Obama and LGBT Rights: A Year Since Election Day

Almost exactly a year ago, I was standing in a small house in Bloomington, Indiana receiving volunteers for Obama's get out the vote effort on election day. By the evening, I would be in Grant Park in Chicago, listening to a Presidential acceptance speech that actually mentioned gays and lesbians.

The gay hope swelled.

But soon, the hope-over began: Obama extended an invitation to Rick Warren, the reality of the Proposition 8 loss settled in and the great political machine trudged onwards doling out a few successes and a lot of disappointments.

In his first year, Obama has done very little for LGBT Americans.

He contributed to the passage of an inclusive hate crimes bill and finished a process started by George Bush to end the travel ban on HIV-positive visitors. As marriage controversy erupted around the country, Obama has stayed clearly out of the debate. He has made no move on Don't Ask Don't Tell, no move on the Defense of Marriage Act and, despite one speech at a Human Rights Campaign fundraiser, he has made it clear that LGBT issues are not a priority for his administration.

But today, looking back on a year of LGBT rights activism under the Obama umbrella, I wonder just how much we have done to make LGBT rights a priority for Americans.

The hope-over has seriously taken the wind out of our metaphorical sails and, most importantly, out of our wallets.

Compared to the national effort to step up fundraising in California just weeks before the Proposition 8 vote, Maine's fundraising against Proposition 1 has come almost exclusively from in-state.

This, for a vote that might be the first LGBT ballot win in the country.

The Human Rights Campaign has been struggling since early this year to meet fundraising goals, even attempting to negotiate with its employees for lower pay and decreased benefits. Their role as the largest fundraising force in LGBT politics means that trouble in the HRC leads to trouble for all gay rights organizations.

I know it's a recession.

But if we refuse to accept the political claim that the economic crisis and the war in Afghanistan can push LGBT rights completely from the Presidential agenda, then we cannot accept that our own financial insecurity should push LGBT rights from our personal economic agenda.

It's time to give money. And we need to do it quickly.

Tonight will be a lot like a year ago for many of us: glued to televisions and computer screens waiting for polling numbers to roll in. If the fundraising data is a fair indicator, we will be celebrating at the end of it all again.

But as we look back on the otherwise difficult year since Obama's election, let's remember that, with enough commitment, enough financial backing, the future could look a lot more like this battle in Maine, and a lot less like the painful hope-over of the Presidential election.

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

 

Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs

Comments

[David Speakman]

It is no mistake that the hate crimes bill (a non-defense issue) was included in the defense bill - to draw attention away from the fact that Don't Ask Don't Tell (and actual defense issue) was *not* repealed in that bill.

[ez duz it]

There ARE things we LGBTs can do. We can personally contact each of our Democratic politicians at the local, state and federal levels – as well as the White House --- and let them know that unless they support OUR causes, we will vote with our dollars and our feet. We can tell them we will not fund their campaigns of empty promises. Instead, we will vote for the candidate whose record best evidences support for our interests.

If these politicians claim such strategies will cause a split-vote, tell them THEY need to get busy and support us or be willing to face the logical consequences of their political calculus. Many of these politicians, from the top…down, exhort us to be patient. OUR time of waiting is over.

Ms. Ruby-Sachs suggests that we give money. Lots of it. Fast. But to whom? For over 10 years my partner and I each contributed 200 dollars each year to the HRC. For us, that is a LOT of money. We did this as state after state has passed anti-gay legislation, passed state constitutional amendments denying us marriage equality and the Obama administration defending DOMA. Our days of supporting the HRC are OVER!

Ms. Ruby-Sachs, what group might you recommend being genuinely supportive of our LGBT rights? Seriously…we feel we have run out of options.

[Romulus]

So far, those of you who have made comments aren't paying attention to Ms. Ruby-Sachs' main points which are:

1. The LGBT community is not sufficiently supporting organizations fighting for its rights

2. If the LGBT community isn't making it's rights a priority for themselves, how can it expect anyone else to consider them a priority?

[T2inDC]

" It's time to give money. And we need to do it quickly" Emma, I am not sure if you got the gay memo, but the GayTM is closed. Especially to HRC and the Obama Administration. Apparently we are not politically sophisticated according to HRC and not worthy of 'fierce advocacy' according to the anti-gay Obama briefs. So my gay money and just as important my gay energy and activism is going towards other more 'gay worthy' endeavors. Such as sending money directly to Maine and Washington State along with phone banking and sending money directly to lawmakers like Patrick Murphy and Christine Gillibrand along with a gay thank you card. HRC and the Obama Administration can reep what they sewed. Come re-election time, Obama will wonder where all his grassroots organizers went......­and discover they are now leading a LGTB grassroots campaign. Ya snooze--ya loose.

[jmpurser]

Yes Obama played the gay crowd, just like he did the rest of us. And your future will look a lot like your past if you keep sending that money to the same party.

[1dogs2]

We should send it to the GOP instead?

[liberaldemdave]

the HRC's fundraising problems have more to do with their inability to actually speak for the entire GLBT community and their interest in being invited to the party trumps the goals of the glbt-commu­nity-at-la­rge.

my gay dollars are going to organizations and candidates with a proven track record, not those that simply pay lip service.

[NICELYDONE]

this is a battle that would not raise taxes and or cost billions and billions,,,, thus it was very low on the agenda of the liberal elite

[drjay79]

He could got to NJ and stump for the governor but never showed up or even mentioned Maine.

[rneblett]

I was holding my breath last week, half expecting Obama to come up with some excuse not to sign the Shepard bill. But let's be honest - it took 11 years of tireless campaigning for this bill to make it to a President's desk. And I attribute its passage more to the tireless efforts of Judy and Dennis Shepard putting a human face on the issue of hate crimes than any kind of fundraising that was done by the HRC. But even so, it was not a stand-alone bill. It was hidden as part of a larger defense spending bill, as a tactic to guarantee its passage. When pro-gay legislation can be introduced, and passed, without having to be subservient to some other cause, then we will have become a national priority.

And all it takes is a quick comparison of the rhetoric from the HRC dinner and the actual Equality March the following day to see that the reason that HRC is having so much trouble raising money is that it has become out of touch with the needs and values and struggles of the average gay/lesbian person in America today. HRC is viewed by many in the gay community, not as an activist group, but as an organization made up of affluent, entitled middle-aged whites who are as far removed from job discrimination or public scorn as possible, because of the power found in their pocketbooks.

[Awake-and-Sing]

"The Human Rights Campaign has been struggling since early this year to meet fundraising goals, even attempting to negotiate with its employees for lower pay and decreased benefits. Their role as the largest fundraising force in LGBT politics means that trouble in the HRC leads to trouble for all gay rights organizati­ons."

----------­----------­------

It's not just the economy.

An increasing number of LGBT persons see the so-called "Human Rights Campaign" as nothing but an organization of sellouts -- insiders who care far more about their "access" than they do "progress" on LGBT issues. After repeatedly endorsing incumbents who are less good on gay issues than their challengers, including Joe LIEberman, I wouldn't give them a single dime in any economic climate.

We need a new national organization who isn't afraid to play hardball and isn't afraid to walk away from the table when we are backstabbed by those who took our money and triangulated against us.

The only time we got attention in D.C. was when gays started pulling out of a DNC fundraiser. Our votes didn't matter. Our volunteer time didn't matter. Our energy didn't matter. Keeping campaign promises didn't matter. Doing the right thing didn't matter. The ONLY thing that mattered, just as we are seeing in the health insurance "reform" bill, is MONEY and our willingness to play hardball with it.

Defunding the HRC and replacing it with a LGBT advocacy organization with a backbone is a great way to start.

[1Damien]

Sorry but there are other issues that are more pressing. Not to diminish the significance, but healthcare and financial reform applies to everyone and therefore is priority one. I am certain that once those clogs are taken care of , other progressive issues will flow right through.

[superstition]

There are always issues more pressing that the upholding of the Constitution? Who needs civil rights? Who needs a federal Constitution?

There are wars to be fought! There are domestic spying powers to be protected!

[TorieLeft]

yeah. well. the man is president. i hope he can do more than two things at a time.

[1dogs2]

Are you serious? Do you have any idea how many issues he deals with in any given week, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to HCR to economic reform and climate change legislation to any number of foreign policy problems?

[liberaldemdave]

thanks for your support. not. when did it become acceptable to relegate civil rights for ALL AMERICANS to the back burner?

every issue you mention is important. every issue you mention also has an impact on the glbt community.

[jmpurser]

He hasn't taken care of a progressive issue yet the way a progressive would have and there's nothing about civil rights that either needs to or should wait on any other topic in this country.

[SouthJerseySteve]

We LGBT got "screwed" again -- I jokingly call it the "Cinderella Syndrome" but alas, we are still better off now since the GOP isn't the controlling Party. Alas, we are sent to the back of the dance hall and our interests are ignored. Is there really anything we can do? It's not like we can threaten the Dems by voting for the GOP so we continue to get lip service and ignored once the election is over.

[jmpurser]

Well welcome to the progressive boat in general.

Personally I'm voting 3rd party from now on. I won't "win" many elections but I won't voting Democratic either. At least from now on I won't be participating in my own mugging.

[middleoftheroad]

"It's not like we can threaten the Dems by voting for the GOP"...

No, but you can sit at home and not give money...Pe­rsonally, this is not my issue, but look at the Christian right (Im not christian right either)...­but if they do not get what they want, they sit....if you keep acting like a sheep, you will be treated like a sheep...ma­ybe gays should create a huge campaign to "sit OUT"...

[StuManChu]

What is all the fuss about? He had a fantastic speech SAYING he would overturn DADT. The lighting was perfect, the reverb sounded great. It was probably his best speech ever.

[FearlessFreep]

Why isn't fantastic oratory enough? Because action can't wait forever.

[superstition]

Furthermore, this online newspaper (and others) ran articles discussing the fact that the President has had two methods of stopping the implementation of DADT from his first day in office. One of them is called "Obama to Fire his First Gay Arabic Linguist".

Instead, he has fired hundreds of troops for being gay. He is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him. He has chosen to fire hundreds of troops for being gay. There is no way to sugarcoat that. Pretending that he hasn't done anything on DADT certainly won't fly.

He is also the leader of the Democratic party and when his White House files brief after brief in court with arguments like "gay Americans don't have a constitutional right to get married or have marriage rights" and "DADT is a rational/good policy in the interest of the military" -- it sends a strong message to the rest of the party.

As John Aravosis has noted, this White House would like us to believe it has no choice but to behave in an anti-gay manner on DOMA and DADT because they're laws -- and that's simply not true. Prior administrations from both parties have opposed laws, there are laws being ignored right now, and the President has the power to stop firing troops.

Why hasn't the President lifted Bush's ban on sperm donation by gay men? Even the underlying homophobic basis for that is silly; gay men are no more likely to breed gay children than heterosexuals.

[superstition]

"As marriage controversy erupted around the country, Obama has stayed clearly out of the debate. He has made no move on Don't Ask Don't Tell, no move on the Defense of Marriage Act..."

Are you kidding? The Obama White House has been aggressively defending DOMA and DADT.

"Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children."
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

"Rinse, repeat: Obama admin aggressively defending DADT in court"
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13732/rinse-repeat-obama-admin-aggressively-defending-dadt-in-court

Those are just two articles of many. How about the White House's pressuring of Alcee Hastings to withdraw his amendment that would end DADT? How about the similar pressuring of Barney Frank that caused him to retract his belated and tepid criticism of the DOMA brief, saying he hadn't read it and that it was really a good thing?

"Rep. Alcee Hastings explains how White House staff worked against his amendment to stop funding Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/rep-alcee-hastings-explains-how-white.html

This "Obama is doing nothing" stuff is pure fiction. I keep seeing it from people as illustrious as Glenn Greenwald and it's not true. It gives cover to this administration's anti-gay actions.