This video is a bit old, but I watched it recently and it really impressed me, so I wanted to share. This is from the Stonewall anniversary reception that Obama hosted at the White House in commemoration of the 40th anniversary. He invited LGBT staffers, as well as advocates and organizers to join him. I wish I could have been there.
What struck me most is how open he is about the state of things. Admitting that people are frustrated with his lack of movement, but reiterating his commitment to his campaign promises. It actually made me feel like Obama actually does have an LGBT rights agenda. He still has to prove it, but this was an impressive start.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Obama's LGBT reception.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14720
Monica Roberts wrote about the event at Bilerico from a different perspective, noting the total lack of representation of trans women of colour at the event.
There were some trans people of colour invited, but they didn't pass the "security check." This is the response coming from (white-dominanted) LGBT groups as they try to scramble back from the suggestion that LGBT "leadership" could be racists.
Can you say more about the "security check?" The article you linked seems to say that they just weren't invited at all.
Thanks for adding that perspective. I wasn't there so I couldn't speak for the diversity of the audience, but something like that wouldn't surprise me.
Unfortunately the "leadership" of trans women is like any other group, dominated by mostly white people who are often snowblind. The really telling part is in the comments to the piece, mostly consisting of 'tone' arguments (which seem very popular these days when trans women speak up about anything, moreso when it is a trans woman of color), and some pretty blatant racism. Much respect to Monica for speaking the truth, especially knowing that the response from her "allies" would be how it turned out.
"He still has to prove it, but this was an impressive start."
I'm not sure I can get behind this idea. I would definitely agree that he is more welcoming to the LGBT community, and I'll bet he was the first president to even say the word "transgender." And yes, that is a breath of fresh air in national politics.
But at the same time, Obama has yet to make any real steps towards issues like abolishing DADT and repealing DOMA. And the DOJ (his DOJ) filed that amicus curiae brief in support of DOMA. He's had almost 6 months, with time to bail out the banks and the auto industry. I'd hoped he'd be able to do more than this for LGBT rights.
Exactly. He's started his work, but he's not really off to a good start. Not that he can't overcome that rocky start - learning and manuevering takes time, especially after centuries of homo/trans phobes in the WH - but still.
Exactly. He's started his work, but he's not really off to a good start. Not that he can't overcome that rocky start - learning and manuevering takes time, especially after centuries of homo/trans phobes in the WH - but still.
The DOJ is obligated to defend federal laws under challenge, even if they were signed by Clinton and not the current president. As for the broader gay rights agenda, Obama's been president for 6 months and during that time all politics have focused on the nightmarish economic situation, with health care, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea all in states of permanent crisis. It's natural and proper for gay rights activists to think that gay rights should be the first issue on his agenda, but it's not realistic to expect that to be the case.
"with time to bail out the banks and the auto industry."
Those are still works in (precarious) progress, and btw gays are affected by the economy too.
Obama is more popular than the gay rights agenda, and his ability to advance that agenda depends on keeping people satisfied with his leadership and that of the Democratic congress. I am bothered and surprised that he hasn't ordered a suspension in DADT enforcement, but it would be utterly impossible for gay rights to be his primary focus now.
Agree with most of what you said except
"The DOJ is obligated to defend federal laws under challenge..."
I forget where I read it (maybe Dan Savage's SLOG or a commenter on that, or a different Feministing article or a commenter on that), but my understanding is that the DOJ is not required legally to provide briefs to defend any and all challenged laws. They CHOOSE to defend laws as it is productive to the administration's (see: Obama's) priorities and views.
The DOJ was not required to file a brief in defense of DOMA. Nor were they required to do so in such length at in such offensive ways. They "threw the kitchen sink" of anti-gay marriage arguments just for good measure. Again, NOT required at all. Why do you/did you think that they are somehow "obligated" to do this? What obligates them? Is it a formal legal obligation? Who enforces this? What happens if they don't? Can you answer any of these questions?
Oh, and with regards to the suspension of enforcement of DADT, I think that is for a couple of reasons. First of all, he doesn't want to be like Bush who only followed the law when it suited him (which I think is admirable). Second of all, even if he wanted to make an exception to this for DADT, doing so would cost him some political capital - maybe he doesn't want to anger the conservative right until after he's got his health care agenda through? It could end up being a strategically wise decision to hold off on DADT until later (even though we'd all like to see it repealed now - at least I would).
Fair enough, but don't your DADT answers also apply to your DOMA questions? As for DOMA, like everyone who's made a serious run for the presidency, Obama's come out against gay marriage. And my understanding is that the DoJ is obligated to defend the government's laws regardless of whether or not the current president supports them. I will try to find a definitive answer.
Well, Aleks, I think the difference is that Obama isn't defending DADT, he's just continuing to enforce it. It's not like he filed a brief in support of DADT. Also, I don't think it would cost Obama any political capital to not have submitted the brief. No one in the straight community seems to have noticed the brief - as far as I can tell, its only real effect was to anger the LGBTQ community. Now if Obama wanted to try to stop enforcing DOMA, then that would cost him some political capital of course. But simply not filing an offensive brief that belies ignorant and homophobic attitudes? That's different.
Also, I look forward to hearing about whether or not the DOJ is obligated. I'll look into that too. Race you!
Fair enough, but don't your DADT answers also apply to your DOMA questions? As for DOMA, like everyone who's made a serious run for the presidency, Obama's come out against gay marriage. And my understanding is that the DoJ is obligated to defend the government's laws regardless of whether or not the current president supports them. I will try to find a definitive answer.
from http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
"And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional..."
Alright, you were right about him choosing to defend DOMA. It remains true that Obama and every other serious candidate for president has announced his (or her) opposition to gay marriage. As for the offensive and ridiculous nature of that defense, you know as well as I do that there are no logical and objective reasons available to pose in defense of a ban on gay marriage. You try writing an intelligent and unprejudiced argument in defense of DOMA. In this case Obama is far from heroic, he's merely as good as public opinion will allow him to be.
OH WAIT!! Here's the thing I really wanted to show you.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/choice-to-defend-doma-and-its.html
See? Totally had a choice.
This is wrong. The DOJ did not have the option to not defend. Aravosis is misinformed or lying.
http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/chairman-frank-and-aravosiss-misstatements/
Chris Geidner, and a host of legal experts including law professors at 4 different schools agree. The only lawyer i've seen agree with Aravosis is Socarides, who was Clinton's liason to the gays when he passed DOMA and DADT--he has no credibility on these issues.
Wow, this is some great information! Thanks so much for providing it! This is why I post things here :D
Anyway, my response to it is this:
1.) Obama's DOJ could have refused to defend the brief ONLY IF they believed there was no rational argument for its constitutionality. Well, I guess there are rational (not to be confused with intelligent, mature, or reasonable) arguments to be made for its constitutionality.
So in a sense, yes, Obama had to file it. BUT ONLY if he wants to stay within the non-binding precedent set in the past. But is it really so much to ask that he goes against precedent? Why should the Executive be forced to parrot other's arguments rather than giving voice to other, better arguments? It's not as though the brief is legally binding in any sense. I guess I don't really understand the point/history of the briefs in the first place though.
2.) In any case, I certainly agree with the articles you sent me that argue that even IF Obama DID have to file the briefs, he didn't have to be so comprehensive and offensive in the way he did it. He could have made a (few) simple argument(s) for its constitutionality and left it at that.
Again, thanks for the great info! Found it very enlightening.
Basically if he went against precedent--yes it is bad, because it's behaving like Bush--expanding powers for the executive branch. And it would mean that any president could effectively repeal any law that he/she didn't like if it was challenged in court. That would be a real mess.
For example if a republican president didn't like a law insuring access to abortion, all he'd need would be someone to challenge its constitutionality, and then if he didn't defend it in court the law would be gone.
I think you identified the main problem here though: There's a lot of people getting upset about the DOMA brief but they don't understand the process and the purpose of a DOJ brief. Moreover they don't understand where this particular fits into the broader landscape of legal challenges to DOMA. And they don't understand how an ill-timed lawsuit could lead to a huge setback for our movement. Sure you could argue that the brief maybe went too far. There's no real injury though, because there was no chance for the smelt case to result in changes to policy anyway. The outrage-mongers in the blogosphere are being opportunistic and using this as an opportunity for their own fundraising instead of giving full context. I strongly recommend Lawdork in the future as a way to get a good reality check.
Here is an overview of the very narrow cases where a DOJ can decline to defend. http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2009/06/when-does-justice-department-decline-to-defend-statutes.html
I do appreciate that he's directly rejecting the harmful rhetoric of "be patient" and "wait your turn".
It's good that he's re-iterating his commitment. But this is not a time for the community to back off just because of that reiteration. We need to continue to apply pressure and demand that QTBGL voices are heard, rather than being drowned out by the many other worthy demands of Obama's efforts.
Right.
I've never seen the never ending acronym put in that order. That's unendingly awesome.
Also, is it me or he didn't reference that many chicks ?
I noticed that as well, I think the only woman he mentioned by name was Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown?... I suppose it's hard to say how much of that is the choices that the President, his advisors, and speechwriters made in crafting the event, inviting the attendees, and writing the speech, and how much of it is a reflection of the traditional marginalization of lesbian, bisexual, and transgender women in the mainstream gay rights movement and politics in general. I appreciated that at least in the hypothetical example he used of a person visiting their ill partner in the hospital, he made the effort to use female pronouns...
chick
??/t??k/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [chik] Show IPA
Use chick in a Sentence
–noun
1. a young chicken or other bird.
2. a child.
3. Slang: Often Offensive. a girl or young woman.
My ex used to yell at me for using the word chick to describe women. I'm not sure why exactly. I've never heard it used offensively. But I mean, I guess...it's true that women aren't baby chickens? I didn't realize that confusion with adolescent foul was a real big point of contention for some females. Just throwing that out there.