Obama's Upcoming Hush-Hush Damage Control Meeting With Gay Leaders

The President has been an Obama-nation on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) issues since he's taken office.

The political carrots Obama dangled before us as campaign promises are now looking like merely empty rhetoric that was used to court our votes and to collect our campaign dollars.

But with a 74 percent disapproval rating the President now has with us according to the recent Washington Blade poll that asked the question "Is Obama moving fast enough on LGBT issues?," and with many LGBTQ Democrats, especially those with deep pockets, boycotting the June 26th DNC fundraiser in D.C. that would fill the party's coffers with queer dollars, the Justice Department decided to have a conversation with us.

And in their effort to thwart off both a huge political and financial lost to Obama and the party, the DOJ is conducting a hush-hush damage control meeting with the nation's top LGBTQ heads of organizations on Monday June 29. In a written invitation from the White House it states the following:

The President and Mrs. Obama request the pleasure of your company and a reception to be held at the White House on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. Please respond at the Social Secretary of the White House at your earliest convenience giving your date of birth and social security number of your guest and yourself.

The purpose of the gathering is to ask us what we want?

But the question appears not only disingenuous but also deceptively political given the glaring evidence of the president's conflicted and contradictory actions his administration has taken on key LGBTQ policies this month.

Let's start with June 1.

On June 1 Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation in honor of Pride Month, stating, "Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security."

On June 4 Jonathan Capehart, an African American gay journalist at the Washington Post wrote the op-ed "Okay, Obama. Now Let's Have a Speech on Gay Rights," stating " After last night's airing of NBC's Inside the Obama White House interview, in which Obama provided a tepid answer to a question about whether "gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry in this country have a friend in the White House," the blogosphere is filling with cries of "shameful" and "no passion, no heart, no real connection to our cause."

On June 8 the Supreme Court agreed with the Obama administration in refusing to review the Pentagon policy that prohibits LGBTQ servicemembers to serve openly in the military.

To add salt to an already open wound for our LGBTQ servicemembers, Obama's administration stated in the court papers that the ruling on DADT was correct because of the military's legitimate concern of LGBTQ servicemembers endangering "unit cohesion " in spite of the 2002 study " A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale for the Exclusion of Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military," that proved otherwise.

On June 12, the LGBTQ community got another blow: Obama defend (DOMA), a law that prevent couples in the states that recognize same-sex marriage from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and other federal rights of marriage. His reasons: DOMA is not a valid exercise of Congress's power, and it is not consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and it would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in states that fundamentally oppose same-sex marriage.

During the evening of June 12 Campbell Brown of CNN, sensing the tension in the LGBTQ community, had a segment asking the question "Is President Obama Selling Out the Gay Community?

Dan Savage, a nationally syndicated gay columnist gave his response:

I'm sick of hearing about the president's commitment. I want to see action from the White House.... The president has sold us out in California today. He filed a brief and a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act that is so insanely bigoted that the HRC, Human Rights Campaign, which is the most mainstream middle of the road gay group, called it false and damaging legal arguments. People are incensed.

On June 17 Obama extends some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employers, but leaves couples without federal and health benefits. No one is sure what these few benefits the President has doled out to our community will mean as long as DOMA isn't repealed.

Gay writer and radio host Michelangeo Signorile wrote on his blog, "[T] he Obama administration is throwing us a pathetic bone: benefits for federal workers. Wow. Give me a break!"

And on June 19 invitations went out to major LGBTQ organizations for us to come talk with the President. The talk will be followed by a gala reception to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion.

Is the President playing us stupid? It will take more than lip-service and a party for us to believe we got a friend in the White House.

 

 

Comments

[LynnW49]

"Is the President playing us stupid?"
Yes.

[thebigbike]

It strikes me the establishment LGBT "leaders are trying to play catchup with their own constituents scurrying to place themselves out in front again, after being left behind in the dust.

[GlennInVenice]

Well put!

After Prop 8 and the defeats that occured in other states on the eve of Obama's victory it was a mistake to assume that it was just one more setback that "the gays" would accept as part of their struggle and it was otherwise business as usual.

Instead, this series of events, occuring during "the age of Obama" (which is not about the man who risks being removed from the movement), ignited a renewed human rights movement by GLBT people.

This new movement has no "head". There is no leadership per se as the defeats themselves exposed the fact that the current leadership failed us. It is a chaotic grass roots movement enabled by the internet and fueled only by the anger of human rights that have been repealed and denied. Moreover, it has the energy of the youth going for it. That is new!

The "enemies" of human rights for gay people have exposed themselves through their support of antagostic campaigns and discriminatory legislature. We are starting to expose bigots as such and they are resenting it big time trying to turn the spotlight on our resent rather than their antagonism calling our boycotts and marches unjust.

The luck-warm supporters and political parasites of the movement are also being exposed for what they are. We have stopped hearing their empty words and promises and are looking for actions. We no longer accept "advancement" as it is spooned out but demand our place at the table.

[jcwtts1]

Wow. Ok, so here is my question. Politics involves some basic level negotiation, who negotiates for you in these situations? I mean let's assume you have a chip in the big game right now. Not sure you do, but let's assume for the moment that you do, who plays it? I understand the way you want politics to work but if you wait for that to happen you'll be 90 and the LGBT movement will be back in the 60s. So, who plays your chit, who calls in your favors, who negotiates a better deal than the one you are getting?

[livinCalDemtbubble]

Glenn in Venice, I agree with everything you've said, especially your last paragraphs about those who basically play with our feelings and insecurities and deliver nothing.

[smithshaw08]

Walk a few years in my shoes & then tell me I should sit back and wait for my civil rights.
I didn't choose this life, it chose me. I am a woman, yet I tend to walk like my father. I'm sometimes called sir because the other person didn't look at my face. I have been called just about every gay slur in the book even though I don't look masculine. I have been called into a supervisor's office & accused of "looking" at a female co-worker in a locker room. My job can still be taken away because we have no protection from homophobic employers. My friends have been assaulted on a downtown sidewalk in the middle of the day, just for looking gay. My "partner" is actually my legal wife, but we still
had to file mounds of legal documents, a trust, POA, Medical POA, all because we are less in the eyes of many, including our government. I pay property taxes & social security but if I die my wife has no legal claim to the social security benefits my straight friends would be awarded. We can't have married couple car insurance because Progressive only allows man/woman couples. Try to imagine being married, but still having to check single on your tax forms. I'm tired of waiting for the same rights as everyone else. I've waited all my life & it's now half over! Walk 50 years in my shoes & then tell me I should

[smithshaw08]

cont:
& then tell me I should wait longer!

[PlaceboStudman]

And we won't even go into what would happen if you and your partner are critically injured and hospitalized out of state, where you will be forbidden to see one another because you are not considered "family"

[PhilipB]

I appreciate your post.

[jcwtts1]

You make a powerful case. Let me respond. Do you want to be right or do you want to win. The two often do not go together. You can be right or you can win in this instance and do see how you can be both. If you want to be right, then be upset and be angry and demand. If you want to win, the listen to me, and people like me who are telling you how to do it.

[PlaceboStudman]

Why does it have to be either/or? When will being right be a win for everyone? You just don't make any sense sometimes. You are playing theoretical politics like it;s some giant board game of RISK, when we need to be changing the game so that a win in one area doesn't require losses in other areas. What is right will ALWAYS win out, and if we do not push for what is right, then we will lose. But the way you're playing the game, you make it seem as if there's no point in fighting for what we want because of how much we will supposedly lose in other areas. I don't expect things to move quickly, I dont expect things to move slowly, but there is no reason other than BS political gamesmanship that we have to continue this same old game of one step forward one step back.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Let's be clear.

The ONLY reason we are even getting crumbs is because we have begun withholding our money. Our votes didn't matter. Our volunteer time didn't matter. Our street protests didn't matter. The integrity of keeping campaign promises didn't matter. Doing the right thing didn't matter.

The ONLY thing that ended up mattering inside the Beltway was our money. Everyone has learned a sad political lesson in real politik here.

We need to keep withholding money. It's time we dangled the carrots for a change.

We do need to become a lot more effective. While we are withholding our money from the DNC, we should also withhold it from the HRC.

We need an alternative organization in the Beltway that puts the welfare of our community above "access" and invitations to the right cocktail parties.

Just because Joe Solomonese gets invited to a meaningless photo op where "new" "benefits" that we apparently already had get extended to us by the White House does not mean that we made any actual progress.

[PlaceboStudman]

I sincerely hope that tens of thousands of people show up to the march in October. We need to show the power of our voices, and put real names and faces to that voice. Sadly, for every dollar the DNC loses from us, I suspect they'll earn $10 from the evangelicals

[Awake-and-Sing]

I don't think that is the case. That is why the Democrats are trying to scramble to save the DNC fundraiser.

However, I do agree with the March on Washington. I've never done one before, but I'm going to do whatever I can to go in October.

[PhilipB]

Good Idea.

[PhilipB]

I agree.
Thanks

[jcwtts1]

what crumbs? The fed benefits was in the works for months, I am not sure you have gotten anything at all by withholding money. But I would advise that if, for what ever reason, pols are for sale, hold your nose and buy them.

J

[livinCalDemtbubble]

I completely concur with everything in your post.

[jcwtts1]

What he will do for you, however, is sign any bill that comes out, he will not sign any bill that limits your rights further, and he will tell the dem senators and house members that he supports any bill that helps your causes. But that is what he has done, that is all he will do. And if you guys had any political leadership they would tell you two things, one you don't cut off money while you lobby, you kick in more. And two, nothing was going to happen on these issues before the midterm. No way no how. He called in "LGBT" leaders and told them that in January. He thought the message was clear. He didn't understand that there is no leadership in the LGBT movement, none. So he mishandled that. He is calling people in and he is going to ask, or rather have someone else ask, "Who is in charge. With Whom do I negotiate? And how do I get a message to the leadership of the movement?" See the danger of an all or nothing strategy which is basically what the LGBT movement is adopting is that you are far more likely to get nothing.

J

[PlaceboStudman]

and obviously Congress doesn't give a flying flip about us over their careers, or they would bite the bullet and pick up the hot potato and pass the damn laws, so we can just be done with them already. But, no, congress's big money corporate sponsors mean a hell of a lot more than people, so Congress is passing the potato back to the president with that letter last week.

Nobody, the president or congress, is going to do ANYTHING until there is a Million man sit in on the steps of the capital saying "we're not going anywhere until we see these bills on the floor"

[Edmonsky]

PlaceboStudman
What if your issue is that you are politically immature to understand how to go about seeking solutions to what matters most to you.

[jcwtts1]

Hmmmm, maybe. I think there is still time to pick senators for the open and vulnerable seats. Webb is swinging senators and that is really what the LGBT community needs. Not more LGBT senators but friends of the community. Imagine if you pulled these states, OH, FL, NH, and IL. You can do this because there is money floating around right now for good dem candidates. But you need some coherent push, something that allows you to funnel a ton of money into the right candidates hands. Let's say you think Kendrick Meeks in FL is the guy to fight your fights. He is black so he has entre into a community that the LGBT community has had difficulty cracking, he has the ability to push your agenda in several unique ways and he is connected, long term, to the clinton political machine so he has access to different levels in Washington. A good pick for many reasons, it yokes your fight with the black struggle and more people in a cause always help. Meeks is one of many potentials in FL but he has an organization. If you guys started sending him money, not millions right away, but steady streams of 20,000 here, 30,000 there, he would be beholden to your cause in a way no senator who won without you would be.

[jcwtts1]

I have been thinking about this. Do you want to know what the White House wants to say to the LGBT community, why they are inviting them? They want to know where your Pols are. Where are the people who actually know what they are doing? Here is what the LGBT community seems to want, I say seems because I don't really know. They want the President to author, whip, and pass legislation on LGBT issues, specially a repeal of DOMA and DADT. Am I wrong about that, is that not what you want? If I am wrong about it, and I admit I might be, someone needs to clearly explain to me what it is you want because that is my take away from the 150 blogs on LGBT issues the HP has had in the last 6 weeks. If that is what you want there is no chance you will get it. The white house isn't going to write you bill, write your own. They aren't going to whip your bill, get the people in congress who take your money, unless you stop giving it, to do that. Obama whips his own bills like health care, and the recovery act.

[GlennInVenice]

Unfortunately, we have been sidetracked into addressing individual pieces of legislation as a description of "what we want". It almost makes us look greedy in that we want the repeal of DADT and DOMA and then still want some more...

What we REALLY want is our CIVIL RIGHTS. Period.

We want to be treated fairly and equal under law so that when it comes to serving in the military, holding jobs in private or public firms, being self-employed, buying or renting homes, seeking education, getting insurance, being married, raising children, divourcing, and in every other aspect of life our sexual orientation and the sex of our choosen partner is not a factor.

Perhaps we need to put the old acronyms away and instead simply push for one new federal law that makes it illegal it discriminate based on sexual orientation or sex in all matters.

[jcwtts1]

Ok, a much better position. How do you get it. There are fragmented pieces of legislation out there, DOMA, DADT, state adoption laws, state anti-marriage laws. You sound like you need a control piece of legislation, I just don't think you can get it now. What I have been saying since Novemeber is pick a battle and win it. Nothing smells better than victory. You needed a quick hard win. DADT was the one I thought would work best. All the resources should have been jammed into one topic. DADT. It would have pushed all the future legislation. The moment blacks knew they would win the civil rights fight was when they integrated the Army. The Army back then was different than it is now, there was a draft, there were two generations where everyone served. It acted as a push point. Also what you guys really need. Is a ball player to come out. A good one. Jackie Robinson forced all the other issues to the forefront. He changed the world.

[TuffCookie]

riiight, because if there's ONE Problem in the world, its DADT!! nothing else matters.

LMAO he's been in office what, a few months and everybody wants him to wave the magic wand immediately. ridiculous.

[GlennInVenice]

You are the one acting silly by overstating things. We are talking within context of the big picture. It seems that you would have us not get to play at all.

[MoeB]

Why do people keep saying that? Personally speaking, I'm not looking for him to "wave a magic wand". I only want Obama to stay true to his word...and not have his administration AGREE with the very reasons why DOMA and DADT need to be repealed. It's insulting. And to just issue those statements and NOT explain himself fully is even more insulting.

I understand that it is Congress who needs to draft legislation for Obama to sign. But why isn't he out saying 'hey, Congress needs to get legislation rolling to repeal DADT, and when it hits my desk I will sign it.' What's so hard about that? I'm sure it would go a long way with the gay community, and we could probably spend a little more time lobbying our Congressional members to get that legislation going.

[jcwtts1]

The reason people are saying magic wand is because it seems that the LGBT community has no real understanding of the legislative process. I finally figured it out after writing on this subject for 8 months. The president doesn't whip bills like this. You guys have to. This is how a President keeps his word. He nods to congress and tells them he will sign the bill. Privately. He tells them that when they line up the votes and the pass a bill he will sign it. He further keeps his word by telling congress that any bills that further erode the rights of LGBT people will be vetoed, and finally he does a couple of rose garden ceremonies and does stroke of the pen business. That is how a President keeps his word. What you guys want is for him to write a bill, take it to congress, whip the bill, and then pass it. That isn't his role, it won't happen, no president in history would handle this issues that way. You guys need a political arm of your movement. A good one. What you have now is a bunch of incompetent fools. So again, the reason the Pres is calling you guys into the white house isn't to apologize, it is to tell you to act like you know what is up.

J

[PhilipB]

The argument that unreasonable dismissals of Gays and Lesbians are not important does not make sense to me. Of course it is important not only for LGBT, but for all Americans where one group can be singled out, based on unreasonable hate, as unfit for citizenship, unworthy of rights the majority holds.

[Edmonsky]

LGBTQ & LGBT:
The issue is very simple. Is timing for your issues politically stupid?
The game in town is “healthcare” and an attempt to insert culture war that will polarize the discourse is what is politically stupid.

[MoeB]

Ok. Bush, of all people, was able to let the financial industry run amok, fight a war AND an occupation, torture people, and yet the Obama administration cant' handle healthcare and LGBT rights at the same time? What does that say about our government that they can't even multi-task? I do it everyday on my job. They should be able to also. In fact, I do believe it was Obama who said that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time. We aren't holding him to any expectations that HE didn't set out for himself.

[jcwtts1]

Moe, he isn't just doing health care, he is saving the worlds economy, doing health care, fighting two wars, dealing with Energy and education and the implementation of the recovery plan. He is deal with terrorism, a coup in Iran, North Korea shooting missiles at us, Israel undoing treaties, NATO unraveling, the Soviets saber rattling and the Chinese taking over south America and Africa while hold all of our debt. Plus closing gitmo, ending one war, holding off the GOP as they go insane, dealing with an emergent domestic terrorist culture, a civil war in Mexico... the list goes on. You act as though the president can't multi task. He can. But you guys aren't doing the heavy lifting you just complaining about it.

J

[GlennInVenice]

No, the issue cannot be oversimplified as you have stated despite the on-going effort of posters such as yourself to over-simplify it in that way.

If do decide to accept that the Obama administration has not yet gotten to it's policy with regard to GLBT issues, you would still have to explain why it is expending time and effort and money and other resources in defense of legislation that is discriminatory. The are not merely defending the legislation, they are doing it in an offensive, discriminatory way, adding injury in the process.

In addition, at a time of war, to not halt the practice of firing those in the military who are dicovered to be homosexual whould show some sincerity toward honoring GLBT rather than continuing the notion that we are flawed and somehow hurt the forces with our participation.

[PhilipB]

Civil rights may be in-convenient for some, but for those who are treated unfairly as second class citizens there is no better time to stand up for our families, our rights and dignity as human beings.

[PlaceboStudman]

Let's face, folks. We don't have a commander-in-cheif. We have an Orator In Chief. He can make a great speech, deliver a great message, but when it actually comes down to formulating any kind of policy, he's thrown the flaming hot potato around like a hacky-sack. And he's got us right where he wants us, too. As we pull our money from the DNC and support independant candidates, that money vaccuum will only be filled in by Evangelicals of the Rick Warren ilk (what, you thought his invite to the inauguration was just coincidence?)

We should not, can not stand for this! We must speak up and make our voices heard. Loud and clear. We must proceed with the March on Washington protest in October. And we must protest in every city in every state in this country until we are heard.

This is imparative. We must do this folks. We must not ist back on our laurels and expect the president or even Congress to do the difficult leg work. We must educate and inform the public, overwhelm them and yes even "shove it in their faces" as we've heard so many times before.

This war is far from over, and it's not likely we'll win many more battles under President Obama as he continues to come up with newer fresher ideas to distract people from the issues that really matter.

We only have ouselves and each other to lean on, folks.

[jcwtts1]

you mean like health care?

[PlaceboStudman]

these days it doesnt seem to matter what the issue is, the administration just seems to be treading water and flailing their arms to make it look like they're doing something without actually going anywhere.

[jcwtts1]

You don't swing enough juice to get more than you are getting. Not when President Obama raised 500,000,000 dollars from small donors. You just don't. A good friend of mine told me during the primaries that his uncle who is a Jewish bundler for the dems wouldn't bundle for Obama. What I told my friend is what I am telling you guys now. Obama has changed the way campaigns are financed, forever. There is no one group besides women that can effect his bottom line enough to strong arm him. Not blacks, not Latinos, not LGBT. No one. On top of that you don't have the votes that the black community and latino community have. Latinos won NV, NM, CO, they put Texas, AZ in play and hold Calli for the dems for the next generation. Blacks win, outright the following states. PA, OH, IL, MI, NJ, MD, and we play a part in NY, MA, and CT.

[MoeB]

Ok. But you are aware that there are black and latino and women LGBT's right? The groups you reference overlap with the gay community. So telling us that we basically have no clout and should just shut up and sit down doesn't serve much of a purpose. Further, there are also plenty of people who are straight who sympathize with the gay community because they have gay friends and family.

[jcwtts1]

not enough, and not solely. A black LGBT woman may vote as an LGBT or a woman or someone who is black. If all LGBT cross overs (for lack of a better term I am not trying to be disrespectful) voted only on LGBT issues you might, might have more juice. But probably not. There is only so much juice any single minority group has. Our power is with a blending of our issues, which is why as a black straight guy I care about your issues, in the hope that you care about mine. I have a cousin who is gay, but he votes republican half the time because of economic issues. The LGBT community is many things votes many different ways.

J

[jcwtts1]

Wow, ok, so don't go. Ignore an invitation to the white house and cry in your beer. You think the president wants to know what you want, no, he wants to know what you will take. If you are unreasonable you'll get what you get now. If you cut a deal, like every single group that has ever politically sought a change in their civil rights status you can get one thing. But not DADT and not DOMA. Not before the midterms. It just won't happen. The GOP is self destructing but they can be resurrected. So, come 2010 we will not be fighting about LGBT issues, we will be fighting about the economy, about the wars, about judges and choice. What we won't be fighting about is LGBT issues or Immigration, or Affirmative Action, or anything that is truly decisive. Maybe it is because your structure is so anti political, so amorphous that there is no group to talk to that can make deals. In which case I am sorry, you are doomed to disappointment.

[MoeB]

Where I will agree with you is that we should capitalize on ANY opportunity to sit down with the president. While he's gained my ire recently, I do think he is a very reasonable man...and if we put pressure on him to put pressure on Congress, we could get somewhere.

[GlennInVenice]

I believe you are getting the fact that many GLBT people are boycotting the DNC fundraiser mixed up with the invitation to GLBT "leadership" (BTW I don't think such a group really exists) to the White House. I have not heard anybody suggest boycotting the latter as it is not a fundraiser but is meant as communication. At this point, we are all about hearing from the Obama administration. However, we are more skeptical than previously and need to see some action.

[jcwtts1]

whew. Ok, that makes much more sense. Thanks :-).

J

ps - I think you guys should hold your own, with no pols there and give the money to the ten best LGBT people in congress. The more you raise the strong the message. We will give to those who help and respect us but everyone else can go whistle. Good message to send. And doable.

J

[LostRiverLedger]

More battered gay syndrome......

[LostRiverLedger]

Usually when "this" happens to me I'm being kissed in the process.......

[livinCalDemtbubble]

I felt abandoned by Obama when he put Rick Warren on the podium at his inauguration. Warren represents the Prop 8 victory, a great blow to GLBT civil rights. I now believe that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama care about GLBT civil rights. They want our $ and our talent, but they don't believe in GLBT civil rights. I feel GLBT people are in the wilderness, without civil rights, and without strong leadership. There is generally a lack of strong progressive leadership in the USA and Obama is "change" I don't and can't believe in. We need to put our $ and talent in developing our leadership, get our leaders elected to public office, and become a light in the wilderness.

[daltexman]

Obama = disappointment; Obama = anti-gay; Obama = politician (and not in a good way)

[cjkrew]

Hmmm...

Where you not watching any of the debates when the president say his belief was that married was between a man and woman!

[Glenn1441]

And yet as recent as '96, Obama supported gay marriage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-once-supported-same_n_157656.html

[PhilipB]

I heard that. Perhaps I should have realized that here was no real advocate for my family. I suppose there was always hope. Was I a fool to put the bumper stickers on my car and buy T shirts we wore on election day?
I am not sure I want to hear the answer.