deep, personal affection for, even adoration of, a woman not his wife.

This is all the difference in the world - both for Sanford, and particularly for us. The history of prejudice against lesbians and gay men comes primarily from the notion that it is our sexual natures which drive us. And if that were true, marriage would not need to be of any concern to us now that the sodomy laws are gone.

But in this historical moment of sexual decriminalization, marriage is even more important to us - and for the same reason it's important to heterosexuals. It involves something so much greater than just sex. It involves love, the kind that takes you by surprise and leaves you breathless - and a little bit obsessed. Marriage is an institution that channels love, tames it and denatures it some, for a longer-term benefit - not only to children but to the couple.

Adultery is a problem - an eternal one - because it interrupts the stability of marriage. It is, in fact, an impulse we should control but, as we see again and again, that unpremeditated love has a force and logic of its own.

Sanford's adultery is wrong, but his heartrending experience is all too human. It is that humanity lesbians and gay men are still struggling to have the public understand about us. We are as surprised and delighted by love as any heterosexual. And we have as little control over it. As Sanford writes, "How in the world this lightening [sic] strike snuck up on us I am still not quite sure."

I don't know if any of this will or should change Sanford's mind about same-sex marriage, and I admit that question is almost beside the point. But if anyone understands love's hegemony the way we do, it is Sanford. As I read him expressing his tenderest and most rapturous feelings, I saw some of myself in him. Someday, I hope he can understand why.

Barney Frank will put the Employment Non Discrimination Act at the top of his congressional agenda for the gay and lesbian community. This is a piece of substantive legislation that has the potential to help lesbians and gay men in many places. It will test the bona fides of the leadership in Congress, who have been reluctant to do anything with the hot potato the President keeps throwing them (whenever we mention it), except to throw it back. And if/when the President signs ENDA into law, it will be the kind of achievement he has often promised but not yet delivered.

Nondiscrimination laws, particularly in the employment area, are useful tools, not because they change anyone's mind (no law can ever do that), but because they put the government's interest in equality front and center. In any functional economy, the ability to earn a living is essential, and while it is undeniably true that, for the most part lesbians and gay men who get fired from their jobs for no reason other than their homosexuality can and do usually have other options, there are states in this nation where the web of homophobia can be relied on to drive lesbians and gay men to stay in the closet. That is what feeds the still-breathing dinosaur of the closet - it can only exist as long as we agree to abide by its dictates, but if the bargain is to remain closeted in order to earn a living, a lot of people will accept the devil's deal.

So I must be clear that I support this legislation.

Still, I'd much rather have Congress spend its precious hours and resources repealing DADT and DOMA.

ENDA will aid people in states that don't have such protections, and help to force many people living in those states to face up to what they fear or dislike so much about lesbians and gay men they actually work beside. In my view, that is a good thing.

But it also forces the future on states that prefer the past when it comes to homosexuality, and that is the way cultural acrimony gradually builds into conflagration. The federal government will have enforcement authority, but that may only magnify existing resentments. Perhaps it's good to embarrass those who cannot see lesbians and gay men for who they are. It's certainly good to protect the jobs of innocent workers.
But the federal government doesn't come to this moral task with clean hands. I think it is better to eliminate the active discrimination that still resides in federal law before we extend the federal government's positive power to the states.

DADT is active discrimination. The federal government requires the military to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's the law.

The military, though, is a unique environment (as we are so often told). It involves situations and absolute discipline that simply don't exist in civilian life. That's distinctly not true of marriage, though. DOMA does not demean a discrete segment of the population, like DADT -- it pollutes and profanes every committed same-sex couple in the United States. But like DADT, DOMA doesn't just put the federal government's stamp of approval on discrimination, it demands it.

Eliminating DADT is a matter of pure Congressional prerogative, and does not intrude into any state's existing law. The same is true of Section 3 of DOMA, which we hear cited again and again and again by the President as tying his hands. Section 2 could remain in place, insulating more conservative states from their neighbors -- the only possible, decent compromise. But Section 3 has no federalist rationale; it merely sets a national standard of discrimination against same-sex couples, and imposes that sordid standard as the national norm, even when states and common sense have long since left this form of discrimination, too, in the history books.

If ENDA is passed first, it will highlight the federal government's Do As I Say, Not As I Do hypocrisy. At its best, it can mitigate the damage to lesbians and gay men that DOMA and DADT perpetrate every day by their mere existence. The mitigation of that damage is no small thing. And, as I said, I will support it. But I won't be as enthusiastic as I would be if Congress could undo its own discriminatory laws before going into every state in the nation and throwing its compromised weight around.

Hendrik Hertzberg has an excellent Talk of the Town piece in the June 22 edition of The New Yorker about the effect of Barack Obama's Cairo speech on the Middle East. As I was reading it, I kept thinking how much I wish that was the Barack Obama addressing gay equality.

Here is Hertzberg:

. . . he offered his audience not only ordered information, argument and context but also the catharsis of saying aloud things long unsaid. He wished, he said, to speak clearly and plainly, and that is what he did.

Compare that to the Obama who has been assigned to deal with our issues. He has said he supports equality - is, in fact, a "fierce advocate" of it - but has also said that he believes marriage is only between a man and a woman because of his religious beliefs. In fact, he has never offered anything other than religious beliefs to support this statement.

That is entirely respectable as a declaration of faith, but it is not a policy argument, except for those Christianists who believe that, like Iran's theocracy, religious leaders are capable of using scripture to determine public policy in a 21st Century nation that is composed of various sects, religions and even non-believers. We do not have a religious Supreme Leader, or a Guardian Council, and I, at least, am skeptical that this is the model most Americans would want for the United States.

Obama opposed California's Prop. 8, which suggests he is open to public policies that conflict with his religious belief. And that is of paramount importance.

But compare Obama's performance on gay equality to his performance in Cairo. He has yet to articulate any ordered information, argument and/or context, and if anyone has heard him speak clearly or plainly on homosexual equality or same-sex marriage, they're keeping it to themselves.

Is it possible that homosexual equality is harder than dealing with the Middle East? The talent this President has - of "saying aloud things long unsaid" - is exactly what this discussion has long needed from a President. Our frustration, I think, is in the fact that we elected exactly that President, and now he seems to be more afraid of dealing with us than he is of dealing with the most intense religious and political conflict in the modern world.

Jonathan Capehart makes the good argument that Congress is where the laws are made and, in the case of DADT and DOMA must be unmade - and that we should focus our efforts there. And he is surely right about that.

But what we need is leadership, and when it comes to that, Congress is no match for the President. As an institution, Congress follows, it does not lead. Nancy Pelosi and particularly Harry Reid are cautious administrators of their party's interests, and neither is in a league with the President when it comes to sheer political oratory.

But as the world could see from the Cairo speech, oratory comes from understanding, and I am not convinced Obama yet has anything but rhetoric on gay equality, the glib and uncritical soundbites that go no deeper than political convenience.

If his newfound solidarity with the A-List gays goes no further than the usual political jargon, we won't have gained anything. That is, in fact, the central problem that needs to be solved. This President has shown he can get beyond the jargon in ways that most of the political establishment cannot. But he needs to hear from people who do not speak in the jargon - and jargon is the stock-in-trade of those who claim to be our (unelected) leaders.

If you need evidence of how much of a burden homosexuals have in the political environment, I'd recommend this video of Robert Gibbs. He takes a genuine political risk on our behalf, and comes out foursquare in favor of arithmetic. As you can see, the White House is ". . . committed to a fair and accurate count of all Americans," and is currently ". . . in the midst of determining the best way to ensure that gay and lesbian couples are accurately counted."

I don't want to sound too snarky here. It is real progress that the government we pay our tax dollars to support is actually willing to count same-sex couples accurately. That certainly has not been the government's policy in the past -- which should tell you something.

The fact that they have to struggle with this -- the fact it is a problem for them -- brings them face to face, once again, with the unreasonable, irrational and mean-spirited provisions of DOMA. Someday, I hope, they will see that it's easier for all of us to get rid of it, and save us all valuable time and effort we could be devoting to real problems.

I'd also like to join Dale in extending a warm bloggy welcome to Brian Chase.

Chris Geidner has a good, measured piece at Salon, gently making the point that the gay community does not need to be at war with the President over the Smelt brief. I agree, and urge people to read his essay.

While he does not defend the brief, though, I think he misses the key point. That's even clearer in his blog post criticizing the rhetoric John Aravosis has been wielding. It's not that he's wrong; Aravosis does exaggerate the role that the pedophilia and incest cases play in the brief, and does overstate DOJ's official statement about its role in defending federal laws. But these are disagreements about hot, political oratory, and distract from what I continue to think is the central problem with the brief - its premises.

As I've argued, the constitutional sections of this brief could not have been written but for its central, unarticulated thesis -- that all people are fundamentally heterosexual. It is only from that starting point that anyone could argue DOMA does not discriminate against lesbians and gay men. If all people really could meaningfully marry someone of the opposite sex, then DOMA's prohibition on any federal legal recognition for same-sex relationships really doesn't discriminate against anyone. It is the very model of the "neutrality" the brief continually invokes -- because the world it posits has no homosexual people in it to discriminate against.

That premise is as untenable as it is incoherent. Of course DOMA discriminates against lesbians and gay men. It was intended to discriminate against lesbians and gay men. This calumny deserves the fury that has taken hold in the gay community, and is at the very heart of the acrimony I think most of us now feel.

Everything else is beside the point. This vintage misconception (I'm really trying to restrain myself now), was publicly adopted by the administration, and we deserve nothing less than a substantive and explicit apology for it. From what I've heard and read so far, the administration has never so much as acknowledged that the brief might be reinforcing a notion that is not true - the very one that provides the foundation for the harmful notions about homosexuality gays are spending their lives trying to replace.

Like Geidner, I honestly do not think the President believes this lie. But it now has his name on it. We need to focus solely and relentlessly on getting the White House to see what it has actually told the American people.

To my skepticism below, though, I need to add a note of thanks to the administration. Someone had the good sense to invite Frank Kameny to the White House for yesterday's ceremony, and give him the President's signing pen. This explicit and public step toward equality is what Frank has been fighting administrations for since he was fired from his job as an astronmer in 1957 because he was gay.

Frank is one of the superstars of gay history, and the White House got it exactly right in making sure he was there. When they finally finish the job, they should invite him back.

(Thanks to Jon Rauch for pointing this out)

Barack Obama is adding a coda to Mario Cuomo's observation that people campaign in poetry but govern in prose: based on his press conference yesterday, when it comes to gay rights, even prose is failing him. On our issues, he is governing in grunts.

There is no better illustration of how badly the toxic residue of anti-gay prejudice distorts ordinary politics than Obama's flailing on the simple and fundamental issue of the inequality that federal law demands for those who are homosexual. And that is a point that cannot be overemphasized: DOMA and DADT are federal laws that explicitly require the government to discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation. Discrimination is the considered policy of the U.S. government when it comes to lesbians and gay men.

To be fair, we share part of the blame for the President's dilemma. Some of our leaders led him to believe that gestures toward equality would do. But since Obama was elected, four states have recognized full marriage equality, three of them by legislative action. On the other side of the ledger, the government has discharged one of its most articulate and talented Arabic translators, Lt. Dan Choi, because he has been honest about being gay -- at the same time that 69% of Americans say they do not support the policy under which he was fired. That is, in large part why the weak tea the President offered yesterday looked so much like weak tea.

What he did is satisfying enough, if you're among the 2% of American workers who are federal employees, and also among the 3% or so of them who are homosexual, and also among the unknown percent of them who have a committed partner. I'm not a mathematician, but I believe the overlap of these three circles in a Venn Diagram would be quite small. I know I'm immediately disqualified because I'm in the 98% of workers who isn't a federal employee.

But the scattershot benefits that are now available to that infinitesimal percentage of Americans exclude the one that makes the biggest daily difference in people's lives: health insurance. This is not just the dominant benefit in most people's employment, it comprises, by itself, between 6.9% and 8.1% of total compensation.

But the President's compelled performance was matched by those in our community who had to grit their teeth and act as if they were grateful. Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force did everything but blink out S.O.S. with her eyelids in supporting the memo.

And, let's be honest, none of this would have happened (at least not now) but for the DNC fundraiser that continues to fall apart because the President's DOJ filed its "squalid" brief (in Dale Carpenter's perfect description) in the Smelt case - the very non-pink elephant in the room the President declined to mention.

Despite all this, it is depressing to have to acknowledge the Democrats remain better on gay issues than Republicans. But when even the Democrats are still acting with the skittishness of 1994, it's hard to distinguish the two.

At the very least, I wouldn't want to give the DNC the $1000 entrance fee to their fundraiser. At best, I think that all we've gotten from them is about $57 worth of equality.