President Obama - Give Us an LGBT Advocate

I didn't bother writing a story on President Obama's first 100 Days. Other than a few appointments, there wasn't much to write about from an LGBT perspective.

So my heart quickened when I heard him talk about picking a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Souter who was empathic to gays. Did he suddenly remember that we exist? But when I looked up from my laptop, I realized MSNBC was running a clip from Obama's July 17, 2007 campaign appearance before Planned Parenthood. The old cynicism ensued.

I'm not the only one who's been waiting for Obama to fulfill his campaign promises to the LGBT community.

On Friday, for instance, there was a flurry in the LGBT community after the language was changed on the White House website that suggested Obama would "change" rather than "repeal" the horrendous antigay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. A spokesperson later told blogger John Aravosis that the President was still committed to a repeal and the language was re-instated.

But the incident indicates how similar the LGBT community is to an unrecovered abused partner who scrutinizes every word for hidden meanings of betrayal. And we have a right to our suspicions: if Ronald Reagan had not believed that AIDS was God's "punishment" visited on gays, would he have treated the outbreak of HIV as he treated the mysterious outbreak of Legionaire's disease - stopping in its tracks the disease that has since killed millions?

If homophobia was not as accepted and pervasive as it continues to be, wouldn't all Americans stand up and protest school bullying that results in a suicide by 11 year old and a high drop out rate? Brown v. Board of Education doesn't apply when you're too scared to go to school in the first place.

Richard Socarides, the openly gay former special assistant to President Bill Clinton, wrote an excellent op-ed in the Washington Post May 2 that underscores the point of our seemingly deliberate exclusion from policy matters since Obama's election.

Socarides wrote in "Where's Our 'Fierce Advocate'?"

"In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither.

What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven "change moment" in our country's history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality."

And Socarides thinks he knows why Obama is gay-shy:

"As an adviser on gay rights to President Bill Clinton during his second term, I know how hard it is to achieve real progress. We learned that lesson acutely during Clinton's abortive first-term attempt to allow gays to serve in the military, an outcome for which he is still paying a steep legacy price....

It is the memory of 1993's gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president's advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical "right time" to move boldly."

But, Socarides says, that's a "bad stragey:"

"President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.

And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get "undecideds" to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, "If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew.""

Serious progressive thinker Michael Lux, CEO of Progressive Strategies, argues something similar in his book The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In American Came To Be.

In his chapter "Hope, Fear, and the Culture of Caution" Lux writes:

"[The Democrats] have been so beaten down by the conservative attack machine that they have allowed themselves to get into the habit of being cautious....Since the tumultuous change decade of the 1960s, and the ugly backlash that followed it, Democrats have often been too scared to think big about progressive change, and it has hurt them."

Caution has become a habit of mind, let alone a habit of politics - something Lux argues should be smashed in favor of "bold" action and change.

And yet "equal rights," while always counted in the litany of core liberal and progressive principles and "values," always is set aside or thrown under the bus in favor of some real or imagined political expediency.

As Lux told me during an interview - "either we believe in equal rights for all - or we don't." And "we should be able to multi-task."

Socarides offered Obama some suggestions such as talking about gay rights as he did during the campaign; help secure passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act; and champion comprehensive, omnibus federal gay civil rights legislation, similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But with apparently no openly gay friends in his inner circle - blogger Pam Spaulding asks, "Where are the gays in the Obama White House?" - Socarides' call for an LGBT liaison is important.

"[Obama] should appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Give this person access to policymakers, similar to what has been done on urban policy and for people with disabilities. This is especially important because, unlike Clinton, who had gay friends such as David Mixner, Roberta Achtenberg and Bob Hattoy around to nudge him, Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement."

We'll give him names. Here are just three:

-- Constitutional scholar Tobias Wolff who flew around the country on his own dime trying to tamp down the furor over Obama's choice of antigay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to headline a southern campaign tour.

-- West Hollywood City Councilmember John Duran, an openly gay Latino, openly HIV-positive elected official who just retired from his longtime post as chair of California's lobbying organization, Equality California.

-- New York City's first openly gay Council Speaker Christine Quinn who was once the Executive Director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project.

Socarides says:

"Gay voters who supported Barack Obama remain positive about him, and most are prepared to be patient. It's still early on gay rights for the Obama administration -- but now is the time to act boldly."

Maybe it's time for Obama to practice the empathy he would wish to see in others.

Comments

[leftypower]

First, I would whole-heartedly support Rev. Gene Robinson's appointment to the Supreme Court.

Second, we need the Administration to propose and shepherd a Civil Rights bill for Homosexuals and Transgendered Americans. End all the separate, disparate discussions: ENDA, DOMA, DADT, etc. and declare the discussion "won" for the liberals. We need to fight other battles, and all this wrangling over the "gay" issue is a waste of our collective energies. We know we will ultimately have it all at some point, so why not demand it now? Let's get on to curing cancer or "winning" Afghanistan.

[jcwtts1]

Basically every special interest group in the country wants something from Obama. African Americans want more visible positions in the cabinet, a member of the court to offset self hating Thom, and about a third of the federal seats available. Hispanics or Latino/as are angry because Richardson didn't get State, or anything, that the 4 members of the cabinet aren't visible enough, that since they carried NV and NM and probably CO for us they should get at least one member on the Supremes and a third of the federal bench. Further that their issues, since they could go GOP in a heart beat, should take precedence of Blacks because we aren't going anywhere. Women want everything. They are 60 percent of the Dems, they sucked it up when Obama beat Hillary and they turned out for O even though there was a woman on the other ticket. LGBT's who have basically crushed Obama for the last 6 months want an end to DADT and DOMA and Obama to speak out about LGBT issues even if it costs him votes. They also want a Supreme and they want federal judges and for all of that they will give.... nothing.

[joemondo]

I don't want anything special. Just what he told us we'd get if he was elected.

[poliguy70130]

As a minority member of the LGBT community, I must admit that I find it both perplexing and a bit hypocritical by the continued attempts to marry the civil rights struggle of African-Americans to that of the LGBT community. I say this only because of the fact that within the LGBT community itself, often times minorities are not seen as equal. Furthermore, the LGBT community seems unwilling to confront or even acknowledge the pervasive level of racial intolerance that lives within the community. Maybe before demanding “equal rights” from the outside world, we should make sure it exists within our own community.

[TryToBeFlexible]

I don't think we should wait to get equal rights from the bigger world, until such time as our own world is perfect. I think we can work on both at the same time.
I am white, and I totally understand what you are talking about in the LGBT community. I know whites who are gay, and yet somehow can't relate the prejudice they have suffered to the prejudices that other groups have suffered. It stinks, and is kinda dumb.
You would think that once you have sufferered it yourself, you would recognize it when you are doing it to someone else.
You should also examine your remark "I find it both perplexing and a bit hypocritical by the continued attempts to marry the civil rights struggle of African-Americans to that of the LGBT community.­" Uhh, same thing kiddo.

[poliguy70130]

I dont need perfection, just an acknowledgment of the issue.

I don't really get what part of my remark needs to be "examined"? I understand completely what I said, and really dont think there was any ambiguity in the statement.

[j0em0mma]

While I support full equal rights, No Justice should be an "advocate" for any group. Obama, pleas DO NOT give us someone dedicated to a cause, give us someone dedicated to the law. Proper application of constitutional law should ensure equal rights for all.

[TryToBeFlexible]

But it is OK to have a bunch of supreme court justices who are totally against LGBT people? And by "advocate" for a group, would that mean actually vote to support their equal human rights?
Sounds like the old winger "special rights for gays", like the right not to be beaten to death is a special right? Huh?

[j0em0mma]

Not at all. That is your invective. Please look up the definition of "Advocate" and realize that this has no place in a body intended to ensure Constitutional freedom. Full rights for LGBT are already guaranteed by the Constitution. We should be asking for people that will faithfully uphold the "Pursuit of Happiness" precedent from 1967's Loving c. Virginia, and the Declaration of Independence.

You must be aware from watching our Republican "friends" for the past couple of decades that abuse of power and agenda politics is bad for everyone, including those wielding it. Insist, rather, that the letter of the law be upheld, and insist upon its proper application.

[MacQ]

I can't fathom why you believe you have "a friend in the white house" now as one poster put it.
What has Mr. Obama ever done or said that gave you that idea?
Other than his habit of saying things in a way that invite people to assume their own fantasies, nothing.

[PlaceboStudman]

Perhaps you werent paying attention, but some of us were, and some of us are aware that he did make promises to repeal DADT and DOMA and implement ENDA

[brantley]

I think you are crazy if you voted for Obama and expected equal rights. He was only sending gays mixed signals in order to get votes. As far as the military is concerned, it should not be an arena for social causes. Gays and bisexuals are currently in the military and have been for a long time. Are their prejudice military members of course but I think most people would be surprised at how tolerant people in the military are.

[kcinci]

brantley, no one is expecting that the military "be an arena for social causes". What many are expecting is they be allowed to live their lives authentically. Even if they are homosexual (or bisexual in a homosexual relationship). Currently to be authentic means that homosexuals cannot be "out", cannot be in a known homosexual relationship without being ousted. It is ridiculous.

As for the expectation of equal rights - the expectation exists regardless of who is president. Period. The relegation of equality for homosexuals "to the back of the bus" must come to an end at some point. But it has always come with struggle for any marginalized group. To paraphrase the words of Martin Luther King... None of us are free until we're all free.

[truthartbeauty]

HuffPost's Pick

we are tired of the back of the bus.

[PlaceboStudman]

At this point, we've only just been taken off the road to be run over by the bus that Bush was driving.

[JimR]

I am tired of bus analogies.

[Mdazes]

Look on the bright side at least you did not have to start off in the fields.

[SD Indy]

Tell that to Matthew Shepard

[bigbluenat4]

I would like to point out that having R.W. speak at the inauguration was an interesting move, Look what it did to the Guy, he is now marginalized and ignored by the religious righties..­.So really it worked out. Now, The LGBT community needs an advocate voice in the administration and on the Court. Imagine having an Hispanic, Lesbian, In a committed relationship( or better yet married), with children on the supreme court? I can hear Fundi heads exploding!!

[Tanyars5]

We need another black person on the supreme court, CT doesn't count.

[diogenes1967]

Hi Tanya,

You are so right, CT doesn't count AT ALL. Even before Anita Hill, I thought that it was an insult that Bush 41 deigned to offer up CT to replace Thurgood Marshall. AN INSULT!

As far a a black woman on the USSC, here's one that will do just fine.

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2009/05/scotus-short-lister-leah-ward-sears-is-strong-on-gay-rights.html

[libwingoflibwing]

I'd like to see a Black Woman on the court who is intelligent, empathetic, articulate and is from the people instead of the legal establishment. She can use clerks to get the fine points of the law.

Oprah.

If she is in the closet, like the tabloids say, that would be even better. She could come out after she's on the court!

[Tanyars5]

Oprah is fine with me......sh­e is better than CT.

[MacQ]

You obviously have government confused with american idol.

[flea1989]

I'm not gay, but believe that gays have a right to be married and do what they want to do! What happen to America? This country used to be a country with many different people and we allowed everyone to their own! You used to be able to pray in schools and figures that depicted biblical figures were on court buildings, but because a minority of Americans thought that it was infringing on their rights they stopped it! I don't understand why people have to be that way! I don't care if your gay! I don't want to hear all about your business though! I do think though that people should grow up and turn the other way if you don't like what they are doing! Judge and Yest be judged!

[jspgiunta]

Actually, you do want special treatment, if you want to change the definiton of traditonal laws or values to accomodate a small faction of sociery. Of course, if we let eveyone change defintions of laws or ideals, whenever it suited them, then you wouldn't be special. Is this what you are proposing, or should it only be granted to your group or cause?

[bigbluenat4]

So, Getting rid of segregation was wrong? That was for a "small" part of society. What about voting rights for women? Just cause it has been around for a while, does not make it right. So, YEAH, it should be changed to suit a small group of AMERICANS, that is what FREEDOM is. Tell me oh keeper of the LAW what other "Traditional" laws would you say we should have kept? hmmmm....P­erhaps we should have let the south succeed? the views of the "Religious" right on this are ridiculous, if Jesus came back you all would call him a Liberal and probably crucify him again.

[Tanyars5]

bigbluenat4 there is a significant difference between race equality and sexual orientation. Black people continue to struggle for equal rights.

[kcinci]

jspguiunta, we're you hiding under a rock during civics classes? Have you been paying attention to how laws are made in country. The law has always been fluid and has been adjudicated an interpreted and re-interpreted over the history of this country. We didn't used to have the traditions of law counted persons of color as human being - we grew, we changed. Women couldn't vote, we grew we changed. We found that separate but equal in the civic square wasn't equal at all. We've grown to allow freedom to be experiences more and more fully throughout the history of this country by doing just what you've stated. Challenging and fighting to change the traditional laws and values that allow the relegation of a person or people to less than equal status based on some difference that the majority didn't like. These changes and growth didn't come easily "whenever it suited them". And for many the struggle continues.

It must take an awful lot of energy to protest against something that detracts nothing from you by the addition of equal standing to others. In what way does it detract from your being able to live your life in the pursuit of your own happiness if others are granted the right (or rights) to do the same?

[jspgiunta]

I've heard the racial, segregation, suffrage arguments before. What you're forgetting is those issues never proposed to change the definition or meaning of a fundamental, core, societal concept to gain their right. The only precedent they set was for their own group. You are right, when you ask what it detracts. That is the definition of a right, something that doesn't deny others their rights. Decisions concerning blacks and women getting freedom only changed things for blacks and women and robbed no one else of their rights. However, "gay" rights that focus on changing the identity of societal norms and traditions, which robs, detracts, dilutes and codifies that which heterosexuals identify with as who they are, at the same time allowing other groups to further change or dilute that concept, by precedent, does detract from me being able to live my life in a society which I take my identity from. Marriage has ALWAYS identified heterosexuals, in their pursuit of joining as man and wife, in order to further society by propagating our species. If gays want to be different, and be identified as such, great. Viva la difference. However, when you want to rob me of that which, as a heterosexual, has identified me as a unique group, from almost the beginning of history that is where I draw the line. Be gay; don’t try to mimic heterosexuals, not when you seek to change the very fabric of what that means.

[JimR]

Which traditional values? "One man, one woman"? If you look at the history of marriage, you will find examples of polygamy in many different cultures. You are cherry-picking the "traditional laws or values" that suit your agenda.

[joemondo]

Laws are supposed to be true to Constitutional principles, not tradition.

The history of the United States is one of overturning tradition in favor of civil rights.

[WeWon]

I didn't bother writing a story on President Obama's first 100 Days. Other than a few appointments, there wasn't much to write about from an LGBT perspective.

Why? Is the LGBT issue the ONLY issue that should be praised, questioned or written about?

[Tanyars5]

I thought the same thing WeWon. BTW what specifically did Obama promise the LGBT community? Those promises didn't seem to get the votes in the gay community. He received less votes from that community than Kerry did in the previous election. I really can't think of anything he promised anyone. Obama is doing a great job. LGBT community get in line with everyone else.

[rainbowblue]

"Get in line"???

whatever. Obama hasn't shown the community much of any thought. If it wasn't for a Dem controlled Congress I wouldn't even give hate crimes legislation a remote chance. Obama will let Congress take the lead on hate crimes, ENDA, fair housing, and DADT. He will sit back and make it look like he is trying to fix the economy while making the banks that contributed to his campaign happy.

At least his foreign policy seems on a more stable footing. Hopefully someone will liberal up his health care plan though, or we will have the same b.s. of a health care policy that we do for an economic one.

oh well, Obama is at the very least apathetic about LGBT issues (outside of public rhetoric of course). All this aside, he's a better pick than any and all Repubs. In fifty years, it wouldn't suprised me if he is remembered as a medicore President in policy matters.

[PhoebeH]

According to exit polls, Obama got a slightly smaller percentage of votes from people who described themselves as gay than Kerry did.

That could be explained if there were a few more conservatives willing to describe themselves as gay to a pollster in 2008 than in 2004.

Obama promised a fully-inclusive (ie including gender identity as well as sexual orientation) ENDA, and that's the promise I will hold him to.

[Cesaria]

Good point. That line stopped me too.

[Tanyars5]

I thought many of the LGBT community stopped supporting Obama when he asked Rev Warren to pray at the inauguration. Remember, they stopped supporting him before he officially became the president. Many in this group continue to disrepect the President and demand he keep promises. Unbelievable this group.

[jspgiunta]

When will homosexual people realize that being gay is not a Constitutional right? Moreover, anyone who appoints a Supreme Court judge who rules using "empathy” is a traitor to the Constitution; Supreme Court jurists are supposed to interpret Constitutional law, period. That’s why the lady outside the court building wears a blindfold. Gays should have the same rights as anyone else, under the Constitution, and afforded equal protection under the law, not special consideration or privilege because they are "gay." Consequently, equal protection under the law means existing laws should be applied equally. However, when you try to change the definition of traditional laws or institutions, for one small faction of society, you set a precedent, and then under the law ANYONE can change the definition to suit their cause. You can't just say, "We'll just change it to suit this one group and then that's it." Set a precedent for one, and it has to be for all, for instance, polygamists, people in incestuous relationships, etc. In fact, I could conceivably see some single person, wanting to take full advantage of the tax benefits of being married, challenging the law and suing to be able to marry their dog. Ridiculous you say? Just remember how many lawyers there are in this country and that we’re the most litigious society on the planet. BTW, I wouldn’t wait for Obama to appoint a “gay” sympathetic jurist; he knows that would be political suicide.

[Dindrane]

Really? When I studied the Constitution in law school and thereafter, I never saw anything in the document or heard anything that would make me assume that the 14th amendment’s right to equal protection under the law only applied to heterosexuals like yourself.

Your bias is showing and your logic leaves much to be desired.

[jspgiunta]

As I said (you must have skipped over this part; not good practice for a "law student"), gays should be afforded EQUAL protection under the law, not SPECIAL PRIVLEDGE. Equal protection under the current federal law means they shall not be denied the right to marry, (marriage being defined, by law, as between one man and one woman. If I were you, I'd get back that money you spent on law school.

[tony4sure]

You are absolutely right. Being gay is not a Constitutional right. It is a human right. Believe it or not, Human Rights are above the Constitution.

Moreover, your argument equating gay marriage with zoophilia is disgusting, to say nothing of ridiculous.

Nobody is asking to change the definition of marriage. Marriage is a social contract undertaken by 2 consenting adults.

[jspgiunta]

Stop responding emotionally; start thinking logically. First, show me ANY document, foreign or domestic, modern or from antiquity, that equates being gay as a "human right."
Second, you ARE asking to change the definition of marriage, both the current legal one and the traditional one, i.e., in the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife.
Lastly, it was you who made a connection between my comment and zoophilia; I never said the person wanted to have sex with his dog, only legally marry it to gain a tax benefit.

[PlaceboStudman]

What bothers me to no end is that decisions like DOMA and DADT are likely going to be handled through Congress and SCOTUS, and yet, I see absolutely NO mention of LGBT issues coming out of Congress at all.

Not one word.

[diogenes1967]

Nancy Pelosi has already said that hate crimes and ENDA will be the priorities in this session. But, you know how these congressional Dems can be, they talk a good game, but they back away when the Talibangelists say BOO!

[PlaceboStudman]

including homosexuality into hate crimes legislation, and ENDA are a good start, but doesn't do a whole heck of a lot in regards to the economic and social disadvantages (such as refusal of hospitals to allow gay partners to visit their dying partner) that marriage equality holds.

[SD Indy]

The House just passed the Matthew Shepard Act last week.

[distractedone]

Obama has stated time and time again that he's against gay marriage. If he's against that, then I don't know what to expect from him when it comes to LGBT rights.

[Dynamohum]

He also repeated over and over ad nauseum from Denver on that we are America's gay brothers and sisters and should have equal rights as everyone else as he described it being human rights. Heck he made it a big point in his Denver speech.

We do not want "Special" treatment, just equal treatment.

[rainbowblue]

He says a lot of things. His actions tend to be in opposite. No one can argue that the guy can't give a bad speach, but a speach is far cry from positive action.

[CelticDragon]

It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath...