iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama To Confront Two Gay Rights Factions At Thursday's Gala

Gayprotest

First Posted: 06/23/11 02:44 PM ET Updated: 08/23/11 06:12 AM ET

NEW YORK -- There are two prisms through which to view President Obama's LGBT fundraiser on Thursday night. The first is presidential politics and, mainly, Obama's continued evolution on gay rights. New York is poised to pass a law legalizing same-sex marriage, making the president's reluctance to come out in favor of it (despite clear signs of support in the past) the source of obvious tension. The second, more telling prism, is the political potency of the gay rights movement itself.

In less than a decade, the LGBT community's sway over the political narrative in the country has grown as fast -- if not faster -- than its membership. Once shunned by politicians, gay rights leaders and donors are now courted by Democratic candidates (and even some Republicans). Advocacy groups have sprouted both locally and nationally. Coverage of LGBT-related issues has gotten front-page treatment in newspapers and top billing on blogs.

The combined effect has been incredibly beneficial to LGBT causes, casting them up the list of pressing political topics. But it also has produced a tension in its own right among gay rights groups. There is, on the one hand, the veritable old guard, who recalls the days when they were part of the national political sideshow. And then there is a new generation of activists -- not all of them young, per se -- far less willing to see their priorities addressed in incremental fashion.

"Years ago, I would absolutely defend politicians who didn't come out for marriage because I felt it was just falling on your sword," said John Aravosis, the gay rights activist, prominent blogger, and vocal critic of incrementalism. "Now … things have gone into hyperdrive in terms of advancement of the movement."

When Obama takes the stage on Thursday night he will be addressing both groups. But as long as he doesn't make an implicit endorsement of same-sex marriage, he will be welcomed far more warmly by the former than the latter.

"This is the third president in which I've been very focused on LGBT advancement in terms of Washington," said Elizabeth Birch, the former Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign who will be in attendance on Thursday. "The fact remains this is the very first president who has every broken through that thick congressional wall for our rights."

As Birch sees it, national politics is "like playing chess, underwater in a toxic swamp." To repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, codify employer protection benefits and hospital visitation rights, and begin down the path of doing away with DOMA is a slate of accomplishments worth praising. Marriage is the prize and purview of the next generation.

"I am so old that one of the biggest advantages of being a lesbian, when I figured it out, is that I didn't have to get married," Birch said. "Now it is sort of the hot thing. That is the absolute job of youth. It is to act as if all things should already exist and that it is possible and obtainable if the will is there."

Generational divides have long been a defining feature of the LGBT community, driving activists and advocacy groups to conduct their politics in demonstrably different ways -- be they chaining oneself to the White House fence or pushing for inclusion in the White House strategy meeting. Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters, recalled how, not too long ago, gay rights activists were practically "giddy" at the prospect of being invited to a presidential event, let alone hosting a high-profile gala. It was President Bill Clinton who first reached out to the gay political community, getting longtime activist David Mixner to drum up support for his campaign (Mixner would later abandon Clinton over DADT and DOMA).

"It was breathtaking," recalled Socarides, who served in various positions in the Clinton White House, "because it was the first time anybody had ever sought our support. Up until that moment candidates didn't even want to be associated with us. Jimmy Carter famously went to San Francisco and didn't even want to be photographed with Harvey Milk."

Today, feeling comfortable taking a photo doesn't cut it. And Obama won't be absolved merely by attending a gala or hosting a Gay Pride event at the White House (as he is set to do next week). The administration, Socarides notes, has helped produce laudable achievements on LGBT issues. But "if there is a calculation on marriage, it is always that if people don't have any alternative, they can hang out in the middle without consequence," he said. "I would say to them there is a big downside to looking inauthentic, and right now they look inauthentic."

Indeed, despite improved relationships with some of the very same gay rights activists who once protested the president's fundraising events, Thursday's gala still risks being overshadowed by the singular issue of same-sex marriage.

The president is not expected to address the political developments in New York, and if he does it, will likely be through the rather stale construct of respecting the sovereignty of states. It won't necessarily be demoralizing for attendees. But it will prolong the often-intense debates among LGBT activists over how, exactly, they should exert their widening political clout.

"There are two different camps," said Mixner. "One is 'don't pressure him on marriage, we will get it eventually, it is okay, he has done more than any other president, let's not be hard.' Then there is a group that I include myself in, which will support the president's re-election but who will not let up on marriage. We feel this is not a political issue, it is a moral issue where he needs to exert moral leadership."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
NEW YORK -- There are two prisms through which to view President Obama's LGBT fundraiser on Thursday night. The first is presidential politics and, mainly, Obama's continued evolution on gay rights. N...
NEW YORK -- There are two prisms through which to view President Obama's LGBT fundraiser on Thursday night. The first is presidential politics and, mainly, Obama's continued evolution on gay rights. N...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 769
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
12:59 PM on 06/24/2011
They made the mistake of calling it 'Gay Marriage' instead of 'civil unions'. If they had used civil unions, they would n't have aroused the religious right so much and they might have gotten what they wanted. Now I think the President, knowing how homosexuality is frowned upon in the black community (Baptists), is trying to walk a fine line of not endorsing 'marriage' yet saying gays deserve equal rights and talking of civil unions. He should take a firm stand and let the chips fall where they may (in the black community). It's an election year and he is making the mistake of trying not to 'offend' anyone. Take a chance, Mr. President. Be a statesman!
photo
freedom1947
San Juan River Fishin'
01:39 PM on 06/24/2011
HOMOSEXUALITY DOSEN'T SEEM TO BOTHER BLACK PASTORS. In the privacy of their offices. No different than white caucasian preachers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephany Hebert
Keep Calm and Carry On
12:25 PM on 06/24/2011
The term 'marriage' is defined as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." and it always has been. I'm all for equal rights and all that, and as a matter of fact my best friend dated someone of the same sex for about 3 years, but they technically can't be married. It's a bit ridiculous for people to expect this to change after hundreds of years. Just call it something else and define it as "the social institution under which a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, establish their decision to live as husband and husband, or wife and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." and bam! Something they can have that straight people can't. Problem fixed.
photo
duckpuddle
Coexist, it's easier.
02:02 PM on 06/24/2011
Hmmm. Here in Massachusetts, my marriage license was issued for two men.

Same sex marriage is here. Get used to it.

We don't want something straight people don't have. We want to stop being denied access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Changing words won't cut it.

Oh, and congratulations on having a gay friend. You should seek out some more and see if they agree with you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephany Hebert
Keep Calm and Carry On
02:56 PM on 06/24/2011
Okay let me spell it out for you - you can't have marriage between two people of the same sex (I don't care if you have a marriage certificate or not) because it's not definitionally correct. Marriage can only be defined one way - between a man and a woman - that's not my fault. Deal with it. You can pledge your vows to them in civil unions and whatnot, I don't care about you being together, you just can't get married. And frankly, I have quite a lot of gay friends whom I frequently have discussions with about this. This is my opinion. Get used to it.
photo
ez duz it
οὐκ ἔστιν θεός
04:47 PM on 06/24/2011
Hi, duckpuddle--

I couldn't agree with you more! Awesome avatar, BTW! What a cute puppy :-)

--ez
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheHat921
10:39 AM on 06/24/2011
The definition of marriage is a STATE RIGHT to determine since it is a contract matter.

HOWEVER there is something called the U.S. Constitution, and it requires that we all are treated with equality and given the same rights and privileges with regard to life, liberty, and property.

So, although this is a state right to find the right way for their state to provide thsi equality (civil union or marriage), there IS a reason for the president on the federal level to be involved to protect and defend those constituional rights.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
T2inDC
08:36 AM on 06/24/2011
I cannot understand why folks keep putting the repeal of DADT in the win column for Obama? In case you weren't paying attention. DADT is not repealed. Got it?!!! It is still firmly in place and enforced by the DoD. Gates yesterday just announced he won't certify repeal before he leaves at the end of the month. I worry folks have taken their eye off the ball here and our opponents work tirelessly to keep DADT on the books. Wake up people! We are the change we seek!! Not Obama, not these self identified lgbt 'leaders'.
02:26 AM on 06/24/2011
Looking at a lot of the posts on here one would think that President Obama was the biggest enemy of gay community since Pat Robertson. In a little over 2 years in office President Obama has championed and signed the Matthew Shepard hate crimes act (in his first year in office), ordered hospitals receiving federal funds to end discriminatory policies affecting visitation and medical decision making rights of lgbt patients, issued an executive order extending benefits to same sex domestic partners, reversed the previous administrations policy of refusing passport and benefits rights to the domestic partners of foreign service employees, urged and endorsed UN declaration on gay rights (previously opposed by the Bush administration), made the first ever appointment of an openly transgendered person, directed the dept. of housing to institute policies aimed at ending housing discrimination against lgbt couples, and appointed over 150 lgbt individuals to posts in his administration (more than any other President, even Clinton). This is but a short list of what President Obama has done in the area of lgbt rights, all while dealing with the financial crisis and two wars left by the previous administration. Considering all of this, it is a mystery how anyone with half a brain could consider him an enemy of the lgbt community over one issue.
03:59 AM on 06/24/2011
Finally someone with some common sense, thank you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
T2inDC
08:41 AM on 06/24/2011
Well I will use the other half of my brain to contend he hasn't gotten in the way of legislative progress and held the pen to sign the Hate Crimes legislation- but he is NOT the fierce advocate of lgbt issues he proclaims himself to be.

The difference between Obama and any other past President on LGBT issues is- if legislation makes it to his desk he will sign it, but he places no effort into getting that legislation to his desk.
12:17 AM on 06/24/2011
The president is a political figure and is not endorsing equality in marriage because he wants to be re elected..period.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
threewarveteran
If you don't like what I say then I made MY POINT
08:07 AM on 06/24/2011
State issues Bobbybear, state issues. Take a course at your local community college on the constitution of the United States, it will save you a lot of frustration. Try to just ignore the tea party version.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JBaker
fictio cedit veritati
10:16 AM on 06/24/2011
Not all issues are at the state level, most particularly the Dept. of Treasury with regard to joint tax filings, and still the DOMA nonsense which is unconstitutional at face value as the current Attorney General has pointed out.
PatrioticUSGlory
Lawyer, Market Analyst, Economist
10:55 AM on 06/24/2011
The tea party seems to understand the issue correctly.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:34 PM on 06/23/2011
I'm in the camp that considers Obama a coward for not taking a stand on civil rights. There is no excuse for his enabling bigotry.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Winthorpe
Need a fourth for squash
12:31 AM on 06/24/2011
I didn't know that. Do you have a link?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:31 PM on 06/24/2011
You somehow missed all of Obama's BS comments about how he was "evolving" on the subject but "wasn't there yet"?

Find your own link.
PatrioticUSGlory
Lawyer, Market Analyst, Economist
10:57 AM on 06/24/2011
Failing to embrace homosexuality is hardly bigotry. Some people just seem to believe it is an affront to God and nature and, whether you agree or disagree, it is a legitimate position.
photo
duckpuddle
Coexist, it's easier.
02:08 PM on 06/24/2011
...in church. It the laws that gay people want changed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ramon Moreno
Read below.
07:03 PM on 06/24/2011
No. Crazy and non-crazy are not just different positions. One should be considered, one discarded.
09:44 PM on 06/23/2011
Something is not right tonight...........where are the haters and the bible thumpers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
T2inDC
08:43 AM on 06/24/2011
They were busy making sure Gates didn't certify DADT.
PatrioticUSGlory
Lawyer, Market Analyst, Economist
10:58 AM on 06/24/2011
Since you arrived, the haters have at least one representative here now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Garyatty10
Ignorance is a WMD
09:43 PM on 06/23/2011
What is the controversy? His personal opinion does not matter as marriage is a State legal issue not Federal. DADT has been ended under his administration and I am not aware of any other federal legal discrimination based on sexual orientation. I think he has some openly gay members in his admistration. And with opinion changing it is just a matter of time before most states above the mason dixon line recognize marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MathIsTruth
11:05 PM on 06/23/2011
DOMA is federal law.

Marriage is something that's related to many federal laws and rights.

Equal protection under the law is a federal issue, not a state issue. States do not have a constitutional right to ban same-sex marriage.
photo
ez duz it
οὐκ ἔστιν θεός
05:04 PM on 06/24/2011
Hi, MathisTruth--

I'm in wholehearted agreement with you! I enjoy your comments regularly and cannot believe I haven't tipped my hat to you, yet. Apologies :-) Fanned!

--ez
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nicenissey
Progressive comes from PROGRESS
09:20 PM on 06/23/2011
"Once shunned by politicians, gay rights leaders and donors are now courted by Democratic candidates (and even some Republicans)." Next thing you, the GOP is courting unionized labor.

Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.
08:50 PM on 06/23/2011
Obama panders for money from 2 gay groups at gala........there, fixed your title for ya
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
julescator
Just the FACTS, Por Favor!
08:33 AM on 06/24/2011
It's pandering season. You can't win aw dog catcher with no money. Fact of life. Get over it.
08:22 PM on 06/23/2011
Get government out of any and all marriage. It's a private voluntary contract between individuals. It doesn't need approval of or subsidization by the larger community. Marry whoever you want, and leave me out of it. Don't demand that I celebrate your union, or approve of it, or offer your spouse benefits, or anything else, and I'll return the favor by not telling you who you can or can't marry.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
08:25 PM on 06/23/2011
Goverment really has to play some role, because marriage conveys too many legal entanglements.

But more importantly, even if we *could* get it out of government, that's just not going to happen.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:33 PM on 06/23/2011
you are willfully ignorant if you think that anyone is asking you to celebrate our unions. we have our OWN friends and family to do that for us.

You are also equally misguided if you think that it doesn't need recognition by the government - immigration issues are near and dear to my heart - and you can subsidize me in EXACTLY the same way I'm subsidizing you.

I don't need your favors; I demand equal rights
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
balmora
Liberals = feel good solutions that don't work
09:20 PM on 06/23/2011
The institution of marriage predates the estabishment of government. So government should not be allowed to alter or abolish the definition of marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Brock
11:37 PM on 06/23/2011
Immigration issues are near and dear to my heart and my fiance's......I demand equal rights and I demand the inclusion under the Constitution of the United States, Article 14, Section 1...........fanned.
08:16 PM on 06/23/2011
The distinction (as in the New York law) needs to be between church and state. We need civil gay marriage rights as a means of conferring all legal rights and privileges (e.g. on taxes, inheritance, visitation and so on). But for performing religious marriage it should be up to the religion and government should keep their hands off. The key issues here is thus CIVIL rights and I agree we should continue to push Obama in this direction.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joemondo
Smug.
08:26 PM on 06/23/2011
And that's no different than marriage as it exists now. Religions decide for themselves.
photo
duckpuddle
Coexist, it's easier.
02:17 PM on 06/24/2011
This is not a religious debate; its a legal one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FuzzyBongo
09:52 PM on 06/23/2011
And it's no different than what is being asked by proponents of marriage equality. However, if a person owns a public space and doesn't want to rent it out to a gay couple because of their "religion" - that is against the equal "right". However, the mormon church will not be required to perform "gay marriages" only the polygamous ones they currently do.