Yesterday The Advocate published an interview with John Berry, the highest-ranking openly gay official in the Obama administration. The administration, which issued a gay-pride proclamation earlier this month, is still pledging to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, pass a trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act at some unidentified point in the next three and half years... yet in all of these cases appears to be actively propping up the status quo. (Pam has a further breakdown.) Glad we've got that proclamation, though!
This hits on something I've been thinking about a lot lately. When it comes to LGBTQ rights and other issues we care deeply about, at what point do we stop being happy with Obama's rhetoric and start demanding REAL results? Hopefully by October 11, when there will be a National Equality March on Washington, we'll have more of an inkling as to the answer.
I could write a whole treatise on this. But I'd rather you watch this speech at the Boston Dyke March by Jaclyn Friedman (of Yes Means Yes! and WAM! fame**). Just listen to her speak the truth about Obama's weak proclamation, about queer rights, and about activism generally: (It's long, but SO worth it! Transcript after the jump -- the video cuts off a bit of the beginning.)
** After watching her speak, I was reminded again why there seems to be an exclamation point after every project Jaclyn is involved in. She! Is! So! Awesome!
It's an interesting time to be queer in America. We now have a
president who issued an historic official proclamation in support of
Pride Month and in recognition of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall
Rebellion. It even included the words "bisexual" and "transgender."
We can legally marry in Iowa and most of New England (yes, Rhode
Island, I'm looking at you). Katy Perry made a fortune last year
singing about her enjoyment of girl-on-girl kissing, Sean Penn won an
Oscar playing queer civil rights hero Harvey Milk, and, just this past
Sunday, the best actor Tony went to the three young leads in a show
about a little boy who must overcome the homophobia of his family and
community to pursue his dream of dancing.
It's enough to get a queer feeling like she can relax a little.
Like she might finally be allowed, someday soon, to belong in this
country.
That is, if she doesn't look too closely at those
so-called victories. The hateful Prop 8 campaign in California taught
us that while millions of Americans are plenty willing to buy
"dykeness" or "queerness" as an entertainment product, far fewer are
willing to accept us as full and equal citizens.
That Presidential Proclamation? It would sure sound sweeter if it
were backed up by actual action to end discrimination against gay,
lesbian, bi and trans Americans willing to DIE in service of our
country's military whims. And it would be more than a little helpful if
Obama would stop caving to the religious right and start condemning
marriage discrimination, instead of defending it like he did today.
It would be more than a little helpful if Obama would stop caving to
the religious right and start condemning marriage discrimination
instead of defending it like he did today. Of course, marriage rights
themselves would be a lot less important if quality, competent health
care was available to every person in this country regardless of
marital status, income, age, race, sexual orientation or gender
identity. But who needs universal health care when you've got a shiny
proclamation that proves the president knows we exist? He likes us! He
really likes us.
This march has always stood for our
refusal to let the politics of pride be forgotten amid the corporate
logos, Mardi Gras beads, and block parties. This year especially, as we
mark the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, it falls to all of us assembled
here tonight to remember that the first Pride wasn't a rave. It was a riot.
And while much has changed in 40 years, a lot of it for the better, we
still have a long way to go before we realize the dream those brave
queens and queers risked their lives for in that alley in the Village
four decades ago. The heroes of Stonewall weren't just fighting against
oppressive dress codes and outrageous bar raids, they were fighting for something.
Something very simple. They were fighting for the right to be
themselves. To express themselves. To enjoy their own skin and each
other's company in whatever way most pleases them, without harming
another soul.
Most of us here tonight don't need to be told
that that fight is far from won. This can be a hard community to belong
to. We chew off and fall all over ourselves to accept the crumbs of
acknowledgment from the "outside world" while we're suspicious of and
vicious toward each other. It's no mystery why. We're all desperate to
get some very real needs met. Trans people here in Massachusetts want
the same civil rights and basic protections the rest of us enjoy. Queer
women of color need to stop being forced to choose between their
identities, communities and oppressions and be valued in our movement
as leaders, not just as tokens. Bi-identified dykes like myself want to
stop being treated like spies in the house of queer. Kinksters need to
be freed from the forced closet that "respectable" movement leaders
keep them in. Older dykes want their trailblazing work respected so
we'll be inspired to fight for their pensions and health care. Younger
queers need to know that a better world than the one we're living in is
possible, and that there's a place at the table for them as we work
toward it. And disabled dykes rightly demand that that table be
accessible to everyone.
The list goes on and on. It's a lot
of need, and it's easy to fall into the trap of trying to rank them in
order of priority or feasibility. After all, we can't do everything at
once. But that's where political infighting and fractures start, which
is exactly what keeps us stuck at proclamations and pop songs instead
of actual progress. I'm not trying to be naive here. Resource issues
are real. Most of us are busy, and many of us are struggling
financially. We all have to make very real choices about the best ways
to fight for justice.
What I am proposing tonight is that,
while we're making those choices we stop imagining that our individual
causes can be separated. Because they can't. No more than we can
separate ourselves from our own bodies and desires. The trap of
identity politics and infighting is that it blinds us to what's
actually going on. Every one of us is ruled by a system that dictates
whose bodies are free and whose aren't. Who gets to pursue pleasure,
and who's a pervert. Think about it. Every one of those "special
interest" groups I mentioned -- trans people, women of color, bi dykes,
kinksters, older lesbians, young queers, disabled women, and more --
we're all being told the same thing. What we want to do with our bodies
is not ok. Nevermind that we're not hurting anyone. Nevermind life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In America, in 2009, our bodies
are still illegal, immoral, and in danger.
This must end now. We must stop waiting for opportune moments. The heroes of Stonewall weren't rich or politically powerful. Quite the opposite. They were drag queens, stone butches, sexworkers, homeless queers, fed-up with keeping the peace and being grateful for what little they had. They wanted everything. A world where love is always legal. Where pleasure is a universally respected human right no matter who we love, what we where, or how we choose to express our bodies. The GLBT movement has done us a disservice for far too long by arguing for our civil rights under watered-down pretenses. Because talking about sex and bodies and desire gives lawmakers and the American public the vapors. Unless, of course, it involves pretty, thin, able-bodied, young, white, straight, feminine, cisgender women whose fictionalized sexuality is the backbone of U.S. capitalism.
But we don't
deserve health care and an end to hate-fueled violence just because "we
can't help how we're born." We don't deserve job protections or
marriage rights if "we're just like everybody else." We deserve all of
this and more because it's nobody's damn business what we do
with our bodies, as long as we're not hurting anyone. Maybe sexuality
is a choice for some of us. And obviously many of you here tonight are
not trying very hard to assimilate into the mainstream. And yet every
one of us here tonight has a body and desires and I'm here to tell you
that we can end every kind of queer injustice if we can create a world
where the pleasure of our bodies is a universally protected human
right.
We can live in this world in our lifetime, but only
if we look beyond our noses and our personal issues and make common
cause with each other. Yes we can! (Laughs.) I'm not suggesting this is
easy or without danger. As many of you already know, many of our
so-called allies in the movement will deny us as radical fringe if we
start demanding real freedom of our bodies without apology or
concession. And the two heinous acts of hate-motivated domestic
terrorism we've suffered this week is a stark reminder of the risks we
face from the "immoral minority," some of whom are here right now,
recording us and adding us to their lists. (Waves.) Hi, haters! (Blows
kisses.) But those unknown risks aren't any worse than the known ones.
Gay leaders already threw trans people under the bus when they allowed
the Employee Non-Discrimination Act to be introduced without protecting
gender identity, in hopes of making the bill more "palatable." Last
year alone, there were almost 1500 hate crimes committed against queer
citizens and organizations in this country. And that's just the ones
that were reported and believed by the authorities. And the first few
months of 2009 have already seen the suicide of three separate young
boys -- two of them boys of color, one right here in Massachusetts --
who chose death over the homophobic bullying they were made to endure.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is Obama all talk on LGBTQ rights?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14351
This is EXACTLY what I thought when he let Rick Warren give the invocation at his inauguration.
I mean, christ, that's not even giving lip-service to LBGTQ rights.
Brilliant speech/article. As an 18-year-old just entering college, I am amazed by the progress that has been made in our society over the last few decades, and by the incredibly courageous queers who through their efforts made my life as a young lesbian safer and freer. Yet at the same time, I recognize how far we as a society still have to go. There exists in our country a growing disconnect between social progressives and traditionalists, and it would be foolish to think that oppressive figures on the Right are losing their power to pass legislation that will harm members of the LGBTQ community...in fact, the opposite may be true. The passage (and upholding!) of Proposition 8 is only one example.
People like you really encourage me...although you recogize the difficulties facing our community, you remain optimistic. God bless, and fight on!
--Josie
"Waiting our turn isn't working."
This post reeks of naivety. Let's put things in perspective: two wars, nuclear proliferation, the worst economic crisis in decades, soaring unemployment... And Obama's only been in office for 19 weeks.
He's got to deal with myriad problems, only one of which is LBGT rights. I mean, do you really think he's not about to reform healthcare because there's no socialized medicine programme on the table right this minute? These things take time, even if by all rights they should be changed overnight if not years ago.
I'd also like to address the fact that Obama's a pragmatist - he's not going to storm into Congress and demand social legislation that would immediately alienate the opposition party and undermine his attempts to get the economy working and sort out healthcare. It makes tactical sense to move forward with the big stuff early on rather than let his presidency get mired in a gay marriage debate which would cut back the momentum he's currently enjoying.
I'm not saying this is what is right, how things would be in a perfect world - but you have to accept that successful politicians calculate when the time is right to expend political capital and when it is best to hold back.
Right, big stuff. Because civil rights just isn't big enough.
I feel like you're absolutely missing the point.
She's saying that many organizations that are supposed to represent the LGBT have a tendency to portray our issues in a sugar-coated way that doesn't truly represent us. "Waiting our turn" is example of this, an attempt to show that we're just nice people who don't demand too much.
Of course our current administration has a shit ton to handle and obviously they'll be addressing what they consider to be the priority issues. However, just because we're experiencing other major problems does NOT mean that oppressed minority groups should ever lose their much needed aggressiveness when it comes to demanding civil rights. Historically, when minority groups put the pressure off political figures, their issues are left on the back burner much too long. The consequences of that are dangerous and it's something that the LGBT community simply can't risk.
Friedman isn't naive, she just understands the consequences of not putting pressure on elected officials. No matter our current situation, we should never accept a lack of basic human rights. This issues concern our lives, not just living them, but also possibly LOSING them to homophobia and violence. That's pretty fucking important.
Yeah I think you're right and I guess I'm wrong in that people are right to call out the President and keep the pressure up so that LGBT rights don't slide off the agenda.
On the other hand I'm pretty damn confident that the President is getting ready to address these issues, and that if you actually *believe* that just because he hasn't got hard legislation on the table right at this moment then you're ignorant of political realities for reasons I outlined above.
@Freezer burned: actually I don't think that equal marriage rights and the right to declare you're sexuality whilst wearing a uniform are as important as the pretty fuckin monumental economic crisis, collapse of blue-collar jobs and the health of tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Call me cold-hearted if you will, but as a gay person I think people need a bit of perspective. This isn't Brown vs the Board of Education or the right to vote; it's important but not as important.
And yes there is a hierarchy of importance given that legislation needs to be thought out by the executive branch, drawn up, debated and then subjected to the democratic process, which takes time. America did not elect a single-issue LGBT activist, it elected a thoughtful President who promised to build coalitions and work towards goals democratically. So by all means let's keep the pressure up, but if you genuinely think that 19 weeks in is evidence of BO dragging his feet then you should man- tran- or woman- up and give the dude the benefit of the doubt.
Did you know that same-sex couples can't file for bankruptcy as a couple? So, if one or both partners were to lose his or her job due to, say, a recession, and they were forced into bankruptcy, they'd be out an extra, say $1000 in legal fees. Not that LGBT rights have anything to do with the recession.
The rights of people that are dealing with the economy (you know, important middle aged straight white people) are so much more central than our petty concerns. We totally need to wait before y'all get back on your feet before asking you to stop kicking us in the teeth. On a related note, I refuse to confront ablism until there's peace in the Middle East. /snark
So by all means let's keep the pressure up, but if you genuinely think that 19 weeks in is evidence of BO dragging his feet then you should man- tran- or woman- up and give the dude the benefit of the doubt
Um, words fail. Are you for real?
No, I don't think that Obama is "all talk" when it comes to LQBTQ issues and I do agree with lost_calender's point about him only having been in office 19 weeks and having a pretty full desk of issues to resolve.
That being said, this peice came to me at a really good time. As I get more and more settled into an enjoyable hetero-bliss relationship, it will be really important for me to keep fighting and remembering that not everyone has the freedoms that I have. I had never heard Jaclyn Friedman speak before and owe her and Ann thanks for kicking me in the ass a little and telling me to stand up for my friends and loved ones and expect promises to be fulfilled. Just because I like the President doesn't mean that I can stop watching what he does with a critical eye and speaking up when I am not happy with what I see.
Before anymore of this ignorance starts piling up in the comments, y'all should read this:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/watch_one_progressive_bus_run_over_rachel_maddow_and_the_lgbt_community/
So people can't have their own opinions because it happens to have been a common argument on the topic?
Calling out ignorance is a bit presumptive.
When people have UNINFORMED opinions on LGBT activism, that is ignorance. Espousing what LGBT activists SHOULD do is also arrogance. A winning combination.
I think it would be helpful to know exactly what statements/comments you are referring to. As is, it seems like a blanket statement to those disagreeing.
Well, the whole "Obama just hasn't gotten around to affirming LGBT rights because he's been busy with other stuff" line of reasoning is either ignorant or arrogant (see the Pandagon post for starters). The issue isn't that Obama's been making pro-LGBT statements and then not doing anything. The issue is that he's been making pro-LGBT statements and prior to taking actions that have actively hurt LGBT communities. For instance, he promised to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, yet has since stood behind DODT, as if it's not something he has the power to stop. Then there was last week, when his Department of Justice likened gay marriage to pedophilia and incest when urging the Supreme Court to not take up a case.
My community has been howling about Obama's anti-LGBT actions for weeks, if not months. For you to imply that we haven't been paying attention to Obama implies that you haven't been listening to us.
THAT ^
Thank you.
Thank you. I read the Pandagon post, but this cleared it up.
Thanks for that... the brief is very, um... instructive. Like that a guy who oversaw giving massive bonuses to AIG execs is afraid that queers getting hitched will draw down the amount of federal funds available for constructing golden parachutes. I mean, has anyone analyzed what the costs of same-sex marriage would be to federal and state government? Has anyone contrasted those numbers with the commerce generated by weddings and all their trappings (aside from the folks in Prop 8 the Musical)? And, if this is, indeed, a valid argument, why not take it a step further and scrub marriage altogether? We're in an economic crisis - we can't afford to have all these breeders sucking up federal funds. Oh, and I love the idea of determining constitutionality by looking at a current economic crisis, because judicial rulings on constitutionality don't set precedents that last beyond current events or anything.
What struck me the most about the brief - and this kind of speaks to Citizen Lane's comment below - is that the intention of it is quite clear. This is not a matter of "we're not ready" or that the administration is waiting for an appropriate way to successfully approach the issue. Rather, there is a clear perspective that the federal government has no place delineating or protecting the civil rights of queer people.
I think my favorite part, though, was where the brief pointed out that the only problem with anti-miscegenation legislation was that it specified "interracial marriages involving white persons," therefore showing its white supremacist hand. In other words, this Justice Department could have stood behind anti-miscegenation laws if they uniformly prevented interracial marriage!? That's an incredible perspective to have in 2009.
Wow.
Thanks again for the link... pretty darned informative.
I feel like you're absolutely missing the point.
She's saying that many organizations that are supposed to represent the LGBT have a tendency to portray our issues in a sugar-coated way that doesn't truly represent us. "Waiting our turn" is example of this, an attempt to show that we're just nice people who don't demand too much.
Of course our current administration has a shit ton to handle and obviously they'll be addressing what they consider to be the priority issues. However, just because we're experiencing other major problems does NOT mean that oppressed minority groups should ever lose their much needed aggressiveness when it comes to demanding civil rights. Historically, when minority groups put the pressure off political figures, their issues are left on the back burner much too long. The consequences of that are dangerous and it's something that the LGBT community simply can't risk.
Friedman isn't naive, she just understands the consequences of not putting pressure on elected officials. No matter our current situation, we should never accept a lack of basic human rights. This issues concern our lives, not just living them, but also possibly LOSING them to homophobia and violence. That's pretty fucking important.
I would like to correct an important part of this rock solid speech.
"Gay leaders already threw trans people under the bus when they allowed the Employee Non-Discrimination Act to be introduced without protecting gender identity, in hopes of making the bill more "palatable."
Put the blame where it really lies here: not with gay leaders, but with one organization:
http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/12346.htm
A list of 396 organizations that were OUTRAGED when HRC made a "one-time exception" can be found here:
http://www.equalityfederation.org/enda/
And the statement that the initial groups in United ENDA made is the following:
October 1, 2007
Dear Madam Speaker and Representatives:
The undersigned represent the vast and celebrated diversity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in this country. Some of us are national leaders of organizations with tens of thousands of members and constituents, some of us run the only local organization in our state. But we are united in a common cause: We ask you to keep working with us on an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that protects everyone in our community, and to oppose any substitute legislation that leaves some of us behind.
We ask and hope that in this moment of truth, you will stand for the courage real leadership sometimes demands. You each command enormous respect from all of us and we do appreciate the difficulty of balancing a variety of competing demands. But the correct course in this case and on this legislation is strikingly clear. We oppose legislation that leaves part of our community without protections and basic security that the rest of us are provided.
You told us you supported a fully inclusive ENDA and would bring it up for a vote this year. We expect that you will honor that commitment and we look forward to working together to pass a bill that we can all be proud to support.
Sincerely,
Coalition Members
Typical of people to come in and tell the whiney queers to wait their damn turn and that there are more pressing issues. I forgot that it was such an unreasonable demand to ask to be treated like human beings.
This thread makes me think of Martin Luther King Jr.'s quote:
"We do not want freedom fed to us in teaspoons over another 150 years."
It really irks me to hear people defend Obama when all the evidence shows that he's not going to be quick to act on LGBTQ rights. What bothers me most is the argument that Obama has inherited a full-plate of issues - a terrible economy, a failing war, etc, and that gay rights just aren't a priority. Here is what I always remember though - suffragists fought for and WON the the 19th amendment during WWI - the world's biggest military conflict up until that point. Women were picketing the White House, and their opponents tried their best to shame women into caring more about a war for democracy abroad than for democracy at home. I don't think our circumstances today are terribly different from the late 1910s.
Clearly the economy and the war are major issues that Obama has to address as president of the United States. But until we DEMAND that he address our civil rights as well, he is going to do what he's been doing: nothing. Until we put ourselves as a priority and act as though our rights are important, he is going to do neither. If we continue to let ourselves be put on the backburner, that's exactly how he'll treat us - and I think its about damned time we stop defending him while he treats us like second class citizens.
I was at the Capital Pride festival in DC yesterday (just blocks from the US Capitol) when Berry made the speech he alluded to in the Advocate article. Can't find a transcript online though. I found it very informative and I think it illuminated the current problem quite well.
Anyway, Berry basically addressed this very concern by using a tightrope walking line that I can confidently paraphrase as:
We shouldn't hold it against the president to enforce the laws he was sworn to protect even if he and we abhor them because he is actively working to change them.
(I am not endorsing Berry's statement, just trying to reproduce what he meant in this forum.) Berry then spelled out an ambitious Obama-endorsed plan to repeal DoMA and DADT.
Crowd response was understandably lukewarm. (The crowd was considerably more moved by the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington singing a tear-jerking "Marry Us" song and parading couples across the stage.) Taken together, the relative combined merits of the pragmatic approach by the administration and the pressing demands of the LGBT community for their rights now, not later, made quite an impression on me.
I think it is important to A) press the administration very hard on this issue so they DON'T abandon their promises when they meet resistance and B) understand that rights are won, not taken by force, and winning these rights requires executive, legislative and judicial support that comes through an appropriate mixture of demanding rights and changing minds. It seems to me that encouraging turn-waiting outright or simply condemning the pragmatic use of the political process are both flawed approaches.
The Advocate interview quotes Berry clarifying his/the administrations position on the second page, BTW. It's a much better statement than how I paraphrased it.
Still not wholly impressed.
I hope you guys get full rights as soon as possible, just send all your conservatives up here to Canada and make them observe that with gay marriage our society didn't crumble. We have our own civil rights issues, yes, but this is such a big one and its so disheartening that so many countries in this day and age won't recognize what a huge priority it is.
And uh, about Katy Perry...she did make a fortune about singing a song about kissing a girl and hoping her boyfriend doesn't mind, but she also made money off of the painfully homophobic Ur So Gay.
Going slow is better. Going fast in the American legislative system means weak laws with little consensus behind them (cf. USA PATRIOT Act) that will be overturned the second there's a contrary-thinking Congress on the Hill.
One of the major problems we all had with the Bush Administration was how they blundered ahead from idiocy to idiocy without ever stopping to pause, think, gather varying opinions, and try to build consensus and cooperation. Just because our side controls the Hill doesn't mean we should start ramming our own preferred policies through. They won't last.
Oh, the plight of progressives with hetero privilege, having to hear the queer community voice concerns over President Obama, who, for reasons beyond me, keeps kissing the ass of the Religious Wrong despite their extremism and rapidly waning popularity. Hell, these aren't even the people who voted for him in the first place! But don't let facts get in the way. Who cares if a politician is mediocre centrist homophobe, so long as he's a Democrat and marginally better than the competition?
I'd like to offer a nice tall glass of Shut The Hell Up to the bigoted jackasses within the progressive community who pay lip service to us homos when they want our time and money and enable our oppression the rest of the time. How fucking nice it must be to not have to wonder if your conservative brother will be at your Iowa wedding this summer, or if your partner's parents will kick the bucket before they learn to accept and love their daughter again. It must've been good times when you were dating in high school, and not closeted for fear of having your ass beaten (or worse) in school and at home. Is it relaxing, being able to enjoy your larger, married tax return? Normally I'd suggest setting that money aside for unforeseen circumstances in an economy like this, but Good News! The cisgendered heterosexual community is less likely to lose there job for bullshit reasons than us queers. And if you are unfortunate enough to lose work, hey, your spouse has insurance in case of a health crisis. Heck, you're even guaranteed the right to see them at the hospital in the event they need such medical attention. If worst comes to worst, and you're seriously up shit creek without a paddle, well hey, The Church can help you out. They specialize in the betterment of the well-being of the "straight" community.
Maybe it's the stress of planning a lesbo wedding from 4 hours away in the Twin Cities, the annoyance that my married name will be valid in Iowa and New York (where we're moving in December), but not Minnesota, thus leaving me unsure just how big a pain in the ass getting my current school to change my name for transfer purposes will be, that's got me so cranky. More likely it has to do with the bigotry and abuse my future in-laws are putting my soon to be wife through because of this marriage. Or maybe I'm waiting patiently for the rest of the RSVPs to come in, and hoping against hope my mentor during my teen years and friend of nearly a decade can be bothered to attend a wedding taking place less than 20 miles from where she lives. Not holding my breath on that one. But SURE, straight people, you're probably right. I'm just getting hung up on minute details like my financial, emotional and physically well-being.
I know. It doesn't compare.
I think that for some people, the excuses that are being made on this issue come from a place of disbelief rather than annoyance with hearing about the LGBT plight. There are many people that do not want to accept that President Obama is not close to being all he was cracked up to be. Then some of those people grasp at straws--anything--to let them hold onto that hope a little longer. Straws like "he hasn't even been in office that long" or "there are a lot of other things going on" to let them hang onto the thought that he really is on the right side, even when his actions question that assumption.