|
||
Constructive Impatience
I'll admit it. The Rick Warren selection stung. I really tried not to take it personally. I raised many gay dollars (insert funny visual here) for the President-elect. I received more than a handful of emails with the subject line; "I want my money back."
My 81-year-old mother said it in her own inimitable fashion: "That wasn't very nice of him (Obama). After all you people did for him...." (this may be the only time I have ever laughed heartily when referred to as 'you people')
My partner says she is done. She doesn't want to go to the inauguration or any of those balls with me. I get her point. And it's not because I'm not a very good dancer.
During the primary and general election season, everything was so clear. The President-elect is in the right place in terms of his record and on policy positions on issues facing LGBT Americans. Our community had to work like crazy to get him elected. Many of us did. Conversely, another thing was clear. The gay community's support would not bring him a single electoral vote he needed. And might lose him a few. I get that too. We are after all, the most effective weapon in the cultural war -- the last and best hope of the religious right. Just ask Rick.
And so like many of us, we look for signals during the Transition so that we can continue to believe the promise. And there have been some. LGBT community leaders met with the most senior folks in the Transition team. The team members were smart, supportive and impressive. And yes, we all celebrated the announcement of Nancy Sutley to the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
But here we are on the cusp of New Year's Eve -- and we've got Nancy Sutley and we've got Rick Warren.
Unlike my partner, I am not angry. I'm just plain perplexed. For a team that has had flawless execution, what gives?
I have come to believe that the team needs some help. A very smart friend of mine emailed me yesterday. She said:
"We can't let the right wing co-opt yet another good and well-meaning Democratic President. That is our responsibility. The poor dupes never know what hits them until after it is done. Barack will only be different if we stay connected to him and smart."
Best email I've gotten in a long time.
So with that as a very lengthy preamble, here are three ideas:
1) Hurry up and hire some gay people.
Our community has been working since February to pull together resumes. Jim Messina told a group of LGBT leaders that our process has been a model for other constituent groups to follow. I've seen the resumes. I serve on the Board of Advisors of this Presidential Appointment Project. The administration would be lucky to have any number of these folks . And the administration needs their voices. The more diverse the voices around the table, the fewer missteps.
2) White House Initiative on LGBT Americans.
In 1999, Bill Clinton created a White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. #13125 to be exact. The goal? "Increase participation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Federal Programs." Talk to some of those engaged in that effort nearly a decade ago. It worked and it paid off.
So, now think about all of the federal programs that have relevance to LGBT Americans. From Health Care to AIDS to employment to family issues. The list goes on and on and on. A coordinated effort might be the only way to integrate us fully into the fabric of federal programs designed to benefit all Americans. The Obama administration eschews constituency politics and avoids thinking of people in unique silos. Conceptually, I love that -- I want to be considered in my totality -- not just simply as a gay American. However, I believe that an initiative like this would in fact be one that would bring us together.
3) Send a message that this administration understands that equality for LGBT Americans is a civil rights issue. Appoint the first openly gay member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Don't look at us as gay Americans who have issues. Look at us as Americans who have been denied basic civil rights. This is how our second class citizenship should be viewed and it fits perfectly with Barack Obama's vision for a United States.
A quick look at today's commissioners? A woman, several African Americans, an Asian American, a Native American. Even a white man from the Heritage Foundation (don't even get me started about The Heritage Foundation).
So, to my fellow LGBT friends and our straight allies, to those who raised money and gave money. To those of us who have dedicated time and energy to the visibility of the second class citizenship of gay and lesbian Americans -- Let's use the Rick Warren choice as an opportunity to be impatient. I for one plan to be impatient constructively (as demonstrated above).
Join me. My list is a place to start. And hardly exhaustive. Perhaps you have some ideas?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Hurry up and hire some gay people"
Puh-lease. Do gay people have special skills or something? Would wear a "gay" badge so they don't look like "regular" people? Do you have reveal who you are intimate with on your resume to apply?
I understand and believe in equal civil rights, I get hiring AAs, Latinos, Disabled, I get marrying who you want to, I just don't get how who you're doing should figure into the hiring process.
"So, to my fellow LGBT friends and our straight allies...". Curious use of words. Are you stating you have no straight, hetro friends? Or do you not count them as friends at all? That, to me, seems to be the same bigotry, in reverse, that you so eloquently condemn.
Personally I'd like to see more openly LGBT folks run for -- and be elected to -- political office. Who's in the Congress now? The only one I know of is Barney Frank. And I can only think of one here in CA (Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica). Why are there not more? If they are in there, they are being silent.
Hi Joan,
I appreciate the constructive tone of your article, and think it IS important to find ways to move forward and continue to work for our civil rights.
Obama's Warren pick makes me feel weariness more than anything else. Obama is a politician, and he acts like one--and he is more than willing to compromise his positions on gay rights in order to curry favor with the right.
I feel the most frustration with those who believe that the Warren pick is part of some grand plan to help us. It feels to me like the "he hits me because he loves me" excuses of women in abusive relationships. Ugh--I want nothing to do with that sort of thinking!
Those who seek equal rights for gay people are on the right side of history, and we will continue to move forward, slowly slowly, with Obama or without him. We have come SO FAR since the Clinton years, when EVEN MENTIONING gay people and gay rights was so controversial.
With Obama, giving lip service to our cause is not enough. We need to try to get him back on a path of standing with us on the right side of this civil rights struggle.
I hope you keep speaking out and writing in this very measured and thoughtful way...
Be constructive! That is all we've been over the last 20 years and what have we got in return? A few low level administration officials? At some point constructiveness is not good enough and more drastic measures are needed. The money we give is the key. We may not have won him an electoral vote, but our money still goes a long way in helping his campaign. As so many others have said, it is time to dry up the money to him and all politicians who "say" they feel our pain and promise to help then hit us again and make it hurt worse. It is like an abused woman who can't leave her husband. Each time he says "sorry" and a little while later hits her again. The real difference with O is that he didn't even apologize this time. It shows real callousness on his part. Gay people have always been apart of government (as some many black people like point out as one of the main reasons our movement is not like theirs, we can blend in) so gaining a few more gay members to the administration who can offer constructiveness doesn't mean he'll listen. Look at Clinton, one of his main advisers was gay and Clinton still hit us with 2 major blows.
No more money, that will be constructive enough.
I agree with you Dumitch. The first thing we should do is stop - first stop donating to Obama's inaugural committee, and then stop donating to the democratic party. When we get emails from the transition team, we should unsubscribe and tell them pointedly why we are unsubscribing. Make a novel out of it, it's their webspace. And once that's done, I think we should leave the democratic party. Re-register as an Independent, a Libertarian or choose not to be affiliated with any party - but I think that the LGBT community leaving the democratic party in substantial numbers is the single most effective move we can make until we get better organized. There's a lot going on that President Obama will need to address, and he's already shown how little respect he has for us and how far down his list of priorities we are. He's comfortable with ignoring us. Is the DNC just as comfortable? Will that comfort level withstand a drop in donations? A drop in registration?
During the campaign, both Obama and McCain loved the independents; they tripped over themselves trying to anticipate and fulfill Independents needs. I'm signing up for some of that Independent love.
HuffPost's Pick
Please allow me, a bi-sexual female who will celebrate her 29th birthday mere days before the swearing in of our 44th President, to add my own bit of poetic rationalization to the mix of excellent points on this thread:
I do not see the invocation as the first words of the Obama administration. I see them as the last gasps of George W. Bush. What is more fitting than to grant the stage to a man who, all else aside, has been a vociferous opponent of extending the most fundamental promises of this nation to the "suspect class" that is the LGBT community? Let him say his piece. Let him give voice to the pseudo-moral majority (not the decent people of faith, but they who have wielded the bludgeon of religion to serve the will of Mammon) that has ruled this nation for the entirety of my days. Let him represent the inclusive nature that will, no matter how personally galling I may find the ideas represented therein, be necessary to carry forth. Then, let him step aside as President Obama takes the stage to pledge his allegiance to uphold the ideals set forth in our Constitution. The benediction will be the first praises of the day, and will rightly be delivered by a pioneer for justice, Rev. Lowery.
Perhaps this will offer little comfort to my brothers and sisters, but given that I understand the political calculus behind the Warren invitation, I find it delicious.
Pikomega - Thank you. That's a lovely thought. I so hope you're right. Best wishes for the New Year.
The same to you, yours and all.
Great point, and I couldn't agree more. As my anger over Warren has subsided over the last week, I have gone back to my usual train of thought regarding Obama, that being that Obama is one of the most intelligent, if not the most intelligent, thoughtful politicians in American history. This man knows what he is doing and what he has done has given Warren two equally appealing (to those of us in the GLBT community) choices: Warren may either strike a concilliatory tone of inclusion, tolerance, and justice for all mankind, one which will not abide his brand of Christianity or, as you contend, he may expose himself to be in direct opposition of the tenets of equality upon which this nation was built, thus rendering himself and those of his ilk to political obscurity and irrelevance.
This is what Obama does - he politically seduces those who oppose him, who would oppose his ideals, by offering them a place at his table, thereby making them active participants in his vision, invested in his success, our success, the success of our country.
Ah, some reasonable discourse with rational thoughts guiding the comments rather than reactionary emotion--very refreshing! Pikaomega and truthskr, I agree with you and appreciate your thoughtfulness on the issue--I hope it is contagious!
I was going to comment here, but I I have nothing to add to your eloquence. Happy Birthday!
So long as you're being constructive, kudos and best wishes.
I'm not shocked, Obama's fiasco with the anti gay bigot Donnie McClurkin proved to me early on that Obama would happily use the gay community as a wedge issue if it served his political purposes to do so. But I am sad none the less that so few within the gay community and within the Democratic Party refused to listen to those doubts and fears when many of us tried to convey them early on in the election.
But if nothing else, our community has finally had a re-awakening. The sleeping dogs will lay down no longer. We won't stop until we achieve equality.
I will honestly say that I have one.
Not living in the state of California, I will confess that I most of what I knew abt. Prop 8 was from the mainstream media and from glancing at stories in the local gay media. I have spent much of the past 2 days getting myself up to speed, and I have many of you on both sides to thank for this.
My thing is it is not just Obama, it's also the entire Democratic Party to a certain extent. I go back to that 36% of Democrats that supported Prop 8 in California. I go back to the Dems consistently playing footsie with the religious right (those stories abt. how into church Hillary Clinton is!), for example) And even with the Clintons, I go back to all the rhetoric abt. how multicultural and blk. they proclaimed themselves to be but when Elders suggested that maybe teenagers should learn about masturbation (as if they don't know that already) she became expendable, as Lani Guinier was even though Bill Clinton hadn't even read her writings. Same with don't ask dont tell, blacks and gays have been wedge issues at times with the Democratic Party.
How well do they really back it up with policies?
I support Obama in spite of this. But I am holding his feet to the fire also.
Jus a few of my morning ramblings. It's still early.
While I am very - VERY - disappointed in Obama's Warren invocation selection, I am one of those who "refused to listen to those doubts and fears" of Clinton supporters (because I recall that Wayneswhirled was a vehement Clinton supporter) who "tried to convey them early on in the election." Why? Because it was a completely hypocritical and candidate-blind/biased arguement to point out Obama's failings as they pertain to the rights of those of us in the GLBT community when every other candidate, other than Kucinich, shared the very same shortcomings. And, unfortunately, we already had a history of extremely disappointing GLBT policy evidence to assign to Clinton, who was very proudly laying claim to all of Bill's years of experience, which included such GLBT rights gems as DOMA and DADT.
But you're right - this is indeed a re-awakening for our community. One we would have almost certainly had to have with any of the Democratic candidates, again other than Kucinich, and one we should have had all the way back in the 1990s when Clinton, along with the vast majority of the rest of the Democratic Party, offered our community up over and over again as the sacraficial lambs to the religious right in the name of reelection expediency.
Joan Garry's friend makes a very valid point in our need to not allow this president, our most powerful and important ally to date, to be hijacked by those who would work against our rights (in the way in which she implies Bill Clinton was). We must surround this president and remain vigilent in delivering our message to him to ensure that we don't make the same mistakes we did with Clinton, because I would much rather have a president who embraces the likes of Warren but then delivers meaningful GLBT rights policy and legislation than a president who pays us a lot of lip service but then delivers the likes of DOMA and DADT when our backs are turned.
Part 1
1. Get a big time LEADER like you. I think you need strong NATIONAL leadership on this that can channel the energy. It's anger right now--I don't have a problem with that, but it can be channeled into a powerful movement if you have the right leaders. Keep the number down to just a handful that you will circulate all over the country.
2. Take LEGAL ACTION. Write a Writ of Certiorari to the SC to get your case heard along with multiple cases in various states about being denied civil rights. I assume this has been done. Argue you're denied civil rights under the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment and further argue separate but equal is not equal (no civil unions--just marriage).
Remember...and this is important....that the SC hears cases that are far reaching, are in the national dialogue (so you have to keep the momentum going) and will affect multiple states. That means you have to pending litigation in various states to meet this requirement. That should be easy.
Support Lambda Legal! They are smart and strategic. I believe going to the Supremes at this time would be a strategic mistake with the gang that's settled in there now. And now I'm not so confident about who Obama will end up seating there either since he's so into bending over backward to accommodate the right wing nut jobs of the world.
The model of the Howard Dean's 50 state strategy worked to restore the Democratic Party. I think the battle for gay rights will first be fought in the 50 states until those few holdouts look like anachronistic vestiges of days gone by.
Part 2
3. MARKET yourselves. Hire the best marketers in the business. This could take you over the top.
a. Messaging: fine tune the message toward civil rights and put faces and personal stories to the issue.
b. use integrated marketing tactics--that means hit 'em from all angles print ads, tv ads, talk shows, cable news, Larry king, poets, musicians, actors, radio, etc.
Marketing will help keep this in the national dialogue (important to getting your SC case heard) as well as soften up opponents who while have no say in the legal argument, may get closer to social acceptance.
This is so close to getting done--I think it's just organization, marketing and legal action.
4. Follow BOs lead of E-marketing. Get a website up (market it)--call it something like "CivilRightsforAll.com, collect donations on the site, link to Facebook, get email addresses, link to Change,org (the least BO can do for you is give you a prominent space on his site) ask your straight brothers and sisters to donate and participate. Heck--copy BOs site almost exactly if you have to. (sorry if I am making assumptions that this isn't already done, it may be out there already).
5. Hire Caroline Kennedy (if she doesn't get the senate gig.) She has come out for gay marriage. It would wake a lot of people up for her to be on your team.
This is how a movement moves forward. Get organized, get focused and get connected. Don't rely on elected officials, use the Constitution and marketing and your own energy.
I'd hate to see all this energy that's whipped up pass--it's a dream for a marketer to get a job to sell something that already has a ton of momentum going. If you let this time pass, you may miss a valuable opportunity.
Okay--I'll shut up now.
Please keep talking AbbieXHoffman. You're brilliant! You're absolutely right, that's just what we need to do and this is the time to do it. Thank you.
Abbie- No one takes the gay movement seriously due to the lack of national leadership and a national vision. Your comments are dead on.
I would like to hire YOU & Caroline Kennedy!
Joan, you are right on the nail-head here. You go, sister! I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I think expressing our anger while remaining allies may be the kindest thing we can do, in the long run, and thus remain active within the administration while working toward greater visibility and understanding.
I like the idea of every gay American to send Obama a letter. In the letter we can tell him who we are and why his silence on the Warren selection hurt us. We can tell him how the change he talked about so much in the primaries is just another empty promise to the LGBT community. In our letters, we can enclose a photo of our families. Picture upon picture of women, men and children. Boxes and boxes of letter with pictures. The idea appeals to me.
My partner of 25 years just asked me moments ago if I was still angry at Barack for his selection of Warren for his invocation. I was surprised that my answer to him was no. I am no longer angry, or disillusioned, or even confused...mainly just saddened. I have finally come to the conclusion that Mr. "We Are Who We Have Been Waiting For" is simply a politician, plain and simple. I allowed myself to buy into the hype, and dared to dream that Obama was different. He's not; and I am more mad at myself for hoping for Hope. So, I will wish him well and good luck.
And don't call me.
Beautifully expressed!!1
As a strategy, I'd think you'd be a bit more demanding of a result. The President doesn't make law and President Clinton probably went as far as possible for a president in terms of using E.O.s.
This has been a difficult issue for me to understand. Your comment that "we've got Nancy Sutley and we've got Rick Warren" compares apples and oranges. Nancy Sutley will work for the Administration and happens to be openly gay. Rev. Warren is a Pastor and is giving an invocation. Rev. Warren couldn't be denied a position because he's expressed a religious belief or exercised his right to freedom of speech. Is that expression hurtful? Yes. But the struggle for freedom is.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights focuses on discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. I don't see how you get any real result by demanding an openingly gay member unless your objective it to just make a statement?
"We are after all, the most effective weapon in the cultural war -- the last and best hope of the religious right. Just ask Rick." I don't think that is true.
Uh.... giving the Invocation at the inauguration of the president isn't a free speech issue.
Plenty of people were "denied a position" to do so. Everyone, in fact, except Rick Warren.
here we go going to destory our selfs before the dems even get started the gop is loving this i am a black man who went though the civil rights movement and we did not get what we wanted for years and still the truth be known we still are not equal to whites yes we have a black president and belive me he will be tasted more then any other president every have everyone should have civil rights but to put this on the same level as our movement is wrong becuase you are gay but white you still could go any were you wanted to you still rub shoulders with the elite but we hand to fight for our man hood and women hood don"t get me wrong i hope you get what ever you want but don"t blame obama becuase he is trying to bring people togather dr lowery is going to be there two and i know he has nothing agaist gays lets see what warren says if its something stupid than tear him a new ass if not spend your time getting your bill pass and get out and talk to black people you be shock how many will understand don"t be so quick to blame us remeber this was one state
Well stated, Lennix. I would respectfully point out though, that as a Lesbian there are still many places where I can legally be terminated from employment or evicted from a home for that reason alone. Likewise I would not be able to work or even volunteer for such organizations as the Salvation Army, or serve in the military should I be so inclined. Holding hands with my partner in the sunlight can also be literally a death defying thing in many places.
All that being said, I have loved Obama for years, and though I am disturbed by Warrens inclusion on 1/20, my feelings are these; I trust Obama to keep me safe from the dangers outside our borders, now I must simply trust him regarding those within.
And yes, the GOP is LOVING that different groups supporting Obama are at odds with each other- let's not make it any easier for them, huh?
And to those STILL talking about the Black vote regarding Prop 8, as far as I know, 'the Blacks' were not those h=who fought so long and hard to get that hateful issue on the ballot in the first place.
I'm in Florida, which also passed an antiGay initiative onelection day, so I know the sting very well...It just plain sucks....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
