President Obama is far and away the best friend that gay rights groups have ever had in the White House. He's appointed more openly gays to every imaginable policy making post both inside and outside the White House. He's made his record number of openly gay administration appointments in much faster time than Bill Clinton. He did what most presidents don't do when they make appointments. He did it quietly and he consulted every step of the way with gay activist lobbying groups. Yet, this still isn't enough for some gay activists. They still take subtle and even open shots at him.
A case in point is Michael Cole, Human Rights Campaign spokesperson. He called the record number of gay appointments significant. But in the same sentence, he tagged on the word "ordinary" to describe them. Ordinary? 150 appointments in less than two years with no fanfare and no effort to downplay the sexual preference of the appointees are hardly "ordinary." The ambivalence even beef that some gay activists have with and about Obama still comes down to the issue of the president's one, actually two great unforgiveable sins, in their eyes. He opposed gay marriage in the early years of his campaign, and presidency, and even after he's softened his stance on the issue, and vigorously opposed Proposition 8, the California initiative that would have effectively banned gay marriage, that still isn't enough. He reversed his position on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and calls it abhorrent. That still isn't enough. He issued executive orders mandating that hospitals treat gay and lesbian couples the same as heterosexual ones, and at the same time expand rights for gay couples who work in the federal government, that still isn't enough for some gay groups.
The other big knock against Obama is that he didn't have to do anything on the Defense of Marriage Act. That he could have easily kept the White House's nose out of it by letting the legal challenge to it run its course. Other presidents have done that when they thought a law was unconstitutional or unjust. This argument is blind to what Obama has said and feels about traditional marriage too, not to mention that he made it plain that he wants the law repealed -- but repealed through legislation and that he would push for that.
Obama is not a hypocrite or betrayer on gay rights simply because he does not back gay marriage or has not muscled Congress and the military to dump for good DADT. Whenever he's been asked he's made it clear that he strongly believes that the only marriage that can be called marriage is between a man and a woman. This has absolutely nothing to do with his solid, and at times outspoken, support of anti-discrimination, civility, and just plain human respect for gay rights. His view on marriage is a personal belief. The important thing, in fact the only thing that should matter, is that personal belief on gay marriage and the political and legal obstacles to final repeal of DADT in no way marks him as any less a staunch advocate of gay rights.
It's been that way long before he grabbed the White House. Obama backed gay rights in speeches and legislation more than a dozen times as a state legislator and U.S. Senator. The record number of appointments, and the speed with which he's made them, were just the extension of his personal and political conviction that discrimination against gays is every bit the civil rights issue that discrimination against women and minorities is. Bigotry is bigotry no matter who the target and it must be vigorously and relentlessly opposed. But again, that won't satisfy the carpers. As one activist flatly said, the frustration of gays over what the administration has not done and even some antipathy to Obama won't evaporate no matter how many groundbreaking appointments he makes of gays to top positions, and no matter how much respect and the encouragement Obama gives gay groups. It still won't be enough for some. Short of an openly gay president, Obama is the best friend that gays could have in the White House. To say otherwise is short sighted, insulting and just plain dumb. That's a pity and their shame.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts nationally broadcast political affairs radio talk shows on Pacifica and KTYM Radio in Los Angeles.
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earlhutchinson
Tina Mabry: Obama's Gay Rights UN Speech: A Step in the Right Direction, But Is It Enough?
Obama reinstated DADT after it was dead. Since it was unconstitutional that was the end of the matter and DADT was dead unless revived by an appeal. Only one man in the world had the power to bring back DADT -- Obama. That is exactly what he did. He reimposed DADT. This is now Obama's DADT.
Obama then opined that Gays have no constitutional rights and they have to be content to take whatever morsel congress and the legislatures might be willing to give them from time to time.
Obama has taken the position that Exclusionism is constitution when applied to Gays. Exclusionism is far worse than Segregation where you may participate.
Guess what. Obama can drop the appeal. He can drop the appeal this instance and end DADT. But Obama will not drop the appeal as he does not believe Gays have any constitutional rights.
In America, it always seems to be called "rhetoric" when it doesn't affect your pocketbook or family.
Oh, Earl. I've quite liked some of your work, but did you think twice about this column before you published it? Lecturing a minority you're not a part of to quit asking for full Civil Rights? Are you sure this is a rhetorical legacy you want to join?
Either way, that doesn't make up for the abysmal lies Obama told about repealing DADT and dealing with DOMA. For that, he should forever be ashamed. Personally, I think the gay community should still get out and vote for Democrats because the alternatives are too hideious to even consider. I do understand their frustration though and would not judge them poorly for not voting Democrat. One can only take so many lies and broken promises.
It would only be "a personal belief" if Obama also made it clear that gay people have the right to get married - preferably in the same sentence. Considering that he isn't doing anything about DOMA, people have absolutely no reason to believe that it's just a personal belief.
And, if before the SCOTUS ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in 1967, Johnson had said he "personally" believed that marriage should only be between two people of the same race, but thought that interracial couples should be allowed to have civil unions ... there would probably have been some interracial couples calling him their "best freind"!
Maybe if gays started pouring oil into the Gulf of Mexico and foreclosing on Black homeowners like Obama's banker friends, then he'd respect the integrity of our families and the lives of our friends. In the meantime, Obama can't betray people and then resent them for noticing.
Although many wonderful military men and women have participated in SLDN, I think that now is the time for us to rethink SLDN. By supporting Obama's anti-constitutional approach, SLDN implicitly endorses the notion that Gays have no constitutional rights. For SLDN we are supplicants begging for a few morsels of civic life.
President Obama's Justice Department not only defended DOMA, but they did so in repugnant terms, likening gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. It's an outrage to all of the President's gay and lesbian supporters that no one was held responsible for the offensive brief.
Now the President is less progressive than Ken Mehlman and Ted Olson on the issue of gay marriage. And instead of issuing a more than justified stop loss order to stop kicking gays and lesbians out of the military, the President has dragged his feet on DADT. Hardly a fierce advocate, he barely lifted a finger to try to get DADT repealed when the bill was in Congress.
If the President treated black citizens, or any other minority the way he has treated gays, one wonders if Mr. Hutchinson would be so cavalier.
Let us also be mindful, that DADT is now Obama's DADT. It was totally dead and only one man on earth had the power to revive DADT -- that was Obama. He intentionally brought DADT back to life and re-imposed this hateful Exclusion of Gays onto American society
By appealing DADT after it was dead, Obama reinstated Exclusionism against on segment of the population. Segregation did not exclude Blacks. We are not allowed to serve in the military in Gay Only units. Of course, that would be obviously unaccepted, but people fair to understand that Exclusionism is far worse than Segregation.
Under Obama's approach, no gay person has any constitutional right. Under Obama we start out with zero rights and we may only do what Congress and the state legislatures allow us to do. If they wish to exclude from any aspect of American life, they may do that as we have no constitutional rights.
No other citizen has no constitutional rights except Gays. And this yahoo calls Obama the Gays' Best Friend.
This statement is ridiculous. My definition of "best friend" would never include somebody who uses his personal religious bias to designate me as the other.
It would be great to get out of the Middle Ages whenn things were changeable at the whim of a king.
That said, the Democrats who are up for election next week HAVE voted for gay rights, and should be rewarded in kind:
http://hrc.org/scorecard
The president’s view on marriage is a *religious* belief. The important thing, in fact the only thing that should matter, is that his religious beliefs are not relevant and he should stop expressing them as a matter of public policy. Repeating anti-gay religious objections to gay marriage marks him as considerably less than a fierce advocate of gay rights.