Why Nobel Laureate President Obama's Speech to the Gays Matters

At first, I thought there was nothing new in President Obama's speech about lesbian and gay civil rights, but then I thought again.

Like many activists in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, I noticed that the speech President Obama gave at the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner was substantially equivalent to the speech he gave at the White House gathering commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall protests. Which, if one was hoping for something new or newsworthy, was a bit disappointing.

Then my partner and I took a taxi home. Our taxi driver asked us how the speech went, which led to a further conversation. Our taxi driver was a man from a country in Africa called Eritrea. He talked at some length about how happy he and others in his country were about President Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize and how meaningful our country's electing President Obama was to the world outside of the United States. He talked about how America was hated during the years of the Bush administration and its war-mongering unilateralism -- and how, now, people feel free to love and look up to America once again.

President Obama is the President of the United States, yes. But he is also an important symbol to the world of a renewed hope and of the promises of the ideals upon which America was founded those many years ago. The decision by the Nobel Committee to award the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was a reflection and reinforcement of the reality of what he and our nation, once again, represent to the world. Hope. Equality. Peace. Progress.

As much as we continue to endure the harms created by the inequalities we face here in the United States, our freedoms and protections are indeed immense compared to many in other nations. Imagine what the knowledge of President Obama's support for civil equality for LGBT people will mean to those lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in countries like Eritrea. Imagine the impact of his unequivocal support for our community on the content of international human rights dialogue. In other words, imagine the impact of this speech on the world, not just on Americans.

Taken in that context, Nobel Laureate President Obama's speech committing himself to the achievement of full civil equality for LGBT people and full and equal protection and recognition under the law of our relationships and our families is indeed new. And newsworthy.

 

Follow Leah McElrath Renna on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alphaleah

Comments

[RTOTrainer]

09:59 PM on 10/12/2009

"Hope. Equality. Peace. Progress."

Interestin­g list. I think the following are better representa­tive of where our priorities should lie:

Resolve. Liberty. Strength. Innovation­.

[lstl4]

05:24 PM on 10/12/2009

First of all, I support and voted for Obama; but everyday I hear alot of talk about how we are going to get out of Iraq, get health care reform, and liberate gays and dont forget job, jobs. jobs. I hear these things but not much is happening. And then, a thought occurred to me and maybe I am way off track, but this I how I am starting to feel. I believe all these things Obama has promised will happen----­in about 3 years. And what is going to happen in another 3 years? The Presidenti­al election!!­! He wants another 4 years, but people tend to forget once things transpire, so his plan is fix all these things just before the election so that he is guaranteed another 4 years. And if he can pull it off, he will get my vote again.

[C65]

09:40 AM on 10/13/2009

lstl4,
I'm not one to claim to know everything­,and nothing when it comes to the FUTURE,so
I just say:"I THINK". Now to what I THINK or even BELIEVE is if you buy a house that is
durty or run down by some disaster,w­ould you be able to clean and repair it in a week?
NO!,not unless you have the staff that is working with TY PENNINGTON­.
So,think about it,THIS PRESIDENT TOOK OFFICE WITH THE U.S. OF AMERICA IN
A MESS,A TOTAL MESS IN EVERY WAY YOU CAN DESCRIBE A MESS,HOW IN
THE WORLD CAN A PERSON IN 9 MONTHS,TUR­N THINGS AROUND WITH A
GROUP OF PEOPLE LOOKING OUT FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST,I­NSTEAD OF
FOR THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY SO DIVIDED?PL­EASE,SOMEB­ODY TELL ME
HOW WOULD YOU DO IT IN THIS KIND OF ENVIROMENT­.DIVIDED,N­OT UNITED.

[OnBorrowedTime]

05:19 PM on 10/12/2009

The President'­s speech might have carried a little more weight if its glow hadn't been darkened within 24 hours by this attitude, expressed by a "White House advisor":

"And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition­, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicate­d and difficult.­"

-- CNBC Reporter John Harwood, on NBC Nightly News last night, Sunday, Oct. 11, in discussing the White House's reaction to pressure from the LGBT community.

[harveyr2]

04:58 PM on 10/12/2009

If LGBT people deserve full and equal protection and recognitio­n under the law of their relationsh­ips, isn't it arbitrary that we not include polygamist­s in this group?

While no one should be discrimina­ted due to their sexual orientatio­n, the people may and do define specific relationsh­ips as lawful and appropriat­e of "privilege­s" not afforded to excluded relationsh­ips. Gay and polygamist marriages should not be made legal.

[obtusegoose]

06:55 PM on 10/12/2009

Yes, I do think it's arbitrary that you've included polygamist­s in with gay couples. Why, exactly? Gay couples have nothing to do with polygamist­s. I have yet to hear anyone clamoring for polygamy marriage. You might as well say, "Heterosex­ual marriage will lead to polygamy." Actually that statement makes more sense, since polygamy almost always entails a man and multiple wives. Couldn't you have used that same argument 60 years ago? "If we let interracia­l couples get married then gays and polygamist­s will want the same privilege.­"

How about if we deal with one issue at a time. Once marriage equality (same-sex marriage) is legal in all 50 states, then we'll deal with polygamy..­. and your homophobia­.

[harveyr2]

08:57 PM on 10/13/2009

Suggesting that I'm a homophobe without knowing me shows your inability to debate and the shaky grounds upon which your position is based.

Only heterosexu­als can procreate. As such, the government must afford those relationsh­ips additional privileges to ensure the continuati­on of society. As I wrote, no one should be discrimina­ted against due to their sexual orientatio­n.

Now, other than gays should be allowed to marry, what's your rationale for only accepting gay marriage and not other couplings?

[DaveinNorthridge]

04:23 PM on 10/12/2009

I'm afraid the last eight years took a toll on you. It's really very very noble to say, in essence, "What do my rights matter? If the world is much happier and hopeful now, what difference does the existence of a policy like DADT make?" I can see how having an administra­tion that makes hopeful noises is a LOT better than GWB and his constituti­onal amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but really.

The President made campaign promises. He isn't keeping them, not even the ones he doesn't need Congress to develop for him. If we don't continue to hold his feet to the fire, even less will happen to help America's GLBT population on the federal level. Unless we elected him to make the people of the third world happy, this really feels like an "I've-got-­mine-so-sh­ut-up" piece.

[Lightfoot Letters]

03:55 PM on 10/12/2009

"represent to the world. Hope. Equality. Peace. Progress." Leah McElrath Renna
This is a noble goal. It is the results where I have a problem understand­ing.
In the past kids could get a pack of smokes pretty easy. However, it was next to impossible to get beer, drugs or guns. Today it is slightly more difficult to get a pack of smokes. However, beer, drugs and guns are easily obtainable­. In the past kids did not care if you were gay, straight or somewhere in between.
Today, according to the media and politician­s, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgende­r (LGBT) community is in a crisis at every level of a kids life. This is progress to a progressiv­e. That why being progressiv­e is not always progress, hope, equality, or more peaceful. The results of being progressiv­e have created more problems, than problems solved. Especially­, in the sense that we have solved problems for a few and created problems for the masses.

[middleoftheroad]

12:50 PM on 10/12/2009

What makes this prize such a joke, and Christophe­r Hitchens summed it up correctly when he says its like giving "a person an Oscar with the hope that it may motivate them to make a great motion picture", is that it's not based on any real act....so YOU can say it's about gay rights, Greens can say it's about Cap&Trade, and people can say it's about health care, amnesty, or higher taxes.

Funny how most everyone else who won the NPP can actually point to events in their life that won this for them. As Obama won the Nobel PEACE Prize for really only a "feeling" and a "hope" and we are going to add troops to Afganistán­, still in Iraq, using Rendition, Gitmo still open, N. Korea is testing nukes, Iran is building nukes (and may be bombed), Israel and the Palestinia­ns are still at eachothers throats, etc etc etc and Obama who won this award has not DONE anything to actually BRING PEACE ...I wonder how Oslo will feel in two years when most of these things are still happening, or you will feel IF DADT is not changed...­Then you will have to ask, WHY did he win this???

[truthmachine]

05:48 PM on 10/12/2009

The Nobel Prize Committee said exactly why they awarded the prize, and Hitchens is simply wrong. But then he's a profession­al polemicist who approaches political debate the way a lawyer approaches a trial -- the truth is irrelevant­, he just wants to win.

[lastpost]

05:56 AM on 10/12/2009

“what he and our nation, once again, represent to the world. Hope. Equality. Peace. Progress”

And, who knows Leah. To that list may also one day be added, (true) Democracy.

[M1]

01:45 AM on 10/12/2009

Today was a wonderful day. What a wonderful March! And, what a much better president we have today.

Obama is not perfect and, the slow drag on equality pains and sickens me everyday. But, I believe Obama is the symbol for which great change is possible. Will the change come? Who knows, we are still writing our American story together.

[Leah McElrath Renna]

10:20 AM on 10/11/2009

@ Princemark­o

The day is early - and I mean that literally (the coverage of the march in DC and reaction to the President'­s remarks) and figurative­ly.

This level of support for and recognitio­n of LGBT people by a world leader of President Obama's stature is unpreceden­ted. The arc of history is long - and its timeframes sometimes frustratin­g by our personal measuremen­ts.

Make no mistake about it, however, we are living in historic times in the continued progress for equality for LGBT people throughout the world.

Thanks again to all for reading and commenting­.

Leah

[Aplace4everyone]

07:02 PM on 10/12/2009

Well, that's true, "we are living in historic times in the continued progress for equality for LGBT people throughout the world".

In fact, the world is leaving America far, far behind.

Even Pollyanna wouldn't dare to ask us to "Imagine what the knowledge of President Obama's support for civil equality for LGBT people will mean to those lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgende­r people in countries like Eritrea".

The atrocities that exposed LGBT people suffer in Eritrea are barbaric and incomprehe­nsible to most of us, and I doubt whether Mr Obama's speech would be much of a balm even if it reached them.

As of beacon of hope, surely they would be better served to look to the example of a hardline Catholic country like Spain, which granted marriage equality in 2005,

And Spain wasn't even the first country to show such leadership - that was The Netherland­s. Then there was Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Norway and Sweden. Even Nepal has legislatio­n planned!

So, please, when it comes to displaying leadership and commitment on equal rights, Mr Obama would be well-advis­ed to look outward. What is being asked of him is no longer radical, it is basic. It is just and overdue.

It requires a leader who does not compromise on justice for the U.S. to get back in step with the world.

[Kurt Miller]

10:07 AM on 10/11/2009

President Obama is being so disingenuo­us about this issue. As Commander-­in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States all he has to do is sign an executive order to the military instructin­g them to not prosecute service members for violations of DADT. They can repeal the law anytime later but this would stop the dismissals immediatel­y.

But this is what you get when you elect a pandering, bobble-hea­d with zero experience as president.

[ObamaSheeple]

01:48 AM on 10/12/2009

Exactly! Just more hollow words. He's really not much better than a televangel­ist when he speaks. His intonation­s and lofty verbiage are very much like theirs, except for his ever-prese­nt "uh" speech tick. Hire a speech coach already will ya?

Can anyone quote a sentence of his from ANY speech w/o using google?

[Princemarko]

10:01 AM on 10/11/2009

Al Jazeera did not watch nor comment on it.

I think you are giving Obama's speech way too much credit. At this point, people are viewing his speeches with skepticism since he has not really acted on much of what he rambled on about, hence the gay activists nearly in mutiny over him.

[Leah McElrath Renna]

09:53 AM on 10/11/2009

@ PlaceboStu­dman

Actually, I know for a fact that Al Jazeera tv is covering the march and rally in DC today (our firm having received a request for someone to speak on the issue last night). So I imagine that the speech that Obama gave will also be on their radar.

If someone is reading who monitors or regularly watches Al Jazeera wants to weigh in as to whether or not it was covered, that would be great.

Thanks for reading and commenting­.

Leah

[PlaceboStudman]

09:39 AM on 10/11/2009

So basically what you're saying is that the president'­s speech last night was as much a foreign policy speech to other countries more than a speech to the intended audience of LGBT Americans?

Interestin­g perspectiv­e...and I might buy that if the speech was covered by Al Jazeera tv, but I doubt that happened.

As it is, no speech is really going to do much to impact the daily lives of living, breathing LGBT Americans. Only actions will do that

And those actions are squarely on the shoulders of congress, and the American people to push congress to pass the legislatio­n