iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Prop 8 Ruling Exposes Democrats' Weak Support For LGBT Community


First Posted: 08/05/10 01:49 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:15 PM ET

Yesterday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker handed down a long-awaited ruling in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, overturning California's "Prop 8" ban on gay marriage. It was a landmark victory for America's LGBT community, which is largely a traditional constituency of the Democratic party.

So, how did President Barack Obama, the de facto leader of the Democrats, choose to commemorate this victory? Let's go to the statement furnished by the White House to Kerry Eleveld of the Advocate:

"The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans."

Well, that's just sort of OK, as statements go. But as long as no anonymous sources at the White House gives, say, Politico some other comment that completely undermines this lukewarm support --

Nevertheless, Obama has also publicly opposed same-sex marriage, and a White House aide said the president's position has not changed.


"He supports civil unions, doesn't personally support gay marriage though he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has opposed divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop. 8 in other states," said the official, who asked not to be named.

Well, that's just splendid. A key voting bloc for Democrats celebrates an important civil rights victory, and the White House heralds the occasion by coupling its enthusiasm for the victory with a reminder that it opposes the actual civil right that's at stake.

"SHORTER" BARACK OBAMA: "Hey, LGBT Community! I'm happy for you, and I'mma let you finish, but marriage between a man and woman is the greatest matrimony of all time!"

Still, it's probably unfair of me to single out the White House and the president for this shameful display of muddle-mouthed lip service. After all, they're just behaving like typical Democrats. Sure, there are individual exceptions, but as a general rule, Democrats treat the LGBT community as a captive constituency. They may not be able or willing to come out in favor of gay marriage, but at least they aren't Republicans, right? Democratic party leaders may oppose gay marriage -- or at least demonstrate a studied unwillingness to take a stand on the issue. But at least they aren't Tom Emmer -- openly hostile to equal rights of any kind and friendly with groups who take a Uganda-esque view of homosexuality -- right? That counts for something, doesn't it?

Well, it does, but not much. Right now, LGBT citizens are trapped in a choice between a party that opposes their very existence and a party that, you know, kind of wishes them well. And so the typical policy among Democrats is to do as little as possible for as long as they can, figuring that if the Republican party never changes its position, they can string along the LGBT community for a long while before they have to lay their marker down and risk the vote of any single voter who opposes gay rights.

Here's the problem with that. Opponents of gay marriage face one insurmountable obstacle: at some point, they are going to die:

[Anyone interested in capturing the "youth vote?" Anyone?]


There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to... well, maybe not "glory" -- but it certainly leads to a moment where your own grandchildren aren't looking at you with shame and dismay as they wonder why you lacked the courage to do the right thing when you had the chance. But there's no evidence that the Democrats want to catch this tide at the flood. What Democrats want to do is wait until it is absolutely, positively, politically safe for them to support gay marriage.

Brave stuff! Of course, it'll do the trick as long as the GOP is locked in a dance of dependence with a "base" that naturally opposes gay marriage. And as long as there isn't a Republican strategist smart enough to look at the graph above and note the obvious way the trend is running, maybe that strategy will pay off!

Or maybe not:

Steve Schmidt, who was the senior strategist to Senator John McCain of Arizona during his presidential campaign, said in a speech and an interview that Republicans were in danger of losing these younger voters unless the party comes to appreciate how issues like gay marriage resonate, or do not resonate, with them.


"Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don't believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become, over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters," he said in a speech.

Oh, that's right! Steve Schmidt, one of the top campaign guys in the game, supports gay marriage. And there's distant signs of thaw between the GOP and the gay community everywhere. There's Laura Bush's open support. There's Megan McCain's tireless advocacy. There's Grover Norquist, a conservative movement big-timer, joining up with GOProud -- the "national organization of gay conservatives" that served as a CPAC sponsor. You might recall, also, that when a conservative activist took to the CPAC stage to decry the alliance between CPAC and GOProud, he was booed off the stage by attendees.

It still seems unlikely that marriage equality will become the law of the land through the advocacy and support of the Republican party. But it's getting less and less implausible. And still the Democrats wait and wait and wait and wait, angling to be the champion of LGBT rights at the last possible second.

But it's possible to wait too long. To speak in glib generalities, the Democratic party is generically seen as the party of civil rights. It's not a mantle it goes out and earns on a daily basis, but nevertheless, groups with authentic civil rights concerns -- African-Americans, Hispanics, women, etc. -- turn out in blocs to vote for Democratic politicians and the occasional bones they toss their way. What happens if tomorrow, the GOP shifts to become unambiguous supporters of gay marriage? Well, let's not kid ourselves -- they lose a lot of votes from their base in the short term. Over the long term, however, it could get interesting if members of those traditional Democratic voting blocs start to see the GOP in a new light.

And if that day comes, believe me, there are going to be plenty of people who are invested enough in the Democratic party to come forward and spin its toxic inaction in the best possible light.

By contrast, I support gay marriage. So don't expect me to be merciful.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Yesterday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker handed down a long-awaited ruling in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, overturning California's "Prop 8" ban on gay marriage. It was a landmark ...
Yesterday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker handed down a long-awaited ruling in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, overturning California's "Prop 8" ban on gay marriage. It was a landmark ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,742
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (44 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:28 PM on 08/12/2010
Nice fantasy commentary, unfortunately, as it stands in August 2010, the GOP might as well come out for a war of atrocities against gay people. And all the reasons for delays in DADT are tactically necessary BECAUSE OF GOP opposition.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Douglas Campbell
12:24 AM on 08/26/2010
actually, the democrats under clinton came up with both dadt and doma...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Gay Pagan Man, Living Happily With Husband
07:36 PM on 09/19/2010
They may have come up with it, but it is the GOP who is stalling the repeal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
unimatrix0
11:36 PM on 08/08/2010
I don't think the HRC is that strong of an advocate for LGBTQ issues either. I called them many years ago for legal support for marriage and was told no, they are not working on that issue now, as the courts are not right, and losing could do more harm. WTF? Don't stand up for your rights, you might be told no? They did not support or get the ball rolling in MA, but they sure were there to take credit for the wonderful progress HRC has made for our community, and then, and only then, when they saw the over whelming demand in the community, and potential fund raising, did they take on same sex marriage. But the HRC is a lobbist group (business), and like politicians, they care about money, and what looks good, rather than what is right. So they tend to put forth LGBT bills, and then toss the T's to the wolves when politicians complain that won't fly in their home states.
I understand why politicians do what they do, as well as even the HRC, but we need to stand up for ourselves, and push issues without counting on these illusions of support. There is NEVER a bad time to support human/equal rights. If you think there is, then you are not doing the "public service" job you were elected to (or hired for).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Gay Pagan Man, Living Happily With Husband
07:37 PM on 09/19/2010
IMO, the HRC is virtually useless as a gay rights organisation. They're too interested in going to dinners and fundraisers. Yeah being afraid to ask for our rights lest we be told "no" is priceless.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kenhamlett
03:23 PM on 08/08/2010
I am so happy to see this story. I have been making this same argument for 24 months. I am a liberal gay Democrat who would not vote for Barack Obama because of his stance against equality for gays. [No, I did not vote for John McCain. I wrote-in a name.] During the primary, the Democratic candidates spoke at a gay-sponsored candidate forum. The candidate who was worst of all the nine represented was Barack Obama. I watched as many of my gay friends placed their hopes in his vague promises to get their votes, warning them all along that he opposes many basic freedoms for them. Since his election, sadly, my fears have been confirmed. He has done nothing on behalf of gays. The Don't Ask/Don't Tell stalling (to await a study) is a tactic to justify inaction. He has not changed his stance on gay marriage, and he wobbles mightily on a number of other significant gay issues. The party may take us for granted, but I will never vote again for a candidate who is against my equal rights!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Gay Pagan Man, Living Happily With Husband
07:41 PM on 09/19/2010
I didn't vote last election, but I did not have a good feeling about Obama, either. The best I could say is that he might be marginally better than McCain. On GLBT issues he is a total washout. From the Danny McClurkin fiasco on, he has shown that his overriding view of GLBT Americans is contempt. Anything we do have was passed by Congress with NO moral leadership from him. When we get our full civil rights and are allowed to legally marry nationwide, it will again be in spite of him rather than because of him.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:13 PM on 08/07/2010
Obama has done a poor job of keeping the promises he made to gay voters in 2008 . See his letter to the Alice B. Toklas (gay) Democrats in 2008.

http://obama.3cdn.net/b7c073b7316f922514_q6m6y7so7.pdf

He certainly has made no effort to be the "“fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans” he promised he would be on December 18, 2008 in Chicago.

Behind the scenes, Obama has lobbied the Senate to delay the repeal of Don't Ask and to strip the non-discrimination clause found in the House version of it.

Obama has been silent about the 9th district ruling Court ruling on California Proposition 8. Yet Obama wrote he opposed Proposition 8 in his June 28, 2008 letter linked above.

Additionally, instead of supporting the repeal of DOMA as he promised in the letter linked above, the Obama Administration has issued legal briefs supporting DOMA, including one that compared a gay California Couple's marriage to incest and child abuse.

Obama's inaction and duplicity give me no reason to support his reelection and every reason to oppose it. The argument that Obama is better than Bush or Palin sets the bar by which to measure his performance too low.

I will continue to support candidates like Dennis Kucinich who have proven their support for fight for equality, but I can't be bothered voting for or otherwise supporting those like Obama who make promises then refuse to act in my interest.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
middleoftheroad
03:07 PM on 08/07/2010
Also, you have Arnold actively calling for gay marriage!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:17 PM on 08/07/2010
And that is after a former Republican Solicitor General, Ken Olson argued for marriage equality before a a Republican 9th Circuit Federal Court Justice, Vaughn Walker, who ruled for marriage equality.

Will the wonders never cease?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Baileygk
homosexual socialist, and proud of it!
07:14 PM on 08/06/2010
"Dear Sir, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it. "

President Lincoln believe the Federal government did not have the power to end slavery due to the 10th amendment. When the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1-1-1863, slaves in states fighting on behalf of the Unioin retained their slave holding rights.

The purpose of this is that President Lincoln did not believe in the equality of races, but as he took an oath, he upheld.

I don't care what President Obama's personal views are, as long as he leaves the Courts to decide the Constitutionality of unjust law.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Moonspirit48
Happy to be alive ...
12:14 AM on 09/19/2010
And I need to point out that President Lincoln is Obama's hero and mentor, not FDR, unfortunately.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:44 PM on 08/06/2010
"Democrats treat the LGBT community as a captive constituency."

Yes indeed. Democrats sit around and talk about rights, try to figure out how to avoid seeming disingenuous, while privately discussing how to avoid seeming "pro-gay."

My advice to my LGBT sisters and brothers - leave the Democratic Party and declare yourselves Independent. I did. It feels good to let go of an allegiance that involved only lukewarm, and equivocal, support for my civil rights.

Take a good look - that's how the Democrats do things.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:32 PM on 08/06/2010
Ladies and Gentlemen of the HuffPost, recognize the TROLLS polluting these threads.

How to deal with Internet Trolls?
http://ecommerce-journal.com/articles/15195_online_safety_how_to_deal_with_internet_trolls

On the psychology of Trolls
http://thecountryshrink.com/2008/07/02/on-the-psychology-of-trolls/

What is a Troll?
http://www.flayme.com/troll/

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tyberius
02:17 PM on 08/06/2010
Social Conservatism, on the wrong side of every major issue for hundreds of years, and still counting....
02:16 PM on 08/06/2010
I'm much more interested in the passage of ENDA than the gay marriage issue. The President has expressed strong support that legislation; and I think that along with the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act are much better barometers of the Democrats' support of the LGBTQ community.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:26 PM on 08/07/2010
I see it almost 100% opposite. I could care less about "hate crimes" legislation.

And ENDA is of little interest to me until it includes the intersexed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:46 PM on 08/07/2010
Most tax-paying gay Americans are fighting for equal protection under the law, The most important thing we must do is to eliminate federal and state laws like DOMA and Don't Ask that require our government to discriminate against us and deny protections that other people take for granted.

We have already eliminated anti-sodomy laws that made gay Americasn criminals.

The overly compomised version of the Employment non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that Democrtas and the not-so effective HRC have been filed but not considered almost every year since 1994, offers protection so limited we might as well not pass it. ENDA does not provide protection for anyone who is not working for a large corporation, It exempts businesses owned by religious groups. It excludes claims of disparate Impact meaning if a policy can be devised to discriminate against gay people, for example requiring an employee be legally married in a sate that does not recognize marriages of gay couples, then it is all right to discriminate. What's more, under ENDA, the absence of any gay employees can be used as evidence of anti-gay discrimination.

Democrats have proposed this watered down civil rights bill every year since 1994. Is that your notion of strong support from the Democrats?

Enough is enough!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
KriTiKiT
Says"play nice"
01:21 PM on 08/06/2010
marriage is a state right granted.

but the 14th amendment says:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities (like the privileges and immunities provided by marriage)
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Civil Rights 14th amendment in all section one's glory

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

take that teabaggers and social conservatives and so called stanch constitutionalists
03:42 PM on 08/06/2010
Right... the Prop that passed reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That does not deny any human being.

Second - the key-word in the argument is "abridge", defined:

a·bridge
   /əˈbrɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[uh-brij] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

The AZ law does not.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
KriTiKiT
Says"play nice"
04:15 PM on 08/06/2010
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities"

defining marriage as only man and woman, it does abridge, same sex partners entering in to contract by the enforced and recognized by state laws. It is sexist by excluding two other combination's m4m w4w.
if 2 men choose to enter in to this contract (with each other Both being american citizens) and the privileges and Immunities that are recognized for one combination, is not recognized but the other two... the law Abriges, (to deprive; cut off) the privileges or immunities provided by marriage for both people entering in to the partnership.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
KriTiKiT
Says"play nice"
04:19 PM on 08/06/2010
men and women are equal...
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
01:10 PM on 08/06/2010
As far as gay rights goes Obama is either trying MUCH harder to earn the bigot vote than he is to keep the gay voters or he's a bigot and just doing what comes naturally. This is one of the few areas where he's almost (ALMOST) unquestionably worse than Hillary.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Louisknyc
01:29 PM on 08/06/2010
Agreed. I initially supported Hillary. And then finally voted for Obama. It's unlikely I'll make that mistake twice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClintBMD
Now where did I leave that Micro-bio again?
11:16 AM on 08/06/2010
President Obama's MO since entering the White House has been consistent on liberal/progressive issues: He and Gibbs make a public statement of support (carefully worded), and unnamed officials undermine that position. It is clear that it is an intended strategy, since no one has ever been called on the carpet for undermining the President, and Gibbs, in his most mealy-mouthed way, uses words like "The President wouldn't have used those words" to answer the criticism.

I can only guess that Obama thinks he can maintain a centrist appearance, and possibly garner Republican support this way. It has never worked. He has received not one vote for this policy. But what he has done is use his own supporters as his personal whipping boy, thinking they have nowhere else to go.

He is only partially right. I will continue to vote for liberal candidates. But in 2012, I will sit on my hands for the presidential election. He personally does not deserve my vote. Unless he changes his tactics.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ProfessorDuh
12:14 PM on 08/06/2010
And it's Obama versus the Quitter Queen of the Brain-Frozen Tundra?
01:08 PM on 08/06/2010
When the Presidential election won't advance your cause, you focus your volunteering and donations where they make a difference - further down the ticket and in referendums.
01:04 PM on 08/06/2010
Progressives need to target their efforts and support real progressives, like Elaine Marshall. She's supporting the public option, drug reimportation, stricter financial regulation, no more Wall Street bailouts, protection of social security, and supporting public education instead of charters and vouchers.

And she supports equal marriage rights.
10:22 AM on 08/06/2010
As long as politics and government is run along marketting stategy we are doomed. The same people that try and sell us sh@t that we don't need are controlling the policy of the US. If you have the money can hire consultants, poll takers, and lobbyist your voice will be heard over what the constitution outlined as the rule of the land.

If we could push for the ratification of ERA the battle might be simplified but I still see corporations still putting their money behind the demonification of certain segments of the population it works in their benefit.

If Carter, Clinton and Obama's states had ratified the ERA it would be law and we wouldn't have wealthy churches and corporations setting national policy. Why didn't democrats ask these candidates from states that have yet to ratify the ERA where they stand on it? Couldn't the democrats find candidates from states that had? Who exactly benefitted from letting ERA fall into obsurity?

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/
10:11 AM on 08/06/2010
The reason Democrats don't fully support gay marriage is because most of them come from states that they know have voted against it, or would if they had the opportunity. They're more than willing to let liberal judges make this legal for them...that way they can keep their hands clean.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
txgrandpa6
Progressive Democrat living in Texas!
10:17 AM on 08/06/2010
But didn't we vote for Hope and CHANGE in 2008! We didn't vote for safe politicians. The very fact that we are getting more safe stances is why we are losing the base of the Democratic Party. The base will either sit this one out or vote 3rd Party.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coloradem
Christian, Gay, Democrat
10:20 AM on 08/06/2010
Sometimes being a leader means doing what is right, not just doing what is popular.