Jared Polis Defends Obama's LGBT Record

MINNEAPOLIS -- After heated criticism of President Barack Obama on gay issues at Netroots Nation, openly gay Congressman Jared Polis defended Obama on Saturday, calling him "the best president this country has ever had on LGBT issues."

"[Gay Americans] have never had anything close to this much of an advocate in the White House in the United States," the Colorado Democrat told HuffPost.

Obama's record on gay rights has been under fire at Netroots Nation, a progressive conference being held this year in Minnesota. Some progressives have said he is too weak on LGBT issues.

But Polis pointed out that the president made two major steps forward: Obama signed into law a repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that barred gays from the military and announced that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman.

"We were ultimately successful [at ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell], and the president's steadfast support of ending the policy the whole way through was very helpful in that regard," Polis said. "I think he also deserves strong accolades for his decision not to appeal the DOMA case. That's really a landmark decision, it's been very rare in the annals of history."

In particular, Obama was criticized at Netroots for his "evolving" position on gay marriage. In 1996, the president told Outlines newspaper he favored "legalizing same-sex marriage and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," but he has since said he supports civil unions, not gay marriage.

When White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was asked about the contradiction at a Friday session, he said the answers on the 1996 questionnaire were not from Obama.

"If you actually go back and look, that questionnaire was actually filled out by someone else -- not the president. There was a long debate about this in the campaign," Pfeiffer told Daily Kos' Kaili Joy Gray on stage at Netroots. "This was litigated in the campaign."

Polis, who did not attend the panel, said he heard it was "contentious." But he said the president has made major progress on gay issues and is likely to evolve further.

"He has alluded to the fact that, like many Americans, he's on a personal journey of transformation with regard to how he views gay marriage," Polis said. "I'm confident he'll end up in the right area eventually."

Comments

[jabbaciv]

01:14 PM on 06/20/2011

Sad part is... he's completely right. There never has been a president as good on LGBT issues as Obama. Yeah, he's worse than some hypothetical ideal mythical president that doesn't actually exist, but compared to Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc, he's worlds better.

[daltexdude]

07:42 PM on 06/20/2011

Look at the times -- of course he looks better -- it is freaking 2011!!!!!! The environment is far more "evolved" than it was back in the 80s and 90s -- that is disingenuous at best to praise Obama for being good on LGBT issues. How could he not be?

[MichaelRCooke]

08:27 PM on 06/19/2011

The problem is that Gay citizens of the USA are second class citizens. A simple interpretation of the 14th amendment would actually establish gay marriage instantly, federally - if it were not that judges try and divine 'original intent' (despite the fact that the language of law is always very carefully written because it will be used to henceforth impact ideas and concepts not yet existing).

So it's really quite black and white. Is this a President that supports equality or not? And the answer is, "NOT!"

a short while ago there was a lot of noise about bullying of Gay kids. And the truth is that any kid that is simply a little more intelligent, will be bullied. And Gay kids are not different from smart kids intrinsically, like smart kids, they are simply different. The difference is not the bullies, it's the context.

It's the Pope that says gay marriage is the number one evil in the world. It's the celebrities that argue that Gay people are inferior. It's Churches that suggest Gay people are evil, possessed, or can change.

And it is Presidents that say their moral conviction prevents them from supporting Gay marriage.

I'm a Gay man, and I do not consider being bashed a little bit as being a good thing because the other party wants to bash me with a baseball bat with nails sticking out of it.

[eden4barack08]

09:13 AM on 06/20/2011

As stupid as it may be to hang on to a "word" for the sake of religion, or for the sake of political pandering, the fact is that that is what Obama's position is. He's not opposed to equal rights, as a matter of fact he's the first President working to repeal DOMA and want to allow civil unions at the federal level with ALL the more than thousand rights afforded to "marriage", the only thing is, he insists on hanging on to the word "marriage" as something sanctioned by religions, whereas "unions" by gov't. Listen to him during the campaign in this interview with Warren and a bunch of Christians. He certainly wasn't afraid to tell them that the Constitution does not define marriage and that he doesn't see how allowing same sex couples to have the same rights he has would affect his rights in any way.
That does not sound like a man who doesn't support equality.

Let's be real, what he needs to give up is the stupid hang up on the word "marriage", but as far as policy, he's on the right side of history.
Better yet, maybe we should just get the gov't to call ALL couples committments "unions", and leave the word "marriage" to those who prefer church weddings.

[MichaelRCooke]

07:37 PM on 06/20/2011

Okay, it seems I have to defend my commitment to marriage as an option as opposed to 'Union". I concede your point that it would be well and good to have all legally sanction relationships exist as 'unions', but that simply is not a solution grounded in reality.

The fact is simple that marriage is not the same thing as 'union' because the body of existing law and private contracts that relate to marriage uses the specific language "marriage", and thereby enables 'unions' to remain second class in the eyes of insurers, other private entities and the Federal government.

The word 'marriage' is critically important for cultural reasons. The simple absence of gay married couples enables stereotyping as 'promiscuous'. Without gay marriage, where do the children we raise, where are they on a simple family tree? Gay kids are already different, we do not need government aiding and abetting religion in making it official how different and second class we are.

I understand that President Obama has done more for Gay people than any President in recent memory, and I understand any Republican that faces him will do far less.

But for me, any citizen being a second class citizen is intolerable. For the same reason slavery is intolerable. We are all created equal dammit! So gay marriage is like slavery to me - either you are for it or against it and shades of gray simply are nothing short of contemptible!

[daltexdude]

07:44 PM on 06/20/2011

Keep dreaming -- he is a politician plain and simple -- Obama is backpeddling about the 1996 support -- I want a president with a spine, not just pretty speeches. No more crumbs. He does not support us.

[eden4barack08]

09:13 AM on 06/20/2011

Btw, even some very advanced European countries call them "civil unions" and not "marriage", yet there's absolutely no difference in the rights. The state of Hawaii, a supposedly very liberal and diverse state, recently celebrated its victory in passing "civil unions", not "marriage", I didn't hear any of my lgbt brothers and sisters claim that any of these places didn't support equality.

Again, I myself don't agree with the hang up on the word, but really, that's all it is. What should matter is, is this a person who wants to take my rights away, or one who's fighting for me to have the same rights he has? Clearly Obama's in the latter category.

[Quinxy von Besiex]

08:18 PM on 06/19/2011

How can anyone take Congress seriously nowadays?

[dan90254]

06:37 PM on 06/19/2011

You are nuts. Dems have advanced so many agendas for equality for gays. It doesn't happen overnight fellas.

[MichaelRCooke]

08:30 PM on 06/19/2011

It's not acceptable, my second class citizenship. If it were acceptable - then know it's because freedom is so eroded we're all second class citizens and live in constant fear.

[eden4barack08]

04:06 PM on 06/19/2011

I wish folks would put their energies to good use and fight the REAL enemies out there, instead of wasting precious resources on those who are actually on our side and working for us.

Look at what the Republicans want to do: " We all thought it was a done deal when President Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal into law. But now House Republicans pulled a stunt that could delay or event stop the DADT repeal from taking effect by passing an outrageous series of amendments to the bill that funds our military. "

Please sign the DCCC's petition to fight this:

http://dccc.org/pages/dadtrepeal

[daltexdude]

07:45 PM on 06/20/2011

The real enemies are the Democrats who pretend to be for us (as long as we vote for them and give them campaign money) and then pat us on the head and tell us to be patient and wait -- I am a middle-aged gay man -- how much longer do I freaking have to wait?

[Hacim Obmed]

02:24 PM on 06/19/2011

I am writing because I am sort of puzzled by the progressive position on illegal immigration (namely amnesty and open the borders).

It is clear enough that the Latino's largely vote for progressive candidates once they become citizens so immigration is good for you politically. However at least traditionally, the progressive left was not totally interested in political games of this sort. Traditionally you guys were supposedly concerned about the "poor" and disadvantaged of society, (e.g. blacks and blue collar whites). But the ability of such downtrodden groups to scratch out a minimal living is being totally destroyed by competition from the limitless pool of cheap labor that is coming across the borders. I totally get that this cheap labor is great for the chamber-of-commerce crowd. Those slime balls pay minimum wage and they get to dodge paying their taxes and or health benefits and they can treat their workers like slaves. I also get that mass immigration is a pretty good deal for the upper classes with good skills who get cheap cleaning ladies and low cost veggies at the whole foods market. But other than the political angle I can't figure why it is good for your usual constituency. I would think that you progressives be somewhat conflicted about selling out the working poor in favor of the immigrants just for some temporary political benefit. Can somebody explain how this is rationalized?

[wayne the pain]

12:21 PM on 06/19/2011

Democrats court the gay vote and once elected back away very fast. A society with a sizable Catholic and evangelical Christian population will always be a hard sell for gay rights. A growing Muslim population dosen't help! Republicans won't touch the issue, the Dems love the money and the votes but in the final analysis won't "go all the way". This is the sad reality of gay politics in America.

[eden4barack08]

03:00 PM on 06/19/2011

That is BS! Democrats have not walked away once elected, not this time!
Here's a list the 111th Democratic Congress along with this administration has accomplished since 2009 for lgbt.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality

And we're going to repeal DOMA too if we get our majorities back in 2012. You can take that to the bank! That is NOT "backing away very fast", as you can see.

[daltexdude]

03:30 PM on 06/19/2011

Repeal DOMA like when we had both the house and senate a couple of years ago? You are selling -- we are SO not buying, man. I call BS on what you wrote, eden4baraack08 -- waynethepain is indeed accurate in his assessment of things as they are, not as you imagine them to be.

[ArtistinNY]

12:21 PM on 06/19/2011

The truth of the matter is this: Sometimes you have to cast your vote against someone, rather than for someone. Obama has my vote and my cautious optimism that he will continue to make real positive changes for the LGBT community. This is a two party system, like it or not, and Kucinich, Grayson, Fiengold, without the Democratic Party nomination, would never stand a chance at election. If you can't vote for Obama, cast your vote against the GOP nominee, for your own good. It's clear what the agenda of the Repubs is and it is not good. Just look at the crap they are raining down on the poor and women's health in the states right now. This is a direct result of disgruntled Dems and Independents sitting out the mid-terms. Just imagine what they would do with the White House.

[jws2346]

12:19 PM on 06/19/2011

Holy crap, DO NOT SIT THIS NEXT ELECTION OUT. Don't you see what happened last time?

[piperflyer]

10:55 AM on 07/09/2011

It's hard for gays to sit.

[jerry23]

12:17 PM on 06/19/2011

“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Voltaire

This quote, I believe, sums up much of the perspective in this ever ending storm for Equality. Unfortunately, the road isn't paved, some bush whacking is required and avoiding "Mind-fields" is a challenge. It appears to me that voting for the lesser of evils will be my objective, it always has been. This administration has shown direction but appears to be reluctant to show leadership. The momentum has been building for some time and the pendulum has been swinging but the energy is from the bottom up and not from the top down. One could sum it up by saying "remember what you are saying because people are listening". I am keeping my ear to the ground.

[daltexdude]

12:28 PM on 06/19/2011

While I don't entirely agree with your premise here, I appreciate the civility in which you made your point. Thanks.

[Titan1nyc]

11:46 AM on 06/19/2011

Gay Righties are a JOKE, what has ANY Republican prez EVER done for you???
they will vote for a repug, then turn around and try to get him IMPEACHED for moving the gay agenda backwards. BITTER

[eden4barack08]

04:11 PM on 06/19/2011

It's like chickens voting for Col Sanders.

[dem48]

11:41 AM on 06/19/2011

I am sure President Bachmann or Romney or Cain or Huntsman or Pawlenty or Santorum will all really care about gay rights. Yeah sit this election out that's the answer.

[jabbaciv]

01:16 PM on 06/20/2011

That certainly seems to be the argument.

[statementOfIncensed]

11:29 AM on 06/19/2011

Let's make this another single issue election! Because nothing disasterous happened to the American outlook between 2004 and 2009.

[broui]

08:25 PM on 06/19/2011

Good point. Allowing a single issue election in key states allowed the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Latoya Benjamin]

11:09 AM on 06/19/2011

If everyone who wants change decides to sit elections out because of a lack of purity in their candidate, of course the elected officials will never be beholden to you because you never vote. If you have a voice and never use it where it matters then don't be surprised no one can hear you.

If Martin Luther King Jr. required 100% purity in all the candidates during the Civil Right movement and told his supporters to sit out elections until they had a purist candidate, there would be no Civil Rights Act.

[daltexdude]

11:50 AM on 06/19/2011

Sitting out a vote is in fact having and using your voice -- not having your vote taken for granted by ungrateful Democrats IS exercising our rights. We don't have a 100% purity test for candidates -- that is a myth perpetuated by many Dems. What we do expect is that politicians take a real stand and have morals and ethics and not test the polling waters before articulating a stand or pushing for equal, not special, rights. For those of you who support Obama lock stock and barrel, I wish that your civil rights were up for someone whose opinion was "evolving". It is so easy to ask for patience when it does not affect you personally.

[broui]

07:33 PM on 06/19/2011

What exactly did you expect?

Did you expect during the two weeks or so when the Dems had 60 able to attend (when Kennedy and Byrd were well enough) that they'd get Marriage Equality in just for you, throwing aside DADT, DREAM Act, the economic crisis, two wars, etc.?

Because except for that window, the Senate has been filibustered. And thanks to phony progressives who didn't get what they wanted fast enough, we have a Republican majority - meaning no jobs, no DREAM, and certainly nothing for the LGBT community.

[ClearSkies789]

08:18 PM on 06/19/2011

Daltexdude, do you know what civil rights issues any of these posters might be facing ASIDE from and/or in addition to LGBTQ rights? Or, are you just assuming that your rights are paramount to all? Women are still paid 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, even though more of them (at least in certain communities) hold college degrees, Hispanics are being targeted with racist immigration bills (thanks Arizona), public education for middle and lower income students is atrocious, and for some reason, White cops can be taped beating and/or killing Black citizens and get away with it (former BART cop Johannes Mehserle, killer of Oscar Grant III). Trust me, other people's civil rights are also up for grabs.

In terms of President Obama "evolving" on his views on gay marriage...so what? That's a GOOD thing. Everyone isn't going to automatically think like you. The president is telling you that he is giving it some serious thought. He's progressing. Let him. Give him reason and incentive to. Besides, in my opinion, I think he's just saying that so as to appeal to a wider audience. I get the vibe he's always been cool with gay marriage, but he has to make it to a second term before he's able to sign anything like it into law. But, that is just my little theory.

[ywcachieve]

10:56 AM on 06/19/2011

It's the Repub gays who are fabricating his intentions.