Because of massive disorganization and huge, huge crowds, my tickets to the swearing-in ceremony were useless. So I didn't get to see whether people turned their backs on Rick Warren. I ended up watching from a nearby bar, where Warren was loudly booed. I heard there was some quiet booing from the Mall, but that was it. The invocation itself was pretty anodyne. What did you all hear/see?
Also, I was talking about Warren with some friends yesterday, who reminded me that choosing Warren for the invocation wasn't necessarily an olive branch to evangelicals. That his and Obama's views on gay rights are not all that far apart (i.e. neither one supports marriage equality). So I wanted to elevate this comment from meeneecat on my previous Warren post:
I don't really understand how Obama gets so much praise by the media and supporters for how "gay-friendly" he is. Personally, I don't feel that Obama is "gay-friendly". In fact I would go so far as to say that he is "anti-gay"...the reason is simply because, he opposes gay equality. When you oppose gay equality and/or endorse separate but "equal" policy for gay people (note that "separate but equal" is inherently UNequal) than the underlying message being sent, is that gay people are NOT equal, and shouldn't be treated as full citizens/human beings. So I don't really understand, how can this attitude be described as anything but anti-gay!Yet, it always seems that I get many people really offended when I explain my opinions on Obama and gay-equality. They reply with things like "stop whining", "stop accusing people of being homophobes/bigots", and "just be happy with how 'gay-friendly' Obama is compared with past presidents". Again, I just don't see the Obama administration as supportive of gay equality. However, I would gladly eat my words if he proved me wrong, basically though, I'll believe it when I see it.
As we get used to the idea of Obama as president, it's tempting to get really excited about how much better he is than Bush (or other previous presidents, for that matter). I know that was a big part of what I was feeling yesterday as I watched TV footage of movers packing up Bush's belongings outside the White House, and later as I watched Obama deliver his speech: RELIEF. However, it's our challenge in the coming months and years to not just be satisfied with "better than before," but to push Obama to really fulfill the ideals of equality and justice that he speaks about so eloquently.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Holding Obama to a higher standard than "not Bush".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11488
To be somewhat fair, if you look at the civil rights section at www.whitehouse.gov, the whole bottom half is about lgbt issues (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/)
So at this point, I'm taking a wait and see approach, but that is at least encouraging.
I agree! I don't think there's reason to despair or to think Obama will not be any better than his predecessors. But that's merely a starting point.
I agree with you 100%. He is not pro-LGBT rights and people need to distinguish between what he says and what they want to hear him say. He may be more gay-friendly then Bush was in so much that he wants protections involving insurance, pensions, hospital visitation etc. But the key issue is marriage. I for one do not believe in the institution of marriage because it is a religious based ideal. However, that is a choice Ive made and I believe everyone should be offered a choice in life including the choice to get married. But before we bash Obama for his beliefs I think it is key to ask this question: Would he have been elected if he had openly endorsed gay marriage in his campaign?? Probably not. I do not see him endorsing it, I think he would be hung out to dry if he does but what I HOPE now is that in time he will come forth as a truly leader for CHANGE and I hope that a nation like ours will learn to accept everyone equally because last I checked Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned decades ago and separate but equal is by definition unequal.
ok, i know this is me not understanding, and i know this is me coming from the perspective of heteronormative priviledge, but why is the end all be all marriage? yes, i agree 100% that seperate is NOT equal, and i agree that everyone should have the right to marry if they want to. but i see so many issues other than marriage in equal rights for the glbqt community, that focusing all the efforts on marriage seems somehow... i don't know, counter prodictive is the word i come up with but that's not quite right. i do agree there is a whole lot of projection happening onto obama, and it's tempting to assume he's going to do things we want to see him do because of the message of unity he speaks. anyway, just wondering why the focus on marriage as the end all be all right, over some of the other ones.
While I was pumped during the inauguration yesterday precisely because it meant "not Bush," I also believe that even the title of this post is really important to our feminist critique of Obama's coming "CHANGES." I so agree with meeneecat's comment. As a totally queer / genderqueer sometimes-woman, full-time feminist, I'm consistently disappointed in how even folks who share a similar identity to mine DEFEND Obama's obviously anti-queer beliefs.
Thanks, Ann, for reminding us all that we need to hold him to the standards we truly believe in. Sorry you didn't have a super time yesterday... hopefully the bar allowed some heat and beer!
Yes, I had both heat and beer! At 10:30 AM. Never has Bud Light tasted so good...
I don't think you can really compare President Obama to other presidents yet... he's only been in office for less than a day. I think we can have hope (of course) that he will be, but so many people have put him on such a pedestal it makes me worried about what happens when things don't magically change overnight because they simply can't.
I do believe there is a change in our national attitude (which is amazing), but policy is a much more difficult thing to alter and there is no way to know if its for the best until its already played out.
Hard to say how LGBT friendly he may be, but if his civil-rights section on whitehouse.gov is any indication he'll be more LGBT friendly than any President in history.
He may been for same-sex marriage, but not say so, since at this point in the USA getting civil unions passed is a ton more likely, especially if he's seen as not being in favor of same-sex marriage.
Yes, I've seen that section of the White House website. I DO think that Obama is better on this issue than any previous president (at least in his stated commitment -- we'll see what happens, policy-wise). However, the bigger point I was trying to make is that we should not settle for "most LGBTQ-friendly president we've had." We should push for "true ally and advocate for LGBTQ rights."
Yeah, I hear you. The trouble is what will pass though. It seems a certainty that at this point in time, that it will be either getting civil unions passed or nothing.
Some of the other issues it might be the same thing, either getting just a tiny bit passed or nothing.
It's probably baby steps.
I agree with that, on a realistic/pragmatic level. But the definition of what's pragmatic or possible is changed by both politicians and individuals who push the boundaries and demand what's RIGHT, even if they know deep down it may not be feasible yet.
I understand why Obama doesn't, but I don't support that decision. My ideal president would really push the boundaries of what's possible politically.
I think most liberal leaning individuals would prefer somebody who endorsed gay marriage. However, I don't think such an individual could have gotten him or herself elected, and we'd be stuck with McCain, and his civil rights section would have probably said something to the effect of "we might not implement separate water fountains or back of the bus policies for homos." Remember that proposition 8 was passed in what many would argue is the most liberal state in the country. I'd love to have a president that would support complete equal rights. However, since that person never would have gotten elected, I'm hoping that Obama will implement policies like trans-inclusive ENDA and repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell rules and pave the way for a candidate who DOES support gay marriage and full equal rights for the LGBT community.
Thanks Ann for posting my comment, I also agree with the comment you just made, I also think this is about doing what is RIGHT (I do believe that it's a constitutional right that we all have equal civil rights). And, I don't think it's ever right to support inequality. Still, I'm astounded by some of the excuses I hear like "why is marriage such a big deal anyways" to "a pro-gay president could never have gotten elected". Yes, I understand why politicians make certain strategic choices, but if we were talking say decades ago, and the issue was equality for women, or POC, (both issues not very popular with the "ruling" majority at the time) I would still hope that everyone here would have done what's RIGHT and supported equality. Thus I don't understand why the standard should be any different in 2009 when the issue is equality for lgbtq people?
"Thus I don't understand why the standard should be any different in 2009 when the issue is equality for lgbtq people?"
That's it, that's EXACTLY it. I understand that, realistically, this is a huge dividing issue and that he may not have gotten elected if he'd taken a different position. I really, really do.
What's scary is that so many people, feminist, equality-loving people, are excusing it instead of simply demanding better. Ok, yes, he IS more progressive than past presidents. So what? I want a president willing to be frank, open, honest and unwavering on this issue. For the sake of my homosexual/bisexual friends, for my own sake, for everyone's sake. You, me... we all deserve more than this, and we deserve it now, not later. If Obama won't give it of his own accord, we must demand it. If he won't heed our demands, we must find someone who will. I, for one, sincerely hope that Obama can and will rise to the challenge. This is one time in my life when I would absolutely LOVE to change my opinion about someone. I'm genuinely hopeful, but not holding my breath.
Just to let you know, Ann, I was in blue ticket standing room and didn't see anyone else turn around when Warren spoke. I turned as much as I could, but was being shoved from all sides so it was more like a top half twist. But as Meeneecat said, I do feel that Obama's stand on gay marriage is just about the same as Warren's. To bar people from marriage, but give them "equal" rights to civil unions is a civil rights violation.
Oops, prettymuch85 beat me to the whitehouse.gov link.
One of my friends at the ceremony turned his back. (That's it for my guerrilla reporting.)
It's true that Obama isn't the be all end all of allies. He isn't in support of same sex marriage. Still, I disagree with meeneecat. I don't think those are the only standards we can use to judge his commitment to the queer community. He has said that he'll end Don't Ask Don't Tell in the first few weeks in office. He supports ENDA and the other stuff on the White House page is pretty great. I'd love to see if we could get him to support safer sex education that includes same sex relationships (he did say he likes science!). In my book, that makes his support pretty good.
I'm not sure if I know enough about all of Obama's views to declare him anti-gay. (Is he in favor of gay adoption?) But, I was incensed by the hypocrisy of a line in his inaugural address. "The time has come to reaffirm...the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." Hm. All are equal and all have the right to full happiness. At what part are queer couples not included in all? How can you hold that view yet disagree that queer couples have the right to get married? I know we shouldn't make gay marriage appear to be the #1 issue facing the queer community, but I just can't help but feel angry at Obama for being a hypocrite on this issue.
From the Civil Rights section of the new whitehouse.gov:
Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
So yes, he is in favor of allowing gay couples to adopt, unequivocally it would seem.
Okay. I'm not saying I don't wish politicians could come out in full support of equal rights for gays but I definitely feel Obama and Warren are different.
Don't kid yourselves. Warren and the rest of the religious right currently stand against gay marriage because it's politically feasible. But if Warren and many of those like him had their way, homosexuality would be illegal. Period.
Obama, well, it's hard to say, because if he hadn't said he was against gay marriage, he might not have gotten elected, and we would have had a McCain presidency and even more things to complain about.
And because I KNOW Warren and other popular leaders in the religious right know better than to say everything that's in their heart, I have think the same might be true of Obama, realistically.
I have an issue with calling him "anti-gay". This forces a binary, a 'with us or against us' mentality that does nothing but oversimplify the issues at hand (perhaps in damaging ways). Obama is a proponent of some very important LGBTQ issues, but does not actively support marriage equality (though he did eventually comment that he was against prop 8, he certainly didn't use his clout against it). So, instead of trying to peg him as 'anti gay', perhaps we ought to say that he strongly supports certain LGBTQ positions such as employment discrimination protection, but does not support some issues we would like him to, like gay marriage. Now he has a complex political position that falls somewhere on a spectrum, which seems much mroe reflective of reality than an anti or pro gay label.
Also, there are those in the queer community who think marriage is inherently sexist and heteronormative and that LGBTQ communities are better off without it. Yet, you could hardly call those in the queer community who believe this anti-gay; they just have a complex position.
Acknowledging middle positions is important imho(at least if you agree with Obama's victory and inauguration speeches calling for unity and de-polarization)
You took the words right out of my... fingers, I guess! As to why Obama doesn't support gay marriage, he has said that he's against it based on his religion. His policies reflect that he wants all people to have equal legal rights, but it gets tricky when people want laws to change religious practices (as we've seen with LDS child abuse). He seems to support everything else about LGBTQ lifestyles, from serving in the armed forces openly to adopting to being safe from violence and discrimination.
"His policies reflect that he wants all people to have equal legal rights, but it gets tricky when people want laws to change religious practices (as we've seen with LDS child abuse)."
Excuse me? Unless I've misunderstood your comment you've just pegged marriage as a solely religious institution and by analogy to child abuse. CIVIL marriage is just that... civil. Not religious. Using the religion excuse is not only a lie, but also a gross violation of the separation of church and state. No one is asking for laws to "change religious practices." Civil marriage is not a religious practice, and we still call it marriage.
I think you said my whole idea of it pretty clearly.
While I agree with you that the issue is more complicated than "pro-gay" vs. "anti"gay," it's disingenuous to compare Obama's position on same same marriage to the position of queer people of feminists who are anti-marriage or oppose marriage for other reasons. Most of the people who make those choices in their personal lives ALSO support the civil rights issue that mandates that queer couples be allowed to CHOOSE whether they enter into the institution of marriage and all of its flaws.
It's important to remember that the issue of "choice" when discussing the marriage issue always comes from a place of privilege... there are those who choose not to enter into the institution of marriage, and there are those who are not allowed to make that choice for themselves.
And to make an even more controversial statement which has nothing to do with my statement above, as a queer-identified woman who hasn't dated in a couple of years and comes from a family with lots of disfunctional marriages, I would just like to say that while everyone SHOULD have the right, there are many worse things in life than living without romantic love or not getting laid.
Which perhaps is why I'm NOT completely comfortable equating the gay right movement with other forms of civil rights. I mean I've been in San Francisco to see plenty of gay pride parades. They're wonderfully fun and I enjoy them. On the other hand, they are often SO decadent. The gay rights movement just often has a different feel to it... which I guess I have mixed feelings about.
I understand what you mean. I am a Muslim woman and people in my community are worried about extraordinary rendition and deportation. Having a marriage vs. a civil union does seem a little decadent in comparison.
It's funny too because people don't think about other marriages that aren't recognized by the U.S. Government. There are some Muslim couples that are polygamous. Not many, but they're out there. I think polygamy should be legal, granted all parties are consenting adults. It is irksome that it isn't, but we've got much more important things to deal with right now.
And yes, Gene Robinson was not given as prominent a platform as Rick Warren, but, hell, they're all still Christian men.
I understand where you're coming from (I think), though I happen to think the right to Love is at least as important as the right to Believe (i.e. religion).
But you talk of discomfort with "the gay rights movement." I think I could understand "gay marriage" more, since marriage is not widely considered a universal human right, but I think you take it a bit far with "gay rights," which encompasses so much more than marriage.
The problem is that, to some, gay rights really are about "having romance/getting laid." When in fact, to people with my mindset, being gay is an immutable identity that simply "is," that exists even when a person is unpartnered, has been celibate for 10 years, and is going about his or her non-romantic business.
Are you still uncomfortable if we're talking about the "equal right" of a currently celibate, unpartnered gay person to be a public schoolteacher (assuming that the community knows he identifies as gay)? In that case, his or her "right" is unrelated to "romance and getting laid," as you put it. He or she would be punished simply for "being," not "living," gay.
Being gay/bi may be associated with sex and romance, but, IMO, it is like hereosexuality in that neither HAVE to be about sex and romance. They aren't even life states. They are about the core being of a person, even if that person lives alone in a cottage in the forest.
I'm sorry, that was meant for Ninapendamaishi.
Right. I agree the right to Love should be as important as the right to Believe. But what seem more important than either of those to me, is the right to simply survive, to not starve, to make a living, etc. And I probably should have clarified to say that I am talking about rights when it comes to marriage, being "out," that sort of things, and not when it comes to the core ability to survive.
Because while being gay is not a "choice" per se, I don't believe that someone is simply born gay either, the way someone is born black. To me, having known many queer people, it seems more likely to be a deeply rooted psychological thing, for which some people perhaps have some biological tendencies, along the lines of a preference for BDSM sex (or other deeply-rooted preferences). But nearly every queer person I know, male and female, has at one point had an opposite-sex experience, and many feel they like one sex more than another, but not that they could never possibly be attracted to a member of the opposite sex. Of course, that's not true for everyone.
But when I have mixed feelings is when it comes to the decadence displayed by some (note: not all, but many, and most I've known) members of the queer community. Gay pride parades in San Francisco include lots of drugs, alcohol, and public nudity and public sex. The same is true for the queer student groups at many colleges -for them the sexual liberation movement seems closely tied to their identity as queer, thus their showing of movies like Short Bus, etc. And I think here, in America, people police others' sex lives far more than they should. In fact, I'm fairly sure that's why blacks now have equal rights and gays still don't, because of our culture's longstanding squeamishness about sex in general. But, sometimes I have trouble prioritizing certain requests of the gay rights movement as high as say, the right to eat, the right not to be bombed, etc.
The problem is that, in the current set-up, I can get laid all I want; I just can't get health care for my partner--so I have to watch her struggle with economic and health problems that could be solved by my health insurance. Since my state and employer offer neither domestic partnership benefits nor marriage, she can't use my health insurance, the way that all the straight married partners at my job can. I'm just thankful that she doesn't have more serious problems.
Marriage is about much much more than getting laid. I don't like that health care is tied to employment and marriage, but as long as it is, queer couples are going to suffer in a way that straight couples won't.
I absolutely agree. Healthcare is a HUGE issue. It could, realistically, be taken care of through either civil unions OR universal healthcare, however, which I believe Obama plans to do.
"Because while being gay is not a "choice" per se, I don't believe that someone is simply born gay either, the way someone is born black. To me, having known many queer people, it seems more likely to be a deeply rooted psychological thing, for which some people perhaps have some biological tendencies, along the lines of a preference for BDSM sex (or other deeply-rooted preferences)."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? WHEN THINGS LIKE THIS ARE ASSUMED FROM STRAIGHT PEOPLE IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL. THANKS NINAPENDAMAISHI!
ok... breath... i think what she's trying to say (not very well at all i'll grant you) is that a person's sexuality is both biological and psychological. i don't think using opposite sex ecncounters as a proof point is a valid one, since it's pretty well documented that most gay people have gone through a period of trying to be "normal" and part of that quest for "normalcy" is behaving sexually the way your gender is supposed to. but saying human sexuality is ONLY biological or ONLY psychological is doing a disservice to the complex nature of it. and in that way, yes being gay, straight, bi, queer or any other permutation is only partially a choice. it just so happens that privilege bestows certain things on certain choices.
I'm not here to argue. But I had to point out what a horrible way s/he went about explaining this.
Especially with the "my gay friend (insert example)." Never does anyone any good.
You shouldn't be worried about deportation if you are not breaking the law anymore than I (a non-Muslim immigrant) should. It's illegal to deport someone just because they are Muslim. Now, having to write a letter specifically requesting to not have to invoke the help of an imaginary being in order to become a citizen (like I do) does make one feel a bit marginalized. Cuz, you know, being a monotheist is the default assumption for an American.
And polygamy (you probably were talking specifically about polygyny, though, which I support among consenting adults, as well as any other form of polyamory, although I do have an issue with "consent" resulting from indoctrination and teaching women they are worth half of a man) meshed with immigration issues does not present nearly as much of a problem as gay couples have with immigration. A person could marry a foreigner, wait two years for the adjustment of status, get divorced and marry another foreigner, and on and on ad infinitum. And they could all live together legally and not worry about being deported. Now, waiting two years would probably suck (I had to wait six months, and it was bad enough), but it's better than having little to no chance of physically being together like gay binational couples.
Health insurance and other benefits in a polygamous heterosexual marriage could also be switched around to the spouse who most needs them. Gay people often don't have the option of their partners getting those benefits at all.
And yes, Gene Robinson was not given as prominent a platform as Rick Warren, but, hell, they're all still Christian men.
They are still theist men who believe in the same Abrahamic god as you. I didn't notice any atheists speaking. Or polytheists, or anyone from a non-Abrahamic tradition.
You know, there was a study by the U. of Minnesota recently that showed that the most distrusted minorities (in this order) are atheists, Muslims and immigrants. So perhaps it's time for Muslims to get off their high horse. As an atheist immigrant, I have more things to worry about than a Muslim, and yet I don't find that having a marriage vs. civil union is decadent at all. I think marriage is an outdated institution, but as long as it exists, there should be equal opportunities to enter it for everyone. Not "separate but equal".
You shouldn't be worried about deportation if you are not breaking the law anymore than I (a non-Muslim immigrant) should. It's illegal to deport someone just because they are Muslim.
your comment would have worked a lot better had you not claimed this. this is a bunch of shit and everyone on this site should fucking know better and you just look like an asshole. don't tell me that the wave of deportations of muslims on shaky grounds after 9/11 didn't fucking happen.
also, a form of discrimination being illegal has NEVER STOPPED IT FROM HAPPENING. christ almighty, your comment makes me want to claw out my own veins.
Um, okay... I'm an asshole for pointing out an obvious fact? You'll notice I said "if you are not breaking the law". Maybe a non-Muslim has a better chance of getting away with breaking the law, but it's quite different from indiscriminate attempts to get rid of Muslims. Every Muslim deportation I've ever heard of has been tied to a criminal or civil charge, or failure to report charges or arrests in the country of origin. And as far as I can tell, those things are not just being used as an excuse. If you've heard of Imam Qatanani and his deportation trial, the records of his Israeli "arrest" were found unreliable and he was granted permanent residency. You are welcome to inform me of a case where someone legally residing in the US was deported for something like "suspicion of terrorism by mere association with Islam". I've also heard of cases where people were detained because their name sounded like a terrorist suspect's, but it's not a function of being Muslim, just of having an ethnic name. Let me also assure you that civil rights abuses and sucky immigration laws are not a function of anti-Muslim bias. They apply to non-Muslim immigrants just as much.
Discrimination against gay people is codified, in immigration and otherwise, and if you familiarize yourself with some state laws that are still on the books, you'll find that in many states atheists historically were not allowed to run for public office or testify in court. Muslims and members of other religions are routinely granted exceptions from various rules left and right that I could never hope for.
If you are going to deny the obvious, I'm really powerless to change your mind, though.
Emphasized for effect:
Every Muslim deportation I've ever heard of has been tied to a criminal or civil charge
Um, yes.
Either way, this is starting to sound a little too much like Oppression Olympics here, imho...
Ah, now I'm being blasted for being precise. Anyone here who is familiar with all Muslim deportation cases? I don't think so. In any case, maybe you could tell me about someone who was deported for merely being a Muslim instead of making condescending noises.
Oppression Olympics? Maybe, but I'm not participating. My whole point was that saying "I'm oppressed too, waah!" was not an excuse to accuse other oppressed minorities of decadence. Especially when they are being oppressed worse than you.
Side note!
I sometimes get offended when lgbt communities are appalled when someone compares gay marriage to polygamy. They say it's not the same thing.
STFU. It so is! Polygamy and gay marriage rest on the same principle - consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they like.
I have a feeling most gay marriage activists recognize this, but they don't want to associate themselves with anything so unpopular or exotic as polygamy.
I have to agree here, but I wish I could explain the perspecive more articulately. Personally, I'm bi (in a monogamous ltr with a hetero man) who doesn't particularly see the appeal or purpose of marriage. But in the same way I would want gays to have the choice of legal marriage, I would also want polyamorous peope to, which would be basically the same as polygamy in legal terms.
I can't remember where it took place now, but I recently read a discussion about new civil union laws I think in France. Rather than limiting legal protections to people who fuck each other, you could choose anyone to share that contract. It was especially popular with daughters wishing to care for their widowed elderly mothers. I think everyone would be better off if we all could make our own decision, basically lime a will, about who we'd split our insurance with, who gets to visit us on our deathbeds, and who inherits our crap when we're gone. It doesn't seem that complicated.
Agreed! Freedom of marriage should include the right to marry any consenting adults to any other consenting adults. Be they straight, queer, transgender, plentiful or otherwise.
The question most of you folks are getting at is this idea of Obama as a liberal Trojan horse. Many people feel as though he was very moderate during his campaign in order to get elected but now, once he has sat down in office, things will change. Homi Bhabha writes about this in his text, "The Location of Culture." He essentially says that for a minority (i.e someone who is NOT represented by the foundational histories and anecdotes of this nation either racially, sexually, socioeconomically, religiously or otherwise), this person must take on the voice of the majority and rule from the margin until his or her power has been validated. That said, Barack Obama is not your magical air of change. He may do some things, but he certainly will not do everything--not because he doesn't believe in these things but because the bureaucracy will not allow them to be done. Think about the ways that he had to campaign to even be a viable candidate.
The new White House website has some promising things for LGBT folx. Honestly however, as an LGBT person, I'm more concerned about Gaza, institutional racism and the economic crisis. Have some faith, take some time, and remember, Obama is one man, not easily made into whoever you want him to be.
Just want to echo the importance of Gaza, institutional racism, and the economy. And note that I think the same general sentiment(that we should hold Obama to a higher standard than "better than previous presidents") applies to lots of other issues as well.
I think having a president who actually said "I support equal marriage" would be a good message and could have a certain trickle down effect, but...
What specifically should Obama do as president to advance equal marriage?
This is not to say that you all can't fight back and be outraged and tell him about it. But I think the idea of holding him to higher standards off the bat (without action, that is) is a concept that borders upon racist assumptions about minority politicians (i.e. that they all hold similarly liberal values because they are a minority).
Great post Ann, and thank you for continuing to cover this important issue. I guess that I, like you and many others, am really tired of being considered a "downer" when I express my dismay at the lack of consideration for queer rights in this supposedly-progressive political climate.
That said, I do agree with many of the comments above in that I hope that the struggle for queer rights can move beyond the focus on same sex marriage. Not all of us equate love and commitment with a state-sanctioned ceremony (not to criticize to those who do).
Great post Ann, and thank you for continuing to cover this important issue. I guess that I, like you and many others, am really tired of being considered a "downer" when I express my dismay at the lack of consideration for queer rights in this supposedly-progressive political climate.
That said, I do agree with many of the comments above in that I hope that the struggle for queer rights can move beyond the focus on same sex marriage. Not all of us equate love and commitment with a state-sanctioned ceremony (not to criticize to those who do).
Anne, you had blue tickets too, right? I was there at 8:30 and I was turned away too. I was standing in one line for two and a half hours and, get this, THE LINE DIDN'T EVEN GO ANYWHERE. We moved, sure, but to no place in particular. There were cops around, but all they did was tell us to stand on one side of a particular line.
Out of my family's six tickets, only two people were able to get in to the ceremony.
The disorganization -and overdistribution of tickets- was infuriating.
Yes! I was one of the frustrated blue ticket holders. I gave up around the time I heard the pre-game music start, around 10am I think.
We are allowed dissenting opinions even if we are so abso-fucking-relieved Bush is gone. I, for one, am anticipating the change that was promised. I hope Obama will come around and see that gay marriage is a civil right. How will he ever know if we don't scream and hold his feet to the fire on this?
He wasn't my first choice as President (Kucinich was). However, I did vote for him because I believe he would be open to reason on this and other issues.
The change we need to make in ourselves as citizens is to not fall into lockstep and apathy. We are a nation founded by disenters. We shouldn't silence those that feel they are being denied rights because we are in a honeymoon period right now. Stay scrappy and stay angry.
Yes, I was hoping for Kucinich too(against all odds). Maybe in 2012 (although probably not).
It's kind of sad when the best presidential candidates out there are people who claim to have seen a UFO and feel a warmth in their heart as a result, or make disturbing music videos like Gravel.
oh, sorry for the double-post!
and also, folks might want to check-out kristen's post titled "freedom from mere tolerance" over at Girl W/ Pen: http://girlwpen.com/?p=1464
I turned around, but I was with a bunch of apolitical, hetero-folks who had no idea why I was doing it. I made an effort to answer text messages so as to not listen to his words. I was also halfway down the mall, and I'm quite short, so if anyone else near me was turned around, I missed it. It felt good to make my own personal statement against that dickwad, even if the only people who saw it were my friends and the confused lady behind me. :)
I think too many vocal Americans oppose gay equality for Obama to take a stand for gay marriage. He's made very few stands that would endanger his reelection... maybe term 2?
Its important to remember that BO is a politician, and that politicians are typically apt to take the politically expedient route. LBJ didn't get the Voting Rights Act passed because he was a good man (though he was), it was because he had MLK outside pushing on the establishment. Just because BO was the most liberal senator doesn't mean he'll be the most liberal President (indeed he's making overtures that he'll be very moderate), and it doesn't obviate the need for LGBT activists to continue to push their views. Indeed an activist-led groundswell of support for gay marriage is the only thing that will see the passage of marriage equality.
Ironically it was Rick Warren who said (paraphrasing), "If you want to change the culture you can't be a politician. Politicians operate downstream. [Activists] operate upstream."
I, like several others here, cannot support calling Obama "anti-gay" or "just like Rick Warren." I think that's a ridiculous and even harmful characterization, and I honestly don't understand where it's coming from, besides outrage over his choice of Rick Warren for the inauguration. I was outraged over that choice too, but it doesn't mean they share the same policy w/r/t LGBT issues as much as it means that Obama made one stupid decision (out of a lot of right ones). As a lot of his critics have pointed out over the past several months, the man is not actually the Second Coming, but I for one am and have been completely fine with that this whole time.
Okay. To talk about this issue more generally (and, er, soberly) -- I think this speaks to something I said several days ago (I forget where) to the effect that we are in a weird position when it comes to Obama, because we should be overjoyed that someone who is entire orders of magnitude better on these issues is in office. But, we should not also be complacent and pretend as if "better" is the same as "enough." I think it's possible to do both at once, that is, be happy that Obama is way more of an LGBT- and feminist-friendly president, while also agitating for more. But it won't help in this endeavor to misrepresent what Obama's views actually are. And, in any case, we don't actually know what he is like as an acting president yet, we just know what he has told us.
For reference, here are several things he has told us (from whitehouse.gov ):
-First of all, an implicit statement from the way he's organized the information, a huge one that I do not think should be overlooked: Gay rights and women's rights are Civil Rights.
-Want to pass the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression."
-"expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act"
-Repealing the DoMA
-Repealing don't-ask-don't-tell
-supports full civil unions (legal "equivalent" to marriage -- I don't like the "separate but equal stuff" any more than the rest of you, but as we agitate for gay marriage, we should see the support of full civil unions as definite progress)
-"we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation"
etc etc. I do think that this is not enough, but I think that it is real progress. And again, I think calling him "anti-gay" and saying his views are practically the same as Rick Warren's is ludicrous, given the above.
I agree that Obama's stated agenda is very promising! No doubt!
My overarching point is not that Obama is terrible on these issues. To the contrary. However, I don't think his stated commitment is enough of a reason to be satisfied, nor is it a solid guarantee. I wanted to renew the call for pressuring him to do better -- even when he's already doing well on certain issues -- at a time when we are all energized and celebrating. It's important to remember that the work doesn't end with the election, on this or any other issue.
Oh, I agree -- I just think it might be better to push for these issues by making a loud and clear argument to, well, pretty much everyone, that they are important and necessary, rather than taking on Obama as a figure as if he has somehow failed us. I guess it's a kind of thin line in a certain light, but I am all in favor of "Civil unions are not enough!" but I can't at all support "Obama is anti-gay!" Does that make sense?
I heard a little booing for Warren, but not nearly as much as at Bush's entrance. As I've blogged elsewhere, I didn't see how many backs were turning, since my girlfriend and I were engaged in our own form of protest: long, loving kisses.
FWIW, I think that Warren was chosen as much because he's a much-lauded self-help writer as because he's an anti-gay Evangelical.
Anyway, Obama's going to need to be pushed as will the Democrats in Congress and the state legislatures. It's an improvement, but mainly it's an opportunity.
i was at a viewing party in Seattle, and though people didn't turn their backs there was a rousing round of "even the gay ones," after every statment he made about equality for all people, or really any statment like it.
that and much booing and hissing everytime to camera was on bush or cheny and when waren came out.
i think my favorite bush moment was the look on his face as obama was announced. someone must have switched out his water with lemon juice. hehehe.
Not to defend it, but to what extent do you think his less-than-warm attitude towards gay issue is political, i.e if he comes on too strongly as pro-gay, he may loose support? I'm not saying that makes it okay, but I'm just wondering if he's really just trying not to put off those who would support him. It's frustrating, even if this is the case. We should be able to have a president who says "I am pro-gay rights." Sigh. Maybe in my lifetime.
How about this:
"When I am President of the United States, gays and lesbians will have somebody who will fight for equal rights for them" (at 0:18 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu9mnsZyU7o )? Sorry for how campaigny the video is, it's just the first thing I could find.
I mean, I would love to hear him say it while actually President, of course, but it's not something he hasn't said before.
I watched MSNBC's video of Rick Warren, just so I could see if anyone turned their back on him when he spoke, and I did see a handful of people who did. But of course, no one commented on that.
I turned my back on Rick Warren and I am thrilled to hear that others did, too.
I am not fond of Obama's public stance against gay marriage, but that is hardly the only problem I have with Rick Warren. I have hope for Obama and his administration. I don't have hope for Warren or his congregation.
Not to imply that the West Wing should be a model for real life, but this conversation reminds me of an episode in which President Bartlet is chewed out by a Hollywood elite, who wants him to come out in favor of gay marriage. Bartlet makes the argument that him coming out in favor of gay marriage would be the worst possible thing to do for the movement. because it would bring a lot of heightened crazy right wing attention to the issue and become a mobilization tool for them. The President can't declare gay marriage into federal law and his support of it could arguably bring as much harm as good.
I do wish Obama would come out in favor of gay marriage. But I understand the political reasons that it might not even be a good thing, ultimately. He wouldn't get re-elected for one, and whatever democrat that ran after him would have to be moderate and come out openly against gay marriage. Because as ugly as it is, the anti-gay marriage voting block is still pretty powerful (in public and Congress, not to mention the Supreme Court).
I don't want to come off as defending his position. If I had the chance, I would vehemently argue with him about it. I hope that many do, and I am confident that Obama would listen. But I also think that as we begin to judge Obama's position and action we should be sure to give him credit for the things he does do (such as supporting adoption rights and considering womens and gay rights as human rights and civil rights, repealing DOMA, coming out against Prop 8, etc...)
I assumed that Rick Warren was about getting Evangelicals on board for environmental/global warming issues. If we want to green the economy, unfortunately we really need the evangelicals. And anyways, I thought unity was a big part of what this election was about. We can't just shut the door on conservatives like they shut the door on us 8 years ago. Where's the change in that?
We do have to wait and see what actions Obama will take over the next *hopefully 8* years, but I don't think we are heading in the wrong direction...Passing the Mathew Shephard Act, abolishing DADT, and fighting workplace discrimination is a start.
I agree that Obama is against gay equality, which is appalling. He better show that he meant what he said about supporting civil unions and specific legislation (Uniting American Families Act) that would allow American citizens who are in a relationship with same-sex or transgender partners to petition for them to immigrate. I think immigration issues are where gay couples have their rights violated the most, but paradoxically, it almost always gets overlooked in gay marriage debates.
So yeah, I hope we see some action taken soon. But then again, did you notice how "universal health care" has turned into "affordable health care"? I fear we are going to get the same bait-and-switch in other areas, too, since Obama feels he has to pander to Republicans in the name of bipartisanship.
I'm glad to see people are able to evaluate Obama critically instead of unquestioningly accepting his promises of change, though.
A lot of people are being pretty ridiculous. What ever happened to: though it may be slow "the arc of history bends towards justice"?
The thing is, like it or not, we're working within politics here. They're slow, and prejudicial. Nothing changes overnight. And frankly a pro-gay-marriage candidate would not have been elected. So what we've ended up with is a relatively strong ally for gay rights who might make polices that will lead into full gay marriage rights. But we'll never know if we don't give him the chance to make any policies or act on any campaign promises. I mean, jeezum crow, can we all take a breath here? Can we give Obama a chance to readjust his desk chair in the oval office before we decide that he's the worst thing to happen to gay Americans? You know, is he going to end the war? Are we allowed to celebrate that for at least 10 seconds?
I see a couple of things going on here, both on feministing and in my "real life."
The first is hetero people/couples being well-meaning but condescending by telling me that "someday," "eventually" I will have civil rights. Yeah, well, that doesn't help me one bit right now, does it? And excuse me for complaining about it and demanding better. To them Obama is as good as it gets and they don't understand why I can't be happy with the scraps he throws the LGBTQ community. The mantra is that he is better than Bush. They claim that Obama does support same sex marriage deep down in his heart, but can't show that for political reasons. I call bullshit. Why am I supposed to believe that Obama "really" believes a position he hasn't said he supported since sometime once in 1996? Heck, if I believed everything politicians said a decade ago the current political landscape would look very different.
The second is the consistent and disappointing reaction of the LGBTQ community and leaders cheering for Obama no matter how moderate or double-talking he is. We are, again, supposed to be absolutely 100% thrilled that Obama supports some but not all initiatives to advance queer rights. We are always supposed to believe that Obama really truly does have our interests at heart.
Well, you know what? I am sick of waiting. I really am. I know, politics is slow, and as a student of politics, especially, I understand that. But it being slow does not mean we clap and cheer and stay stationary. We HAVE to demand better, and I honestly see very little of that. When I point out some of Obama's flaws I literally get chewed out for not being grateful that we have him instead of another, more anti-gay president. It's like Obama is untouchable. I hate when the right-wing people refer to the sentiment of Obama-mania, but sometimes it feels like that. Yes, I am excited. No, I am not 100% pleased.
It's early on, but quite honestly I have no reason to think that Obama will not put his agenda for LGBTQ rights on the back burner, pushing the date when he will focus on them to later and later... perhaps into a 2nd term he hasn't even been elected to? Having a section on his website dedicated to gay issues is a great start, but it is NOT the be-all end-all of a queer-friendly politician. We have seen this before: Clinton. Please, let's not let it happen again?
Meanwhile the state of California is trying to forcefully divorce me and knowing Obama isn't in favor of allowing me to legally MARRY [again?] is a very, very close-to-home emotional issue right now.
When I point out some of Obama's flaws I literally get chewed out for not being grateful that we have him instead of another, more anti-gay president.
YES! thank you. for the whole comment. even on this blog it feels like folks are all up in arms that we're saying, "nope, not good enough yet"
Thank you. :) I agree, unfortunately.
Thanks llama, you pretty much expressed much of what I'm feeling. Part of this is the frustration regarding as you said "hetero people/couples being well-meaning but condescending by telling us that "someday," "eventually" we will have full civil rights."...
"Obama is a strong supporter of gay equality" (translation to lgbtq people: "just be satisfied that he's better than the last guy"),
"You should just be happy with the agenda thus far" (translation: just appreciate the "scraps" you've been given)
"Why is marriage so important to you anyways" (translation: just take it from the us, marriage is overrated - how about a "civil union" instead? it's basically the same thing, except it's more "politically appealing".)
"The invitation of Rick Warren is more about including everyone under the tent and bringing everyone together, even if you don't necessarily agree with them" (translation: it's alright if you're an anti-woman homophobe, bigots welcome!)
"You're being too negative" (translation: stop whining)
Much of these attitudes seem to come from a place of privilege, and they can come across to lgbtq people as very condescending. For example a person coming from a place of hetero privilege trying to convince lgbtq people that Obama is really pro-gay-equality despite many of our legitimate concerns to the contrary.
Llama, you're also right that people within the community, have also been cheerleaders, even during the times when we felt tokenized, thrown under the bus, ignored, betrayed, etc...defending and offering up excuses for things like the Rick Warren invitation, Obama's stance on marriage, the homophobe tour, etc.
Llama, I too feel like I get "chewed out" for being critical of that which I am not happy with. Still don't understand much of this. I don't understand how people say that they support gay-equality, and then follow that with a nice big "but...".
"I support gay marriage, but..."
"I support gay equality, but..."
"I'm all for equal civil rights for lgbt people, but..."
Excuses. So please pardon my dismay and bewilderment at the contradictions I see. It's really depressing to hear people who say they support "equality for all" tell you that your civil rights are not "politically popular" at this moment in time...so just be patient and wait.
Lastly, Llama, I'm sorry about the situation you are in. It's not right. Inequality and injustice are never right. So, I'll stand with you voicing my discontent at the scraps and the consolation prizes...and we'll demand better, never "shutting up", until we have won.
Well, you know what? I am sick of waiting. I really am. I know, politics is slow, and as a student of politics, especially, I understand that. But it being slow does not mean we clap and cheer and stay stationary.
This is absolutely true. But it doesn't mean that the conversation has to be limited to this single aspect of Obama's beliefs or actions. We should absolutely push Obama to work for legalizing gay marriage and we should also realize the limits and consequences of his office. Would it be worth it for Obama to come out for gay marriage if it meant that he'd burn almost every bridge he has to the right side of the aisle and sacrifice other progressive legislation we need as a country?
The second is the consistent and disappointing reaction of the LGBTQ community and leaders cheering for Obama no matter how moderate or double-talking he is. We are, again, supposed to be absolutely 100% thrilled that Obama supports some but not all initiatives to advance queer rights. We are always supposed to believe that Obama really truly does have our interests at heart.
I agree, that attitude is disappointing. I disagree with the idea that anyone needs to be 100% absolutely thrilled with Obama. In fact, it gives me a lot of hope that people aren't. I think you can believe he has your interests at heart and still be critical and hope for more and better action.
This thread has been really fascinating. I don't comment often, but really love feministing commenters!
"Would it be worth it for Obama to come out for gay marriage if it meant that he'd burn almost every bridge he has to the right side of the aisle and sacrifice other progressive legislation we need as a country?"
I struggle with this question every day. From an ideological standpoint, yes... I do think it would be better and worth it for him to come out and support it. At the very least I would respect him a heck of a lot more, and feel much more respected myself. Realistically speaking, I cannot emphasize enough how much I understand the way LGBTQ policy works in this country and maybe people will jump down my throat for this, but I honestly think Obama would have been a viable candidate had he supported same sex marriage, ESPECIALLY in the general election [as opposed to the primary] when the choice was between him and McCain given the current political conditions-- Republican mess for 8 years, tanking economy, war in Iraq, etc. I have a hard time believing that was the sole selling point, and his win was pretty definitive.
I understand the panic and concern about his position alienating him and burning bridges with conservatives, but maintaining bridges with the people who already support him, his BASE, is just as important. If a lot of his base thinks he's batshit nuts on this issue I think it will hold him back considerably. That said, not many people seem to care, so I guess the point is moot anyways.
Short: I see the limitations but I don't think the way everyone, including Obama, is handling it is really productive. At the very least people might want to stop pretending they know what Obama *really* supports and admit that he does indeed and has for a very long time supported civil unions and ONLY civil unions... and not especially loudly or strongly, at that.
Now, if Obama were to actually make passing civil union legislation and other progressive legislation to help the queer community the conversation would be different. I just don't see him making it a priority, and LGBTQ website section or not his focus is obviously not on these issues. I will make a real judgment on this when I have some evidence rather than speculation, of course. I also understand that some other huge issues are perhaps more pressing, but the reason he has a huge cabinet is so that he can multitask and address more than one thing at a time. In turn, the queer community can address more than one thing at a time and needs to focus, in addition to marriage rights, on other rights such as an inclusive ENDA, ending DADT, etc etc.
Although I am one of the several people here arguing against calling Obama "anti-gay," I can really sympathize with your position -- and I agree that what he has said and done is not enough. I also really don't want to fall into the trap of just telling people to accept table scraps either, because like you said, that is so condescending and insulting, and this is an issue of immediate urgency to so many people (and should be for everyone). I guess I just think that it is too early in the game, and there is too much possibility here, to approach Obama as an enemy, though... I would like to see him as still a potential ally, especially considering that he does seem to recognize that gay rights are a major issue (even if he doesn't prioritize them as much as we'd like). That isn't to say that what he's done is enough at all, but I at least hope that it might be possible to approach him and his supporters as people who could be willing to listen, as opposed to the outright enemies that almost all mainstream politicans have been until just recently.
Thanks for the response. I agree with you, mostly. I said in one comment here, I unfortunately don't remember which one, that while I don't think Obama is "anti-gay" in the more sweeping sense of the word, I think some of his positions, notably the one he holds about civil unions, ARE anti-gay. His positions, not him. But they are *definitely* anti-gay. Civil unions only is an anti-gay and anti-equality stance. I definitely do not see Obama as an enemy by any means. I see him as in general an tenuous, fair-weather ally who has quite a long way to go to genuinely earn my respect and any future votes of mine. While I would love to give him the benefit of the doubt [unfortunately I really don't feel comfortable doing that at this point] and will withhold any truly scathing comments until he's had time to do something, I really have no reason in the world to expect him to uphold the pretty rhetoric he spouted during the election or any promises he has made on his website.
I will admit that my feelings about this are deeply intertwined with my own emotions and terror about the possibility of being forcibly divorced by the state I am married in. This ties not only in with the Rick Warren thing, but the serious double-talking Obama did during the election about Prop 8. Those actions are never going to go away, regardless of whether he does great things such as passing ENDA, ending DADT and other things he has promised to do. It will be about a thousand times worse if they divorce me and I can't marry again because Obama has a freakin' hangup about his religion and the word marriage. I have to say I'm not sure I will be able to recover from a blow like that, should it occur... nor do I believe I should have to.
Also, and sorry, but I cannot say or believe that he has my best interests at heart. If he believes in his heart that his positions represent my best interests I'd call him condescending... of course it's not him who claimed this. ;) Whether he does is something he needs to prove, and thus far he has not come even remotely close to showing that he does.
I didn't hear anyone boo Warren or see them turn their backs. He was a non-issue. It was a great day to be enjoyed.
I agree with most of you when I say I would love to see Obama allow for gay-marriage during his term in office but even if he doesn't it is absolute hyperbole to say that he is "anti-gay." When I hear the term anti-gay' I can't help but think of a homophobe and all that entails. And it is painfully obvious that Barack Obama is not a homophobe and is that he sympathizes with the LGBT community. The lynch-pin is religion. I am an atheist and thus cannot fully explain the actions of certain religious persons but I have seen perfectly reasonable people be confused by religion all too often to know it is exceptional is developing the beliefs of certain groups of people. So when someone is opposed to 'gay-marriage' I don't always see their decision as being 'anti-gay' but rather 'pro-religious tradition.' Obviously some people are indeed homophobic but I don't believe Barack Obama to be. He for some reason, whether it be personal belief or public pressure, has capitulated to the religious tradition model and therefore opposes 'redefining marriage,' yet fully supports other kinds of unions between LGBT couples. Yes, I believe we should hold Barack Obama's feet to the fire but sometimes you need to take when foreward progress you can get and perhaps Barack is merely a step towards an even better president which follows his 'forming a more perfect union' meme quite nicely.
Obama is a legal scholar. Saying that he's "confused" is sort of silly. He knows civil marriage has nothing to do with religion, and yet he is using his religious beliefs to promote bigotry in violation of the separation of church and state.
Being opposed to same sex marriage is an anti-gay position. It may not make a person sweepingly anti-gay, but it is absolutely an ANTI-gay position, which makes their decision on that particular issue anti-gay.
I'm probably re-hashing arguments others have made, but I felt the need to state my piece on this commentary of Obama being anti-LGBT.
He's, quite simply, not. Sure, he's not entirely, through and through, all over LGBT issues like white on rice. But, on the other hand, he seeks to repeal DADT, pass a FULL non-discrimination law with protects not only sexual orientation but also gender identity and expression, and the polite District way to say "supports gay marriage" is to say "supports a full civil union with all rights and responsibilities". We have to remember the broad spectrum of audience he needs to cater to -- which includes people who think marriage is all about religion and not anything to do with law (however misguided that view may be). It's a form of pandering.
No one President has ever had so much to deal with LGBT-wise. The movement is louder and more angry than probably since the years after Stonewall. We're feeling entitled and we're not going to stop until we get what we feel is ours. Obama KNOWS this and Obama wants to work with LGBT communities to promote equality and respect.
I think to call him anti-gay just because he doesn't support gay marriage doesn't look at the issues presented to LGBT Americans in full. It's not just about getting hitched -- it's about second class citizenry. It's about adoption. HIV/AIDS related discrimination. Job discrimination. The Matthew Shepard Act. Don't Ask Don't Tell. And a myriad of other issues which matter more or less to each and every single LGBT person in America. Using marriage as a crutch issue to label someone "for" or "against" us is really black/white and, honestly, against what any movement needs to succeed.
You have to coalition build with the people with whom you share some sets of values thereby assuring that you can get EVERYTHING you want because it's in more than just your own interests.
Again, no offense, but it's quite frustrating and condescending, hearing over and over again, how we are somehow wrong for our opinion that Obama's marriage policy is anti-gay. Most progressives would view the denial of civil rights based on sexual orientation to be blatantly "anti-gay"! (just like the denial of civil rights based on gender or race, would be blatantly sexist/racist.) Again why do the standards somehow change when it comes to gay rights...all of a sudden we start hearing all these justifications and excuses as to why gay-equality is not "politically viable"...excuse me, but "politically viable"???
But, really why is an Obama administration that doesn't feel that gay people should have the same constitutional rights as everyone else, even a big deal? We should just "get over it" because the denial of civil rights based on sexual orientation isn't really "anti-gay", but rather it's a problem with the attitudes of gays, who are stuck on this preposterous notion that we should be treated with equality and receive the same civil rights that everyone else does...Oh! I'm sorry, how overly demanding of us! [/sacasm]
Yet, for some reason this hasn't turned into a conversation about doing what is "right", but rather we're being told to "stop complaining" and "be patient", because right now the consideration of our equality is not the best "political move". Given that "THE gay" has been used as a political bludgeon for decades...it's especially infuriating that yet again politics are being injected into the consideration of our inalienable rights, and whether or not gay equality is "viable" for Obama right now. I'm really starting to believe that many people are just plain oblivious to how insulting it is to hear all these excuses as to why such a basic concept as "equal rights for all" is not a belief that is "politically viable right now".
Gular, ask yourself: if it were, say a president that believed that black and brown people should not be allowed to get married...would we be calling this person racist? I guarantee we would. What if we had a president that believed that women should not be allowed to hold jobs or careers outside of the home? Would we be calling this person sexist? I guarantee we would. So, again, how come the standard is somehow different when it comes to gay equality? How is it, that lgbtq people who feel that the denial of their civil rights is anti-gay, are somehow the ones in the wrong here?
The question is, would you rather lie to people and make progress faster, or would you rather be publicly open about your ideals and make progress more slowly.
The fact of the matter is, bigotry is obviously more common that tolerance. Now, with that knowledge, you as a politician can pretend to be just enough of a bigot to convince all the other retarded bigots to give you a lot of power, and then you can use that power to make the changes you want, or you can say what you really think, and get nowhere.
You are basically saying "I would rather have honest politicians, and John McCain as president."
You can't just say "I'd rather have an openly pro-gay president" That's like me saying "I'd rather be able to fly to work than have to drive." Well that's nice, but it's not talking about reality, it's just talking about fantasy land. Here in reality, what do you actually want to do? If your only options are tongue-in-cheek Obama or John McCain, which one do you want?
I don't think most people are really saying "oh just sit back and be happy now" because of course there's always a reason to keep pushing for more; but that doesn't mean that Obama is anti-gay or really believes the crap that he'll say to get elected. Just because he's pragmatic and you're idealist doesn't mean you two are fighting for different truths.
You can't just say "I'd rather have an openly pro-gay president" That's like me saying "I'd rather be able to fly to work than have to drive." Well that's nice, but it's not talking about reality, it's just talking about fantasy land. Here in reality, what do you actually want to do?
I'd rather have a president who openly supports the ERA. Am I living in "fantasy-land"? No, I'm just stating my preferences. I mean, this really isn't that complicated -- it is important to be aware of and vocal about one's ultimate goals in these matters. Furthermore, having those ultimate goals doesn't mean that we can't figure out what we need to do in the here and now in order to progress towards those goals -- it's not like my saying "I demand complete gender equality!" means that I'm incapable of interacting in the present or something. It just means that we will not be satisfied until these goals are met.
I still object to calling Obama himself "anti-gay," because I think this is a much more complex situation than just a gay/anti-gay designation can describe. I do have some amount of sympathy for those who say that not vocally supporting gay marriage is an anti-gay position, though, even though, again, I do think it is sort of oversimplified. But I refuse to insult those who bring their genuine experiences to the table and have the nerve to articulate and demand what they believe they have a right to by calling their goals "fantasy-land." I think we all (both here at feministing as well as everyone participating in the wider discussion out in the world) need to calm down for a minute, and then try to really listen to each other, make a real attempt to have a serious and thoughtful discussion about this incredibly important and difficult issue.
I didn't get to read the entire thread, but here's my take.
I really, really, really cannot be convinced that Obama actually believes what he says about gay marriage. I mean, he spent years teaching at a major research university. That alone makes it very unlikely that he is really against gay marriage. The fact that he is liberal on pretty much every other issue also makes it amazingly unlikely. (If my life depended on my finding a professor as liberal as him on all other issues, but who is against gay marriage at my university, I'm pretty sure I'd end up dead.)
Not to mention the man taught constitutional law. People who oppose same-sex marriage typically 1) no nothing about the constitution or constitutional law (and don't know what to say when presented with the kinds of arguments taken up in state courts in recent years) or 2) are strict-constructionist/originalist types (in which case they simply reject the background assumptions about constitutional law that are at work in recent court decisions). But Obama is neither of these things. I just cannot see how he could possibly be not be convinced by the usual constitutional argument for same-sex marriage.
There's also this: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_wct_20090114_obama.html. Obama did come out in favor of same-sex marriage in 1996 while running for IL state senate. I suppose it's possible that this was just a strategic position (and that his real position is anti-gay marriage), but I think it's more likely that things are the other way around. In '96 same-sex marriage wasn't really on the horizon in anyway. He would have been miles ahead of the vast majority of politicians just in supporting something like civil unions or other kinds of rights for same-sex couples. I can't see how taking the more radical position (especially if he didn't really believe it) would have been particularly helpful for him at that time. I can see how taking up the civil-union position was a useful strategy for him now (even if he doesn't believe it).
There's also the issue that Obama's current stand on gay issues is just completely inconsistent. Why would he have an objection to the CA ballot amendment unless he were already committed to same-sex marriage being legal. I believe he explains his opposition by claiming that prop 8 is discriminatory. But how could it be discriminatory unless he already thought that the CA court had ruled correctly--that it was indeed a violation of constitutional rights to allow heterosexual but not homosexual couples to marry? I just don't see how such a smart man could have such poor critical thinking skills to actually simultaneously hold such contradictory views. (I mean, how could he have gotten through law school if this is a representation of his thinking abilities?)
And I also think that there has been some attempt in the campaign to let the glbt community know that what is going on is essentially just strategy. I really think there was a kind of wink and nod our way going on in the Logo sponsored debate on glbt issues during the democratic primary (transcript here: http://woubiyossi.tribe.net/thread/3f7a7130-6c5e-4bd1-bbca-4eb5dcad5a54). When he is specifically asked about civil unions vs. marriage he refers to his parents who in 1961 would have been legally forbidden to marry in a number of states and says "So this is something I understand." He then goes on to say that if he were advising the civil rights movement of 1961 he would have advised them to focus on other kinds of rights.
Now what is he saying here? Clearly he does think that interracial marriage should be legal. So by making that analogy (with no prompting from the interviewers) it seems he's essentially telling us that, yes, of course he thinks gay marriage should be legal. But he goes on to talk very pragmatically about making progress in answering that question and the next. After hearing that interview I really thought, "This man is clearly in favor of same-sex marriage and he wants us to know it!"
So given all that--given that I am entirely convinced that he has every intention of getting us as close to marriage as possible (and even to marriage if it becomes possible), I do have trouble seeing how he can be seen as anti-glbt. I certainly was not happy with his pick of Warren and that made me waver a bit in what I think of him. What I really hope is that eventually (maybe in his 2nd term) he will come out and say "yes I am in favor of same-sex marriage.) (Really I wish he'd say "Of course I am--I always have been. I just lied so you'd elect me you dumbasses. Did you really think I was that stupid to not see the clear contradictions between my positions?")
Just look at the democrats who do publicly support same-sex marriage. Who are they? Gore, Kucinich, Gravel, Elisabeth Edwards, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, etc. I don't believe for a second that these folks are anymore progressive than Obama. I just think that pretending to be against same-sex marriage isn't strategically useful for them; they can openly support marriage without making it more likely that a republican (who is against ALL rights for gays) will take their seat.
As a gay person who currently has NO rights at the state or federal level, I will take that strategy with open arms. I would much rather have civil unions *now* (and hence actually get the legal protections for my family even if they are called something else), rather than have to wait 20 years to get any legal protections, but have them under the name marriage. If Obama lying gets me those rights faster I am all for it.
This.
"Because while being gay is not a "choice" per se, I don't believe that someone is simply born gay either, the way someone is born black. To me, having known many queer people, it seems more likely to be a deeply rooted psychological thing, for which some people perhaps have some biological tendencies, along the lines of a preference for BDSM sex (or other deeply-rooted preferences)."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? WHEN THINGS LIKE THIS ARE ASSUMED FROM STRAIGHT PEOPLE IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL. THANKS NINAPENDAMAISHI!
Ninapendamaishi is a queer-identified woman. So maybe it's true in her case, but she certainly has no basis to extrapolate that on other people's sexual orientation.
I don't care.
I'm so tired of the politics surrounding this issue, from BOTH sides. I know SO MANY people whose sexuality has changed throughout their lives, both males and females.
Some people feel that the experiences they had before they found their current orientation weren't the same. Some people feel they WERE meaningful and enjoyable.
When you look at the history of western culture, homosexuality wasn't even considered an identity until about 100 years ago.
The original reason for beginning to refer to homosexuality as an identity was that it made it easier to argue with the religious right as to whether homosexuality should be illegal. If you could say that god made homosexuals, it was obviously harder to justify taking away their rights. It is NOT rooted in fact (as in, it's not like everyone in the queer community agrees). And I know plenty of people living a queer lifestyle who recognize that sexuality is flexible, and I'm tired of that group always being silenced, frankly.
But BtVSFanatic, you will notice in that statement of mine that you found so much problem with, I prefaced it by saying "I believe..." so I would not say I was "assuming" anything, exactly, just stating my belief.
FWIW, I do think there have been several studies done linking sexual preference to biological (esp. genetic) factors. However, I do think you're right in a general sense that it shouldn't really matter whether one's sexuality is biologically determined or a "choice" -- either way, one is entitled to the same rights as anyone else. But, for what it's worth, I think there certainly do exist people who experiment and grow and try out different things and like this more than that and so on out of what people might call "choice," but it seems really important not to delegitimize, in the process, the people who really genuinely feel as if they have always had a certain orientation and always will (and the science that seems to back up their claims).
Fair enough about not delegitimizing others' feelings, so long as others don't feel a need to delegitimize mine or deny how prevalent they actually are. The science isn't really conclusive I don't think, but I'll absolutely believe hormones play a role in creating tendencies. I don't take a deterministic view to the science, is I guess what I'm saying.
I was friends in college with a gay guy who has a straight identical twin brother. Obviously, obviously, obviously there's more to it than genes.
I was there and my boyfriend and I turned our backs when Warren began, but we didn't see anyone else do so.
(Ok, well, we did more of a half turn to the right toward the sun in a feeble attempt to thaw some of our dead, frostbitten flesh, but we turned nonetheless.)
i guess alot of people weren't able to get into their gated sections on tuesday and the JCCIC are inviting people who were denied access to contact them. If you do so, you'll recieve a packet with a bunch of commerative items and an apology.
it hardly makes up for not getting in after standing in a "line" for multiple hours in 20 degree weather, but who doesn't like keepsakes?
Would you care to list some major league politicians you'd classify as not "anti-gay"? Obama talks about respecting gay brothers and sisters in black churches, the most homophobic places in America and a source of support he would have been toast if he'd alienated. Clinton bragged about signing the Defense of Marriage Act. Choosing not to fall on your sword and forfeit the election over the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" does not make one "anti-gay".