Now is Not the Time for Delay

President Obama's recent remarks to a largely gay audience at a White House event celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots that he believes that after his term in office, gay people will be pleased with his work were a combination of strange, hopeful and, not least, puzzling. Obama's comments indicate he is clearly aware of the frustration many people feel because of his inaction on a number of important issues such as repealing the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy, failure to take on the ill-conceived Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and to take a stronger position on marriage equality, or at the very least on expanding more benefits to the partners of gay federal employees.

It is too early too know whether Obama's promise at the Stonewall celebration is to be taken seriously or if it was his attempt to extricate himself from a potentially difficult situation by making more promises. While the window for giving Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his commitment to these myriad issues of important to gays and lesbians is still open, it will close soon, so will the moment when the administration can act on these issues.

The nature of the presidency is that it always faces a number of different, but equally important, issues at the same time. At the top of the list for the Obama administration at this time are domestic policies such as health care, the energy bill and the ongoing economic crisis as well as foreign policy issues such as the fallout from the election in Iran, the upcoming summit with Russia, another handover of in Iraq and recent events in Honduras. This is, to be sure, enough for any president. While one can recognize the challenges facing the administration, the number or breadth of these challenges in of themselves are not sufficient to preclude action on what should be a clear cut issue such as repealing DADT or extending more benefits to the gay partners of federal employees.

There are about two plausible explanations for the delays of the Obama administration on moving forward on these fundamental issues of equality. The first is that they simply do not think these goals are important and have no intention of moving on them at any time. The second explanation is a little kinder to the administration. Perhaps Obama is being sincere when he says that he is going to address these issues, but is simply waiting for the best time to do it. The question, of course, which this explanation raises is, when?

The notion that now is not the right time to address issues of equality for gays and lesbians may, at first glance, make some political sense, but it does not hold up under more serious scrutiny. The argument for delaying would be that health care should not be jeopardized due to gay rights which can be passed at a later date. The problem with this argument, in short, is that it no longer makes sense. It is an argument from another era. The health care fight will be very rough, but opposition to health care will be driven by the insurance companies, medical associations, Fox News and other right wing ideologues. While these groups will use any tactic necessary to win this fight, it is difficult to see how linking Obama to a gay rights agenda will sway any votes in congress.

While these issues may be somewhat polarizing, the strategic reason to wait is less clear. Strong opponents of gay rights will be vehemently opposed to health care reform and mobilized accordingly almost regardless of what Obama does. Moreover, failure to act on gay rights will not stop the right wing media and political forces from attacking Obama as an extreme social liberal.

Winning a legislative struggle like the one which is looming regarding health care will require Obama to have all his major constituent groups fully supporting him. This fight may require having voters pressure their senators and other forms of mobilizing public support. This will be difficult to do if a key part of the Democratic coalition, such as gay and lesbian voters, is angry and disappointed with the administration.

There is also little reason to believe that the time will be better to focus on repealing DADT or DOMA after the health care battle is over. If the health care bill fails, Obama's presidency will have suffered a big defeat. While the Democrats will still enjoy big majorities in both houses, attention will turn to the upcoming midterm elections and Republicans will be further emboldened to stall or otherwise push back against a weakened president. If health care succeeds, the administration will be in a strong position, but not for legislative purposes, a noticeably stronger position than the current one. More importantly, the idea that holding off on gay rights will improve the chances of winning on health care may well backfire damaging the chances for winning on both.

Comments

[superstition]

It looks like delay is all we're going to get:

"Obama deputy campaign manager abandons DOMA & DADT as priorities"
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/obama-deputy-campaign-manager-abandons.html

"After two weeks of the Obama White House reeling over the gay backlash caused by the anti-gay DOMA brief, which compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, we now have... First, that the burden for doing anything pro-gay in the remaining three and a half years of the Obama administration is now shifted to Congress. Obama has no role whatsoever, and no power to influence anything, even though he's still the leader of the free world. Second, the three big gay rights priorities that Congress should be focusing on do not even include what have organically become the community's top two priorities: repealing DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. They're not even mentioned in the Obama deputy's essay."

[RoriRaye]

Hi - just a question, not a comment, for those who know more about how government and the military work than I do...Is there some way, other than direct, executive action by Obama, that would solve these issues? For instance, can this be addressed by congress or the military? Forgive me if this is a stupid question - I'm generally always looking for a silver lining somewhere, perhaps there is none. I always give Obama the benefit of the doubt - but this whole thing has just sort of taken the wind out of my sails (and I imagine those of many others who'd like to give 100% but just don't feel moved to right now - badly in need of some inspiratio­n...).

[Romulus]

Well, Rori, ultimately it IS Congress that must deal with both DOMA and DADT. They are both Congressional laws and only Congress can repeal them, not President Obama. He can submit legislation to Congress but it is Congress that must enact it.

[EmilyH87]

I think that it is easy for people to highly criticize Obama for his slow progress on the Gay Rights issues that he promised to address, however, I support Obama's honesty when it comes to the issue. I support gay rights and gay marriage but I also believe that it is an issue that needs to be taken extremely seriously. At this point in time, the Obama administration clearly does not have the opportunity to give these issues the attention that they deserve (not to mention the shaky ground that currently exists with issues such as health care reform up in the air). With so many pressing issues on their plate, the Obama administration needs to prioritize and concentrate on more pressing domestic and foreign issues that have an effect on every single citizen (including homosexual Americans) of America, not just one group. I believe that the Obama administration will at least attempt to live up to its promises. In an online article by the New York Times Obama was quoted as saying "It’s not for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half-century ago." Just the fact that he compared these issues to an issue such as equal rights for African Americans makes me believe that Obama has made genuine promises.

[BringmeReason]

Can I then ask you a more intriguing question, since you think the President should focus on the entire country instead of one group of people in particular? In times of segregation, separate but equal, do you think that the President was considering any forms of back-lash it may entail to the country as a whole when ending such discriminator laws and policies?

What is the problem, is the President bipolar? Is it so inconceivable that he can simply pass an executive order, even at bare minimal to suspend DADT until further proceedings that will terminate the policy? Or that he can extend basic rights to the GLBTQ community that heterosexuals currently enjoy?

Such terrible excuses, perhaps we should stop babying this President, at the beginning of his campaign he stated many goals he wanted to achieve, I would think that basic civil rights was one that could be easily and quickly attained.

[Romulus]

Yes, Obama COULD issue an executive order suspending DADT, but would that be wise? Executive orders can be recinded by the next executive.

Other than that, how can Obama "extend basic civil rights to the GLBTQ community that heterosexuals currently enjoy"? Why do you think that "basic civil rights was one that could be easily and quickly attained"? What quick and easy mechanism would you use to attain those basic civil rights?

[PerfumeisToxic]

Just wait till after the midterm senate elections and then expect some action then. 18 months is all. Obama needs to be in a good position and do nothing "naughty" about anything until after the midterms.

[Tanyars5]

Ok, Obama told you its not happening. It's time to think of a new strategy. Gay people have been demanding, stomping and screaming at our great President ever since the election. HP can stop putting up 10 articles a day about this subject. Its over.
I would suggest that gay people take a class in American History and American government. If the posters on HP are a barometer, many gay people lack fundamental understanding of how our government works. They also lack knowledge of American History.

[BringmeReason]

I sometimes wonder why you come on all these 10 boards that hold this sort of discussion? I mean if it's a non-started why even bother to comment? Seems particularly strange, none-the-less, we will continue to make our voices heard, whether you think it's futile or not.

[cminca]

First of all--it is President Obama.

Secondly--he SAID it was happening. The point of these blogs is the fact that it isn't happening.

And finally--Why don't you stop demanding, stomping and screaming about people excercising their right--actually their obligation--to critisize their government?

"...of the people, by the people, for the people." Ever heard of it? Or should we just assume it is over your head?

[superstition]

He said that sexual orientation has no relevance regarding eligibility for military service. That means the firings should have ended on day one.

Decades of stonewalling, and still more from the Obama administration. DADT was undermined by the military's own studies, studies it stonewalled/buried before it was even put into place:

"The 1957 Crittenden report found that gay men posed no great national security risk in terms of susceptibility to extortion.

The 1988 PERSEREC/S­arbin-Karo­ls report concluded that homosexuality was as unrelated to military job performance, as was right- or left-handedness.

The 1989 PERSEREC/McDaniel study found that in terms of background characteristics prior to entering military service, gay men were "as good or better than the average heterosexual" in terms of suitability for positions of trust -- that is, gay men did not appear to be a national security risk."

"The 1993 RAND report was not the first time the research was ordered by politically accountable members of the executive branch rather than by politically insulated members of the military services. And the report was made public almost immediately, while the Crittenden report was buried for 32 years. The PERSEREC/S­arbin-Karo­ls report was tied up by the Pentagon for almost a year. The second PERSEREC report (McDaniel) was never submitted to DOD."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Go9XsJ47GswC

[SILVANUS]

I say give O a little time. Hard to keep doing this, yes, but I think the man works his spell measuredly.

[JohnJames]

Lots of gay Americans saw something significant in Obama's courtship of Rick Warren (and took a hell of a lot of flak from many straight liberals, in full Obama swoon, for making a fuss about it) - a sign that Obama's fundamentally a schmoozer who seems to be incapable of recognizing that on some issues - gay legal equality is just one of them - the gap between opponents and proponents can never be bridged. He'd better learn soon to man up and take sides before his administration is labeled as totally ineffectual, no matter the issue. That aside, his hastily tossed together memorandum regarding gay federal employees in the face of a boycott of the gay fundraiser for the DNC only served to confirm suspicions that Obama is just trying to string gay Democrats along.