Obama Is Gays' Best Friend -- To Say Otherwise is Shortsighted, Insulting and Just Plain Dumb

Frederick Douglass? James Baldwin? The two towering historical civil rights and literary icons are spinning wildly and angrily in their graves at the mere mention and use of their names by some gay rights activists to bash President Obama. Their beef against Obama is, of course, that he's back pedaled on his pledge to be a forceful advocate for gay rights, and more particularly to back gay marriage. More on that in a second.

First Baldwin and Douglass. Baldwin did suffer in silence at the many digs, slights and put downs he got for being gay. But Baldwin, and certainly Douglass, waged their tireless battle against racial discrimination and for full black equality and rights. Douglass even drew heat from the top women's rights advocates of his day for vigorously pushing for ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment which explicitly gave the newly freed slaves the right to vote, even though it did not give women that right. Douglass and Baldwin understood one thing and that was that African-Americans languished at the absolute bottom of America's political, economic and social scale, and that blacks as no other group in the nation were subjected to decades of slavery, Jim Crow segregation and massive and relentless terror and violence based solely on their skin color. No other group in America has faced that monstrous obstacle. To them, the black freedom struggle had to take precedence over every other group's struggle. The most cursory comb of Baldwin and Douglass's voluminous writings amply prove that.
Obama is not a hypocrite or betrayer on gay rights simply because he does not back gay marriage. 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. This has nothing to do with politics either. The belief in marriage between a man and a woman is layered over with a tinge of religious interpretation, since he's cited conflicted passages from the Bible to square his support of gay rights with his opposition to legalizing same sex marriage.

Obama backed gay rights in speeches and legislation 18 times before he grabbed the White House. He has shown the same support and sensitivity in his appointments, including the appointment of David Heubner, the first openly gay person as amabassador to New Zealand. He's only the second president to speak at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign. The fact is that the group thought enough of his gay rights advocacy to invite him. Yet, nothing short of a full-throated endorsement of gay marriage will cease the carping of the hard core gay rights advocates against Obama.

There's one other stumbling block that the gay rights activists that pound Obama must come to grips with and that is that a majority of blacks still bristle at the notion that the fight to legalize gay marriage is in any way comparable to the fight that Douglass and Baldwin waged for black rights. Polls show that more Americans than ever say that they support civil rights for gays, and a torrent of gay themed TV shows present non-stereotypical depictions of gays. However, this increased tolerance has not dissipated the hostility that far too many blacks feel toward gay marriage. Gay rights activists badly missed this when they blew off black civil rights and community activists in their battle against California's anti gay initiative, Proposition 8. They then compounded their flub by threatening to picket Obama for his silence when the state supreme court backed the measure. What a way to win friends and influence black voters, especially the very voters (and president) that will be needed when the much discussed pro gay rights initiative will be plopped back on California's ballot in another year or so!

The other big knock against Obama is that he didn't have to do anything on the DOMA; 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 eye 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 the best friend that gays have had in the White House -- ever. To say otherwise is short sighted, insulting and just plain dumb.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January, 2010.

Comments

[kennj1975]

When will the gay community wake up and realize that NEITHER of the two major parties give a flip about our lives!! Republicans.. well DUH! And democrats just use us for the political capitol by promising this that and the other but when it's time to come through they either don't or they give us some half-fast solution that's worse than when we started. As for Obama--I'll believe it when I see it!!!!!

It's time the gay community throw their support behind the Libertarian party!!!! Then & ONLY then will we see the rights we want come to fruition!!

[Kentifer]

Because the libertarians are known for winning in politics...

[naughtykitty]

Sounded like we were talking about Bush & Cheney here:

"Obama, [ or Bush, or Cheney] is not a hypocrite or betrayer on gay rights simply because he does not back gay marriage. 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. This has nothing to do with politics either. The belief in marriage between a man and a woman is layered over with a tinge of religious interpretation, since he's cited conflicted passages from the Bible to square his support of gay rights with his opposition to legalizing same sex marriage."

To be clear, we treated the previous administration with comments that were short sided, insulting and just plain dumb. Cheney clearly loves and respects his daughter's "lifestyle" but we wasted 8 years casting he and Bush as homophobic corporate war mongers. Obama is at war with the same extremists that have no tolerance for a "gay lifestyle". I salute him. You can be his best friend ever.

[carsntrucks]

It's sad when Blacks sell out their heritage so white gays can feel better about their intellectually dishonest comparisons to the civil rights movement.

[Johan Baumeister]

Intellectually dishonest comparisons? Only a fool would say that the two struggles are identical, but it is equally foolish to deny the common ground. Gays of every color have much to learn from the history of the black civil rights movement, but many of the rights and protections we seek are the same.

We seek the right to freedom from discrimination in employment, housing, and education. We seek the right to serve in the military as equals alongside our heterosexual peers. We seek to remove the discrimination against our marriages from state and federal law. We seek to ensure that the police protect us rather than persecute us. We seek equality and dignity, the same as any other.

That was a campaign where we needed all the people-power we could get. We did not lose because we didn't sufficiently consult the civil rights activists and community organizers of the African American community. We lost because the LGBT community and its allies, as a whole, did not take the threat of Prop. 8 seriously enough. As a person involved with the campaign since before the proposition had even qualified for the ballot, I cannot emphasize enough how perpetually short on volunteers this campaign was.

I know it's easy to assume that it was just the fault of the "white gays" and the few "blacks [that] sell our their heritage" but political campaigns are rarely won or lost for simple reasons.

[carsntrucks]

"..but it is equally foolish to deny the common ground."

No, it's not, because there is none.

Gays of every color have much to learn from the history of the black civil rights movement, but many of the rights and protections we seek are the same."

Um, no, they're actually not. Blacks actually did have to fight laws that sought to subjugate them and take away actual rights. Gays are desperate to enact their political agenda and are ratcheting up their rhetoric by affixing the word "rights" to the end of everything.

There is no "right" to most of those, and the rest aren't regular occurrences/legal. It wouldn't be legal to kill a gay person even if we didn't pass hate crime bills. I don't care about your "equality" and "dignity", because that's something the government can't give you. You have to have that for yourself.

You lost because most of CA doesn't believe in overhauling the definition of marriage for an obstinate, litigious special interest group. Gay couples in CA already have all the benefits the state can bestow. But don't worry. I'm sure pegging people as being nothing more than bigots and calling Blacks the n-word in the street will really endear you all to the rest of CA.

Most of the organizers and leaders in the gay community are white, upper-middle-class individuals who don't sympathize with racial injustice or injustice based on class...because they never had to.

[wonketteRAWKS]

I normally agree with many of your articles, but this one seems out of left field. Discrimination is discrimination. Please do not inject religious beliefs in this arguement as there is no reason for it.

Have you noticed that the "gay moments" only come before a gay event? The proclamation came in June, right before Gay Pride Weedend. This big "gay speech" comes right before the Equality March.

To those who say healthcare first, do you think Obama is spending all of his free time on healthcare?
The job entails many things and with a full dem majority now is the best time.

I will not be asked to sit in the corner and shut up while other things take priority. It comes with His job and if it's too much then step aside and let someone else handle it.

[cminca]

Your arguement is shallow at best.

You contend that the only reason that the LGBTQ communtiy is upset with the President the fact that he is not in favor of gay marriage (although he was in favor of it before he wasn't in favor of it). That isn't the case.

You go on to state : "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. " and "Obama backed gay rights in speeches and legislation 18 times before he grabbed the White House."

Talk is cheap. He also got plenty of support, monetary and time, for his stated positions.

The animosity from the LGBTQ community has to do with his lack of action on all the issues he campaigned on, and then it also has to do with Rick Warren, the disgusting DOMA brief, the lack of any leadership on hate crimes or employment discrimination legislation, defending and postponing DADT--all while calling himself a "fierce advocate" for the LGBTQ community.

We expect to see him match his words with action.

[Rog49Thomas]

That's the problem when a group is ostracized and marginalized - their selection of friends is limited and I suppose they have to take what they can get.

[Dorraj]

Moreover, now that African Americans have gotten their voting rights and desegregation, why won't the population as a whole help gay Americans get what rights their straight counterparts have?
---------------
Oh so it was gays who got us voting rights? Look I know you dont want to hear this but America is just not ready yet. Being black in america I know all about that. We have a black president who still cant really talk about issues involving blacks. There is still a confederate flags in SC he cant speak about. Republicans make open threats to him and he has to down play it. Why? So the country is not split apart. He is gradually moving the country in the right direction. Before Obama presidents didnt even openly acknowledge you. Bush got reelected running against gays.

Can we please pass health care first. Blacks issues in the 60's had very direct impact on our ability to stay alive and get a job. Fighting for the right to marriage is important but I dont think it is as important as health care is/.

[Kentifer]

Apparently you have never heard of Bill Clinton, who not only courted the LGBT community during his presidential campaign, but also signed into law DADT. Now, even though I dislike DADT with a very strong passion, I have to admit that it WAS an important step to take. Just because we went backwards when we "elected" Bush, doesn't mean that no president before him ever talked about gays.

[Ty Jennings]

WOW - how backwards are you? Misunderstanding other people's replies is one thing. (as you do in your opener) But your ignorance of history and current misguided attempts at self justification and political guidance are pathetic and insulting.

You say: "Blacks issues in the 60's had very direct impact on our ability to stay alive and get a job. Fighting for the right to marriage is important but I dont think it is as important as health care is/."

Do you need me to list the people STILL being beaten and killed for being LGBT??? How about the 14 year old who killed his 15 year old gay classmate? Or the gay 5th grader who commits suicide because he doesn't see any hope for people "like him"????

You want to talk about health care? How about the person waiting in the lobby of the hospital with their children as their partner dies alone on a gurney because the hospital doesn't recognize their family?

There is room for both fights here. You just have to look beyond yourself to see it.

[originalprice]

Ummm . . . didn't Obama FULLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY support Gay Marriage back in 1996?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Obama_backed_samesex_marriage_in_1996.html

I like Obama, and have much hope for what he may yet do as the country grows increasingly liberal, but come on: his defense of "marriage" as being only between a man and woman is a purely political move. He knows better, he just isn't saying it now until it becomes an obvious majority opinion.

Sometimes great leaders make unpopular choices because they are the RIGHT decision. Submission to antiquate and unfounded bigotry and prejudice should not figure into the decision making of the nation's first Black president.

But in the end, I guess he is a politician first and human rights advocate somewhat lower on the list.

[JackNasty]

Obama has spent considerable political capital appeasing the "civil rights for me but not for thee" crowd. He needs to do better than that.

[aftershock]

"The other big knock against Obama is that he didn't have to do anything on the DOMA; 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 eye to what Obama has said and feels about traditional marriage too..."

So you acknowledge that he allows his religious beliefs to influence his public policy decisions, but gays are short sighted and dumb for wanting him to actually live up to that "fierce advocacy" thing. The apologist tripe is getting seriously old now. I've rarely if ever agreed with Earl, I didn't figure this time would be different. Yet this is beyond just being wrong, this is excusing continuing discriminatory acts, something I doubt highly the author would be doing were he in the shoes of those complaining (or had a son or daughter who was). Some of the commentators and posters here have a lot of nerve. Go live in Oklahoma as and out gay man or lesbian for awhile and come back and tell us all we should just keep waiting.

[AlexTryst]

Within the context of history, I see the point of the article, but that's history. We're talking about the present, and as far as I can see the LGBT has every right to express their desires unendingly to their political leaders. Moreover, now that African Americans have gotten their voting rights and desegregation, why won't the population as a whole help gay Americans get what rights their straight counterparts have? They understand what it's like to be on the outside, but instead of sympathy, many show apathy. Once slavery and segregation ended, the federal government saw the group as equal even if communities didn't. (I've never read anywhere they were even taxed differently like gay Americans.) The problem is that gay Americans are not treated equally by the federal government or their communities. While the underpinnings of why rights have been denied to the two groups may be different, the actual denial of rights on the basis of being considered "different" is the same. That's a critical point this article doesn't seem to want to acknowledge.

Furthermore, regarding Obama being gay people's best friend, that's not an accurate statement. Want to talk about real friends of the community? Try talking about Harvey Milk or Ed Kennedy or even the up and coming Kirsten Gillibrand, who put their muscle behind their words. Obama hasn't done it, and until he does, he's considered an acquaintance to the group, not a friend.

[ElTommo]

I don't know if I'd call it short-sighted, but this article certainly is insulting and just plain dumb.

I'm sick and tired of lines being drawn amongst minorities when they should be standing together. "Our life experience is harder!" "No, ours is!" Any minority who refuses to fight for the civil equality of another pisses on the legacy of those who fought for theirs.

[CelticDragon]

Absolutely.

[S1m0n]

Obama might well turn out to be American Gays' best friend, but he hasn't proven it yet. What's disturbing is that his body language and the mixed signals he has been sending since the beginning of last year's primary season both suggest that his real feeling is one of uneasy ambivalence, which makes it difficult for the gay community to take his commitment on faith.

[OzzieSmerck]

For someone who is hypothetically a constitutional law expert, Obama sure misses the boat in justifying his lack of support for gay marriage because of his "christian values." He certainly knows and should acknowledge that the separation of church and state require him to base his position as President on this issue on constitutional values, not religious ones. To be consistent as both a Christian and a (small "d") democrat he should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." Go to church and believe what he wants personally, but in the public arena, support true equal rights for all. Anything less is essentially establishing the Christian religion rather than the constitution as the arbiter of our rights.

[honoursplendor]

I can see how marriage can be construed as a a relic of religion. Marriage under religion though is not really recognized by the state either. You could be "married" in your religion but until you get those papers to city hall your union is nothing more than a nice ceremony. Would it be so terrible for the state to recognize "civil unions for all" rather than marriage for some? In that way folks who see marriage as between man and woman could keep their marriage and their religion that goes with it. This would be consistent with POTUS earlier remarks would it not?

[weatherwaxx]

While you're channeling long-gone civil rights figures, you might remind Mr. Douglass that the reason he 'drew heat' from women's rights champions was because the women had supported voting rights for freed slaves (including both men AND women) but were sold out when the amendment went through. It was intended to be for both non-whites AND women of all colors... and the Black men threw women off the suffrage train.

Barack Obama is unquestionably better than McPalin would have been. But his "fierce championing" of glbt civil rights has been a pale shadow of what he led people to expect. I'm not condemning him--there are many other issues, and he's been in office less than 10 months--still, he could have done better. I'm guessing that you are not glbt yourself, and you don't have a loved one who is. Your perspective has that comfortable buffer that this isn't about you.

[honoursplendor]

"and the Black men threw women off the suffrage train." Huh? Your comment makes it seem like black guys were ruling the roost during reconstruction and could have easily slipped in language about the ladies but refused to do so out of spite. I missed that passage in my history book showing black men having so much power. Women, some of whom were supporting voting rights for freed slaves and blacks in general, were not thrown under the train by black men. Women HOPED that the amendment would include all citizens but there was no power play by black men to ensure white women would not get voting rights. At all times white guys were the ones in control and they typically pitted these groups against each other politically. Before passage of the 15th amendment abolitionists and suffragists were frequently at odds because many pols forced them to feel like competitors for citizenship rights. Many felt denying one group was a leg up for the other. Female suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton -- a known abolitionist -- supported blatant racists hostile towards any rights for blacks in an attempt to ensure the passage of suffragist amendments for women at the state level. Women were more than happen to play the political game to the detriment of blacks if it meant that women would get voting rights.

[S1m0n]

".... and the Black men threw women off the suffrage train."

The mirror image of post 1970 feminism.