Why Gays Can't Wait -- Gay Rights Are Civil Rights (VIDEO)

* UPDATE: Interview on CNN.com*

Gay rights are civil rights.

To be clear, President Obama did not exactly use those words. But about five minutes into his roughly 20-minute address, Obama echoed the sentiment at the black-tie, star-studded fundraising event hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay advocacy group. Drawing a line between the long, painful struggle of black Americans to the festering frustration of gay Americans that his administration has not done enough for them, Obama said: "It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago."

The rhetoric was striking. The country's first minority president -- a son and student of the black civil rights movement -- making a historical connection, tying together two groups who've been denied full citizenship.

The image was striking, too, as he told the crowd that, "While some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know and I know that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole." In his books and in his speeches, the question of identity -- his father black, his mother white, his early life more transient than most -- has been at his core.

And all woven together, the rhetoric and the image, the moment and the man, gay Americans and those who support their cause increasingly wonder: If not now -- with a Democratic Congress in power, with a Democratic president who says directly to the audience and cameras that "I'm here with you in that fight" -- then when? If not now, right now, then when?

Expectations were high days before Obama said a word in what was called his "big gay rights speech." Big, it certainly was, aired live on C-SPAN and CNN, dissected and analyzed in real-time on various blogs and social networking sites. Another speech -- more words, not enough actions -- read many of the comments before the speech. A quick survey of various gay blogs, including AMERICAblog and Pam's House Blend, indicated that the reaction was about the same afterwards.

Wrote AMERICAblog's John Arovosis:

What did President Obama say new tonight? Absolutely nothing. What did the Human Rights Campaign get in exchange for once again giving our president cover for all of his broken promises to our community? Absolutely nothing.

Wrote Pam's House Blend's Pam Spaulding:

If you're an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our President was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.

As I watched the live stream of the speech online, I flipped through the pages of "Why We Can't Wait," the impassioned, 166-page account of segregated Birmingham written by Martin Luther King, Jr., who, like Obama, was a recipient of the Noble Peace Prize. I combed through the chapters, re-reading some of the lines I had highlighted years ago while a student at San Francisco State University. The quote on the book cover read: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

Why gays can't wait is because 29 states ban same-sex marriages, while the Defense of Marriage Act waits to be repealed. Why gays can't wait is because gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. military, while being sent to fight wars, can't be open about who they are. Why gays can't wait is because people lose their jobs merely because they are gay. Why gays can't wait is because gay rights, after all, are civil rights.

Obama knows this. He's said as much. Now it's time for action.

* UPDATE: Interview on CNN.com*

 

Comments

[akababs]

And what did the gay community get under Bush? It's amazing to me that there is this insistence for civil rights now under a black president. Where was all the "demand" under the Bush administration?

[KevinVT]

I see the right wing / religious folks are still claiming that we want more than equality.

Let's get to equality first, and then see.
Employment: In 29 states you can be fired for being LGBT
Housing: In 36 states you can be kicked out of your apartment for being LGBT
Marriage: Federally we have no marriage rights, including inheritance, social security, immigration rights
Military service: LGB people are banned from serving openly

These are basic civil rights and we demand them NOW.
It's about equality, stupid!

[Joseph Bethea]

for number 1.how dare they compare their civil rights are being violated, have they ever been denied the right to vote? have the ever been denied the right to get a education ? have they ever been denied to sit where they want on a bus or train?have they ever been beat down in the streets and dogs let loose of them because of their sexual orietation by the police frankly i dont care what they do its their biz not mine but i do know that someone or something put two different sexes here a man and a woman i have yet to see where two men or two woman can make a baby you do the math.

[DubiousVoter]

………We are open!y and pub!ic!y ma!igned and judged by those who c!aim to be Christ-!ike; we are made to fee! ash@med for the way God made us.

We are b!amed for acts of nature; we are b!amed for the spread of d!sease (HIV) we are_accused of being sexua! dev!ants, a thre@t to chi!dren, and a d@nger to society.

We are ridicu!ed and be!itt!ed to our faces by co-workers and the pub!ic, because we are forced to hide our identities. We are !aughed at open!y and condemned_to_he!! in movies, on T.V. and in the pu!pit.

Our mothers and fathers reject_us, and their own fami!ies_m­urder_some­.

We are consi!dered_worse than second-c!ass citizens, !ess deserving of d!gn!ty and compassion than farm anima!s (e.g., as Prop 8 passed, str!pping Gays of rights previous!y granted by the Ca!ifornia Supreme Court , Prop 2 a!so passed by 63.5% to grant farm anima!s additiona! rights.)

My strugg!e for recognition is as meaningfu! and as va!id as anyone's path to civi! rights and fu!! Protect!on under the Const!tution. One group or another does not exc!usive!y own the pursu!t of civi! rights, and the sc@rs that never hea!. It is a universa! strugg!e that is shared by count!ess peop!e throughout history………

[DubiousVoter]

Just because the oppress!on of Gays does not para!!e! the identica! rights that African-Americans were den!ed does not dim!nish the profound_impact that discrimin@tion has upon Gay peop!e’s lives.

Maybe we aren't den!ed the right to vote, but we are den!ed the right to marry.

Maybe we aren't den!ed the right to education, but we are den!ed the right professiona! advancement; we are den!ed emp!oyment; we are den!ed housing.

Maybe we aren't den!ed to sit where we want on a bus or train, but we are den!ed the right to serve our country open!y; we are den!ed access to our !ife-partners in hospita!s and in de@th.

We do have one thing in common though, which u fai! to recognize or acknow!edge, we are be@t down in the streets, in back a!!ies, on country roads; we are targeted as we wa!k down the street, we are be@t with baseba!! bats during our PRIDE festiva!s (San Diego, 2009). Our estab!ishments are_stormed by the po!ice and patrons are be@ten (Stonewa!! 1969, Fort Worth, TX 2009) we are f@g-bashed and !eft to d!e (Mathew Shepard). We are_gunned_down for speaking out (Harvey Mi!k). Dogs are unle@shed on us by our neighbors and allowed to ki!! us. (Diane Whipple, 2001)………

DO NOT CENSOR MY PLEAS FOR UNDERSTANDING!!!

[Decidedvoter08]

Gays in California have had their rights taken away.

LGBT have been denied a place to sit, stand and live for a very long time.

The Stonewall riots started when police raided and beat down gays at a local bar, as they had been doing for years.

Gays can reproduce and have been for thousands of years.

[jcwtts1]

I talk about things that happened all the time on these boards. An LGBT relative of mine asked me, forget the past, what should the LGBT do starting today. So here it is:

Stop attacking the President and start picking candidates.
Every activist LGBT member, and casual friend, every relative who is a supporter, they have to start giving 5-10 dollar donations... like asap. Not to the DNC. Never give the DNC another penny for any reason. Give directly to candidates. Find the 20 best friends you have in the house, and the 5 best in the senate who are up for re-election. And give them money every single week until the midterms. 5-10 donations... no more, ever. Then pick who you want to run in FL, MO, OH, NH, PA, IL, NY, CO, OR... those races are solidifying but there is still a free for all right this moment in some of them. Pick who you want. Talk to the candidates at an HRC level. Get commitments from them, both private and public, and flood them with money. As much as you can raise as fast as you can raise it. The first candidate who gets to 1mil in the house, or 5 mil in the senate makes your rep as major players for those specific candidates.

J

[themainpoint]

As Glen Greenwald of Salon.com wrote today:

As for the "you-have-to-wait" justification, here's the time-line of the Democratic Party mentality on all such matters:

2004-2006: "You have to wait until we win a Congressional majority in the 2006 midterms."

2006-2008: "You have to wait until we win the White House in 2008."

January-May, 2009: "You have to wait until we have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate."

Currently: "You have to wait until after the 2010 midterms so we preserve our majority" or "you have to wait until Obama is safely re-elected in 2012."

Once Obama is safely re-elected, it will be: "you have to wait so you don't jeopardize the 2014 midterms." That's the mentality that produces majority power which exists for no real purpose but to perpetuate itself.

..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­.
The rest can be found here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

[margent7]

Forcing religious org's will be the next move. This 'movement' will not rest until they are the pre-eminent minority group, meaning that their rights are more important and more far reaching than the rights of ANYONE else on the face of the earth. They will never be happy with just being equal, they must be super equal. They as a group are so vitriocally opposed to anything 'normal' that they will fight it with their last breaths. Our children are not safe from their rhetoric. Their position is so ingrained into the ultra liberal education system that for a child to have the view of their parents is to be ostricized. Don't believe me? Just let your child stand on the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman and nothing else is acceptable and see how quickly they are slapped down. This 'movement' is so much more prejudiced than the 'normal' majority of soceity that to have even a minor descenting opinion gets you the coveted 'gay basher' tag. As this post will undoubtably get. Hearing the incesssant cry coming from this small group of people that have infiltrated the ranks of both parties is getting more and more monotoneous. I say give them everything they want. Now!! I dont think they care about being married, they just want more, and more, and more....

[SneathLane]

So far two of my friends have been murdered for being gay. Have any of your friends been murdered for being not gay?

We want a world where gay men and lesbians no longer get beaten or murdered by religious bigots. We want a world where we have an equal chance at living a good life. Not special treatment, equal treatment. Everything the law says non-gay people can do, gay people have the right to do.

People like you have been able to force your religious beliefs into civil law for a long, long time. Now it's time to separate them out. You can live by your own beliefs (don't marry someone of the same sex if your religion tells you not to) but you must stop hijacking the civil authority to force your peculiar beliefs on everyone else.

[SonofLiberty1]

hijacking civil authority?

ALL MARRIAGES ARE CIVIL IN THE UNITED STATES.

MANY DECIDE TO TAKE ANOTHER STEP AND HAVE THE CEREMONY DONE BY A CLERIC.

[JohnJames]

Christianity has always been used in the West as the last ditch refuge of bigots who know their time has passed and no longer have the integrity to be frank about their unvarnished hatred because they see that the tide of social feeling has turned against them. "I can't help it - God tells me so". It's quite convenient since the hodge podge of the bible can be used to justify almost anything and its opposite. Slaves shall obey their masters, for example. Guess what that biblical commandment was once used for.

[SonofLiberty1]

I guess you like the idea of making matyrs and Saints perhaps?

[BeltwayInsider]

"Forcing religious org's will be the next move."

This is patently untrue. Quickie divorce has been legalized everywhere for decades now.

Can you name ONE instance where a religious institution has been legally forced to recognize a divorce?

Can you name ONE instance where a religious institution has been legally forced to conduct a marriage?

Please stop playing the fear card.

[brobley]

People need to understand the distiction between religious marriage and civil marriage. When people get married, it is not a church wedding that makes them so in the eyes of the law. It is the piece of paper, the marriage license, that allows them to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.

What benefits? Here's a pretty good list from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

These aren't rights and responsibilities that God gives people. They are rights and responsibilities the *government* gives people. Civil marriage rights.

I don't know anyone in the marriage equality movement who wants to force churches to perform or recognize same-sex marriages against their will. Religious marriage decisions should be left to those religions. But religious beliefs should not be used to deny equal CIVIL rights to anyone. Religions do not and should not have jurisdiction over laws passed by governments.

This YouTube video on marriage equality addresses many of the concerns and misunderstandings people have about the subject. It addresses a lot of points being discussed here, and it has puppets, so it's oddly entertaining as well as educational.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G24m0j4zk_s

Thanks for a great blog post, Mr. Vargas.

[betrayed1]

Until more people are willing to say outl loud that they will stay home if Obama doesn't start keeping his promises, it is unreasonable to expecct anything from Obama.

[JonShank]

True dat!

[IcedTee63]

Betrayed1, He's dealing with Major Health Care Issues, Almost Double Digit Unemployment, 2 Wars and FAUX News. He could have easily ignored the promises he made on the campaign trail, but he hasn't. Sure you need to be certain that he does follow thru on his promises, I just can't imagine you believing that a Republican would even be willing to listen to your wishes, let alone make a commitment to your cause.

[FearlessFreep]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Pablo Manriquez - Huffpost Blogger]

Well put.

[Steamboater]

If not now, we'll never get equality and that's why DADT needs to be suspended at least and like yesterday. Dems will lose a lot of house seats come the next elections and won't be able to make up for it for years. Dems always tell us they're for equality for us but when push comes to shove, they'tre lame and cowardly. It's always the same. Suspending DADT sends a pwerful message that overtunring DADT is inevitable and especially with the majority of voters supporting it.

[SonofLiberty1]

And what do suppose will happen if we lose seats to Republicans?

[Matt Carter]

GIven my very bleak view Obama and the chances that he will do *anything* positive for gay rights, I'm surprised to find myself optimistic, at least where DADT is concerned. Not because Obama will take any action (it's clear he won't), but because I can't find any reason why Congress wouldn't pass the bill that's in committee right now. I've gone over it aand it just doesn't seem logical not to. Granted, rationality is perhaps a bit much to expect, but I think the balance of political pressure and political expediency will probably be just right where DADT is concerned.

However, none of that is cause to celebrate Obama, who's openly refusing to take any action on his own (i.e., an executive order). While an EO wouldn't technically be permanent, it couldn't realistically be reversed either. When Obama leaves office, is the military suddenly going to fire everyone that came out when the EO came into effect? Get real. An executive order ends this now.

Obama could change this without Congress, but he won't. Therefore, I suggest that when the inevitable does happen and DADT is repealed, we remember who *didn't* help it happen. Obama signing validly passed legislation means nothing. Not vetoing a bill doesn't amount to being a "fierce advocate." Particularly when he purposefully neglects the real elephant the room: DOMA.

Obama is not helping us. Period. So let's make sure that when we are eventually vindicated, we remember how much he really contributed.

[jcwtts1]

Good luck with that philosophy. I mean seriously, the President is doing more than you give him credit for, he is giving the LGBT community an opening to push their bill. If they do it well it will pass, if they can't fight their way out of a paper bag politically then it will languish until after the midterms.

J

ps -" wouldn't technically be permanent.. " you are kidding right? At the rate the President is reversing bush's exec orders? You better believe a gop pres will dump everyone. And because of the exec order they will say something like, "the law is constitutional and the exec order isn't. This is a return to the rule of law." Some nonsense like that. The exec order doesn't stop DADT it just stops discharges. That doesn't mean you get to keep your job. It just means you sit in some base waiting for the congressional clarification. Just think about this, the President is ending a war and closing gitmo letting people the previous president said were evil psycho terrorists out, that is the reversal of an exec order. You think they won't dump the LGBT but they will let terrorists go? Seriously?

[Geoff TX]

Current reality is that marriage has become skewed. It has become part of our legal system due to the divorice proceedings and such. That has made it much more of a partnership contract, like in a business,. So when you make an arguement that I have the same rights as anyone else because I am not allowed to marry someone of the same gender it does sound a bit like 1955.

However, I am curious. Other than marriage what "rights" are there that gay and lesbians do not have? I am not asking this to be a smart alec.

[SocialistDistortion]

Gay and lesbian partners cannot see each other in the hospital, for starters.

[kitfox]

Nor can a heterosexual couple see each other in the hospital if they too aren't married..

[kcinci]

how about job security, how about living where you want, how about adopting, how about inheritance, how about health care and social security... just to name a few

[Jaywalkker]

List of federal statutes denied gays who cannot marry their partner.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

I don't know how you think marriage has been skewed to "become a business arrangement" its always been a business arrangement. Marriages between individuals to seal a business deal. Marriages between nobles to seal alliances. Marriages between royalty for political/­diplomatic interests. Have you never heard of a dowry? Is an arranged marriage some selfless showing of pure love? We still put an expensive ring on a finger as a promise (or a bribe). Even the concept of a Honeymoon comes from the honeyed meade the father-of-the-bride provided to the groom.

Romantic marriage is a relatively new invention.

[KevinVT]

employment protections
housing protections
the right to serve openly in the military

how's that for 3 major things? How many people do you know who lost their job because they are straight? Were kicked out of the military because they married? Were kicked out of their apartment because they were married?

[Bobmacheski]

I think gay people should be able to do whatever they want to each other.

[GatorGrrrl]

The way the Democratic politicians need to frame it is this: The worst cop-out is worrying about the safety of gay solders. This kind of thinking is really insulting to our military and underestimates their ability to behave like grownups. This was the same reasoning that kept black soldiers segregated. We obviously think more of the soldiers than conservatives do because we know they can behave like decent human beings or face a court martial. We have openly gay police officers and firefighters and they don't face life-threatening harassment. I'm confident our soldiers can do the same.

[ron46032]

Join the military before you speak about something that you obviously no nothing about. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen are very professional. At the same time, the military is very much a macho, high-testosterone, and high-stress environment. Macho male jokes are still the norm. For the most part, this is exactly what makes a great military. However, it's not very PC.

[GatorGrrrl]

So you defend bullying and harassment? I apparently think more of the military than you do. I think they can be expected to act like decent human beings or face a court martial.

[JohnJames]

You might try to inform yourself about the horrific cases of abuse in our military that DADT has facilitated - against gay men, gay women and straight women - and how anyone in the military who is unfortunate enough to end up where it's going on is pressured to join in, lest anyone suspect them of being gay. This is anything but good for "morale" and "unit cohesion" and an increasing number in our military are beginning to recognize just that. By the way, no less disciplined and formidable a military than Israel's has done away with their equivalent ban and they report no problems as a result - gay Israelis now serve honorably at all levels, including a generalship. Or are you suggesting that American service men are just hopelessly unprofessional and juvenile?

[Jaywalkker]

Then how do women survive?

Where's the fight to get woman out of the high testosterone macho environment that harms their delicate sensibilities?

[Jaywalkker]

When my daughter asks me why family friends Uncie ____ or Aunti ____ are not married, I'd like to be able to answer that they haven't found the right person yet or choose to be single

I don't want to tell her that for all our talk, she doesn't live in a free country and that whole swaths are denied equal treatment.

[ron46032]

The country is free. You're just not able to do everything that you may want to do. For example, your daughter may want to drink before she's 21.

[Jaywalkker]

You confuse freedom with equal restriction.

The drinking limit applies to everyone, no ifs ands or buts. That's what's called equal protection under the law as per the 14th Amendment. If everyone could drink at 21 but some random minority group, that would be violation of 14th amendment.

[jhamm1]

For which, unlike laws barring gay marriage, there's a legitimate reason for.

[kladinvt]

No, the correct answer is, some people are "more equal" than others.