Why It's Time for LGBT Democrats to Get Over Their Battered Wife Syndrome

The news that 10th annual LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington on June 25th raised a million dollars for the DNC must have been greeted with a sigh of relief from the Obama administration. The success of the event, which reportedly carried a price tag of between $1000 and $34,000 a plate, was proof that LGBT Democrats remain a loyal and dependable cash cow for the party.

Furthermore, it suggested that they were a cash cow that could be successfully milked whenever necessary, no matter what banal indifference or cruel indignity was heaped upon them by an administration that promised them "a friend in the White House" even as the body count from Don't Ask, Don't Tell discharges reached 265 people since the inauguration on January 20th 2009.

LGBT Americans mobilized millions in 2008 to elect Barack Obama to the presidency, working tirelessly to ensure his success--and not only because they felt he would be a president who could potentially right some of the social wrongs that have guaranteed, and maintained, their second-class citizen status 40 years after the Stonewall riots that jump-started what later came to be known as the gay rights movement in the United States.

They also voted for Obama because they believed that he would be a president for millennial America, one who would restore the country's luster abroad and unite it at home, in no small part by delivering a deathblow to the barrier of historical racism that has kept the country socially and politically stratified by color.

While the GOP appears to have abandoned its own historical roots, settling into a comfortable marriage with religious fundamentalism, militarism, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, and the lowest levels of bigotry, the Democratic Party under Obama cast itself as the New Jerusalem, the shining city on the hill where the full spectrum of American society--including gays, lesbians, and transgender Americans--would be represented and respected.

To many LGBT Americans, it was logical to expect that the tangible effect of prejudice--be it sexism, racism, or homophobia--would be an immediate casualty of the Obama presidency. All of this seemed worth spending their time, money, and hopes for a better America, to support.

The first blow came out of nowhere.

After months of speculation about which of the many inclusive, enlightened religious leaders would be chosen to bless the Inauguration, the Obama team announced that Rick Warren--a homophobic evangelical megachurch pastor who specifically spoke out against gay marriage during the Proposition 8 campaign-- would deliver the inaugural prayer.

LGBT Americans were stunned. Most were outraged, but felt compelled, nonetheless, to make uneasy excuses for the president-elect, to wit that he might be "reaching out" to "unite" or "heal" the Republican evangelical base who might be feeling "left out" on Inauguration Day. And no, he was certainly not throwing his LGBT constituency under the wheels of the bus in order to make nice with Republican evangelicals who hated him. Right? Right?

Being idealists as well as Obama loyalists, they walked off the pain ("It's just a little discomfort, really, nothing at all!") and looked to the future, telling themselves it was only a bump and a little ice would bring the swelling down. No problem, the party loved them. It was just a little argument, a rocky start they would soon smooth out, and over.

In a dizzyingly short span of months, Defense Secretary Robert Gates would tell war colleges he didn't have a position on LGBT troops revealing their sexual orientation; America would meet Dan Choi and Lt. Col. Victor J. Fehrenbach, one a brilliant West Point graduate and Arab-language expert, the other a superstar fighter pilot in whom the Air Force had invested $25 million in training, both being expelled from the services under Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morell would admit that there were no plans in the works to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, nor had there been any serious discussions between the White House and the military about repealing it; the Justice Department would file a spectacularly ugly brief on behalf of the Obama administration in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (a rancid cigar from another Democratic president, Bill Clinton) comparing gay marriages to incestuous unions; and Obama would sign an order granting a minuscule number of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, which somehow only served to illustrate how many benefits they still didn't have, compared to their heterosexual counterparts--notably health or retirement benefits--highlighting the inequality with bolder strokes than usual.

Many LGBT Democrats who chivalrously and loyally insist that any aggressive advance of their own equality might jeopardize their president's larger agenda have excused all of the above. They've told themselves, and each other, that their rights can wait because, after all, there's a war on, and the economy is in the toilet, and the president has "a lot on his plate."

Oh, and besides? He's throwing a party at the White House on Monday to commemorate the Stonewall riots. See? He loves us. We told you he loves us. He's throwing us a Pride party! Woot! Go Barry! Go Barry!

While it is indeed profoundly moving that the gay president of GLAAD will be able to bring his 17 year old son to the White House to meet the president of the United States at a reception to honor the memory of Stonewall, how much more moving would it have been for him to meet the president who had suspended Don't Ask, Don't Tell with a phone call to the Pentagon ordering them to immediately halt the implementation of the policy, pursuant to aggressive consultation with Congress about repealing it? Even more, a president who had not invited a divisive homophobe to bless his Inauguration in the first place, or who had publicly disavowed statements or briefs from his Pentagon and Justice Department that contradicted his stated positions on gay rights?

All of which makes the appeal, and success, of the $1 million fundraiser a bit of a mystery.

What if, instead of parroting a variation on the same line they're being fed by the Obama administration and those non-gay Democrats to whom LGBT rights are a very low priority, the fundraiser attendees had said, simply, "Nope. Not this time. Make that call about DADT, and then we can talk." What if the Gay ATM had simply been out of order for once?

What if, instead of lining up to hear Joe Biden tell them that the administration would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, or Don't Ask, Don't Tell, "with your help!" in spite of every indication to the contrary, the attendees had stayed home with their checkbooks until there was some real action from the White House either policy? Yes, it's a sad reality that politics turns on such a blatant financial axis, but it's useful to acknowledge it instead of the endless wait to be acknowledged as having civic, military, and moral value.

What if, instead of getting a million dollar booty-call from the one group that always puts out, no matter what, the LGBT donors had suddenly crossed their collective political and economic legs, and told the DNC "No more freebies. Not without that ring."

The phrase, "Give the president a break, he's only____months into the presidency!" has become something of a cliché, and a shopworn cliché at that. It's been used by LGBT Democrats with increasing desperation as an excuse, to themselves as much as to others--a flesh-toned cover-up for bruising announcements from the general vicinity of the White House about LGBT-related policy regarding the Defense of Marriage Act; a towel-wrapped ice-pack pressed against the swelling numbers of LGBT servicemen and women being expelled from the military under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

One would be hard pressed to imagine any other group with substantial economic clout being told to sit tight and wait their turn by the administration of a president they helped to elect---not women, not Jews, not African Americans. No other group would tolerate it.

There is a great deal that can be done now, and if there is to be a culture war, it's an inevitable one. The quest for "bipartisanship" should not be an excuse for sacrificing political integrity, or honoring a long-overdue commitment to a long-loyal and significant voting bloc. Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away, nor is pointing out the obvious fact that the Republicans are no friend of the LGBT community, or that a McCain-Palin administration would have been an express train to oblivion for gay rights. LGBT Americans voted for Obama to be their president too, not just the lesser of two evils.

It might simply be time to admit that there is abuse in the relationship, get help, become empowered, and stop telling themselves and others that everything is fine, that they just walked into a DOMA.

Comments

[PANOP]

Great Post. As usual, your articles (and use of language - jesus!) are quite brilliant.

I still believe in Obama - but I am baffled by some of his decisions recently. It goes against what he stands for and leaves me confused.

I also agree that the LGBT should not have written any check to the president without a suspension DADT at the very least. This is truly a no-brainer.

DADT is akin to government sanctioned racism. It's like we are trapped in really bad MOW.

[superstition]

The DNC insider:

"[T]he blogs are closer to the truth [on how the Dems plan to handle gay issues] than the party wants us to know. They used the blogs to their advantage during the election, and now they're trying to figure out how to control what's become a nuisance for them. The current method for the fundraiser is by not telling the truth."

Aravosis: "The Democratic party finds you and your civil rights a nuisance."

"DNC may have lied about $1m take from fundraiser; DNC insider says blogs are right on party's intentions towards gays"
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/dnc-may-have-lied-about-1m-take-from.html
"So, DNC, did that fundraiser really bring in a million bucks?"
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11824/so-dnc-did-that-fundraiser-really-bring-in-a-million-bucks
"DNC Insider Tells Different Story On Gay Dollars"
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11825/dnc-insider-tells-different-story-on-gay-dollars

[ronoliver]

Another thoughtful piece, from a journalist whose intelligence continues to impress.

While one agrees with a previous commentator on here that Mr. Obama cannot - and SHOULD NOT - simply flip a switch in the White House, especially given that it's a switch which could very easily be flipped back, one can easily understand the gay community's frustration.

However, like the very young community it is, the Gay Civil Rights movement - forged as it was in the 1970's - can be prone to temper tantrums, not understanding "why is it taking so long to get to Disneyland?" and throwing its toy trucks out the car window.

Criticizing a ground breaking event - the White House having the first-ever cocktail party to celebrate Stonewall for heaven's sake! - might be good sport, and good copy, but it fails to acknowledge the massive shift occurring in American politics that this event signifies.

Six months is a very long time to wait, one agrees, especially to a community raised on a steady diet of high speed, low fiber pop culture crap, where instant Stardom is held up as an enviable life goal. But one would caution that it's going to be another six months, and probably another after that, before real, long-lasting, impactful change will occur.

And it will.

[LintLass]

Frankly, I'll thank you to not trivialize the very real anger, and LBGT people in general, by likening any showing of our displeasure at recent actions and inactions, as 'you people having a tantrum cause you're immature.'

We all have our roles to play in this.

And the DNC is only going to cheese us off *more* by validating, or being seen to validate, bigoted arguments that we're less than human or equal, then adding this language like, 'tantrum' or, in fact *treating* us like impatient children who don't know what's really good for us.

Calling us names, even. Nice. Real nice.

[tdpubs]

The American LGBT Community (I think that is as appropriate as the Black Community) is going through a turning point in history. It is on the verge of seeing the sunshine after centuries of darkness. It is frustrating to wait for acceptance and equality.

It is frustrating to have to wait for others to give a group what they should have had naturally. The divisions created in our society is artificial and work against our best interests but like all artificial constructs, it must break down eventually.

President Obama is pragmatic to a fault and has his agenda planned. I doubt that he's leaving the LGBT Community high and dry. I do however think that the Democratic party as a whole is quite happy to do with this constituency what the Republicans do with the Evangelicals, they keep the stated goals just out of reach in order keep the cash coming in.

If the Congress actually does something about it on their own, I'm sure it will be because the rest of the country has already given up on making gayness an issue.

[1dogs2]

I've scanned the first three pages of comments and read a lot of venomous invective directed at the President, including attacks on his motives and character and threats to withhold money, give it to the GOP, or start a third party. Nowhere, however, have I seen a suggestion that the LGBT community HELP the President deliver the reforms necessary to achieve equal rights by a concerted, nationwide campaign directed at Congress to repeal the laws that deny those rights, starting with DADT and DOMA.

The struggle for change doesn't end on election day; that's only the beginning of the hard work. A lot of Americans are currently expending time, energy and money on the campaign for health care reform. They are calling their congressmen and senators, collecting signatures on petitions, attending mass rallies, canvassing their neighborhoods, and providing information at public forums.

What is the LGBT community doing? As far as I can tell, venting their spleen on this and other sites and in the process, turning off, if not driving away, their natural allies. Vitriol directed at those allies and the President will not deliver the desired result. Well-organized political action directed at Congress will.

[ronoliver]

well stated - the angry spleen vents are doing nothing more than diverting energy from the actual practical work that needs to be done; petitions, canvassing neighborhoods et al -- all directed at making Congress aware that America has moved past them in political attitudes -- will do more good than another shut down of a city street.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Nice speech.

However, none of that makes up for the Administration's betrayal on DOMA. There is legitimate outrage on that.

I do agree with your statement that the struggle for change doesn't end on election day.

Anyone who is sitting back and waiting for the President or anyone else to lead for us isn't being constructive.

Social justice usually doesn't come conveniently from the comfort of the living room sofa.

Hopefully the President has been embarrassed enough so that there are no more wilfully harmful actions taken against us by his Administration like the DOMA brief.

Either way, whether one has faith in this elected politician's words or not, we do need to refocus our energies back on Congress.

[1dogs2]

Well, we may disagree on the brief. The object was to keep the issue out of the hands of a court that would certainly have ruled against us on the merits and created a bad precedent.

[Balzac]

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" might soon be replaced by a new policy called "Don't Wear Pasties and Twirl Your Shlong".

It seems like the core of the problem is that some in the military would find it hard to get their killing attitude on while some openly gay man was sashaying along.

Think about it - In the military, everyone including women are expected to act like angry straight men. None of the traditionally feminine character attributes seem to be institutionally respected in the military. Even women have to pretend to be straight men. They're not sashaying along.

Everyone's marching along in formation, and one guy who is not trying to hide it because he's gay and he's proud of it. Even women aren't allowed to be proudly showing their femininity in the military.

Yet I agree it's horrible, unjust and silly that gay men and women aren't allowed to openly serve. So they must change the rule to not discriminate against gays but instead to directly address the style of how the military presents its self.

The military is still going to favor machismo over effete presentation style, and it will continue to favor marching over parades when a unit is on the move.

[Michael Rowe - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm at a loss to decide which part of this post is most offensive, or insulting, to LGBT servicemen and women. Suffice to say that the countries in which gay soldiers serve openly alongside their straight counterpar­ts---inclu­ding Israel, which is widely considered to have the toughest military in the world--would find your phrase "some openly gay man was sashing along" ridiculous, at the very least.

[Balzac]

Yeah, you're right. It was offensive. I'll apologize to any gay service member who thinks I wasn't joking or that I don't take their service seriously.

Immanuel Kant wrote "Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made."

This may be universally true except for one man:
Straighter than a gun barrel...
Straighter than a laser beam...
Straighter than the shortest distance between two points in Euclidean geometry!
It's Balzac! (No joke. Don't test me.)

I'm serious about ending the ban on gays in the military. It goes without saying that after the ban is lifted, there'll still have to be mean drill-sargeants who don't tolerate whining.

They'll still have terrible chants which begin with "I don't know but I been told" but many of the lyrics may have to be changed.

Also, straight men won't be allowed to make such gay jokes as they tend to do, because the door will be open for gay sexual harassment lawsuits, once the military accepts gays. If you think the "Tailhook" scandal was bad, just wait...

Maybe after the rights of gays in the military are secured, gay pride parades will feature some of the military's gay members up front to add an authoritative presence among all the colorful sashaying we see in the media.

[ez duz it]

How do you come by your knowledge of gay soldiers? Your suggestion that they “wear pasties,” “twirl their anatomy” in parade and “sashay along” is a claim you failed to substantiate.

My second lover, a Marine master sergeant, was out to his military brothers and sisters. He was an outstanding soldier who was highly decorated and much respected by his superiors, colleagues and subordinates. After he left the Corps, many of them came to St. Louis -- often bringing their spouses and kids -- to visit us. I seriously doubt any of them would have bothered to do this if they were not secure in their own sexuality or harbored any fear or lack of respect for him or me. Actually, quite the opposite was true.

He was proud because he lived his life with honor, strength, integrity, service and humor -- whether serving in the Marines or living a civilian life. He accepted his being gay as simply part of who he was . . . neither something to caricaturize, nor something to hide in shame.

He was killed in 1987. Your words are an insult to his memory and to the many gay and lesbian soldiers I know who currently serve our country with distinction and the highest standards of professionalism.

[CentralVA]

Great column. It bears mention that LGBT Americans are not the only ones reluctant to take a good, hard look at President Obama's actions. The harsh truth is that although Obama promised change, in many respects he is very similar to his predecessor.

[superstition]

Aravosis opined that only about $250,000 was likely raised and that the DNC is using trickery to report 1 million.

One thing that would help us is if the media would talk about the military's own studies that undercut DADT before it was even put in 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 study was (clearly) not the first time that a group of researchers had reached the conclusion that the sexual identity of service personnel is not relevant to military service or job performance.

The RAND report...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

[Squaker]

The LGBT is incredibly weak when it comes to criticizing the democrats

So for instance I don't believe I have heard a peep about the new supreme court justice. She is about to be appointed for life,and I would be willing to bet that she opposes protecting gay marriage at a federal level. Instead she is someone who believes that individual states should decide their own civil rights policies. So gay people in the south will never have equal rights with her on the court.

Gay people should urge their congressman to vote against anyone that does not believe in equal rights.
The republicans don't have a problem making sure their justices will discriminate against gay people, the democrats should be making sure that theirs don't

[bowthai]

Amen and thank you!! Nothing to add since you said it so well.

[Thane MacPherson]

This wasn’t about taxes, or schools, or crime. It was about human rights.

A man stood up and swore to the people before him that he would listen to their plea for dignity, would secure rights for them, and would set plans in motion to protect them from persecution, bigotry and predation. This man raised his fist and shouted ‘change!’ and hope sprung up.

And now, this man has gone back on his word.

The gays have a right to be miffed.

[tdpubs]

I'm sorry but can we all give the administration a chance to outwit these nitwits that tend to get stuff botched up before real change can actually happen? If it was going to be easy, it would have happened in the previous administration.

It's not about flipping a switch. If it was, the switch can easily be flipped back again. I for one am as impatient as those in the various LGBT groups but the pressure must be place on the Congress to pony up. The pressure must be be from straight people like me as well as the LGBT community to make the changes we believe come true.

[talkstocoyotes]

The "chances" started being given, at the very earliest, a year ago when Obama made what should have been damning comments about marriage equality that went well beyond the insipid "I support civil unions" comments of the other Democratic candidates. He clearly stated that he opposed actual legal marriage for same-sex couples because the word "marriage" had a "spiritual" connotation. No, better to revive the Jim Crow staple of separate-b­ut-(un)equ­al and give gays civil union status.

In other words, same-sex relationships simply do not measure up to anything much more than a friendship with benefits. Whether one thinks that marriage equality is the most important issue or not, those remarks indicated an attitude toward LGBT citizens that precluded any real commitment to their being equal citizens under the law. That was when people should have started screaming bloody murder and shutting down the ATM and it didn't happen.

It's time for it to happen. Obama isn't going to do squat other than make one pretty speech after another, right up to the end of his second term if he gets one.

[KidHollywood]

AMEN BROTHER!

And THNAK YOU MICHAEL ROWE for telling it like it is.

I am actually very surprised and saddened that more Huffpost Bloggers have not written more posts about this subject and whats going on in the GLBT community. Especially the celebrity Bloggers

Thank you for having some balls.

[HesDanTheMan]

If you want to put your money in a candidate who is putting "Equality for ALL" over his political career, then help us elect Gavin Newsome in California as our next Governor.
He's been at all our local big Gay Pride Parades in the State, and he recently said that he's putting OUR equality over his political career.
Show him support and donate to his campaign. He's the one Democrat who has actually come through for us, no matter what the opposition has thrown at him!

[daltexman]

i will do that even though i am a texan -- great idea, dan!

[NickfromCali]

Don't donate to anyone supported by Dianne Feinstein.

[HairFarmer]

Amen Nick.. i have hated Feinstein since the day she banned teh Grateful Dead from SF in 1984.... she is a conservative who could never get elected as a democrat in the northeast ( I live in the east bay now, originaly from boston )

[tdpubs]

Amen. As a Californian I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Mayor Newsome has his personal issues, but as an elected official, he's the man. I'm voting for him.

[Awake-and-Sing]

I have to advocate for Jerry Brown, who was Governor in the 1970's, is the State Attorney General and is actively fighting against Proposition 8 now in federal court.

I wish Gavin had run for Lt. Governor because we need them both.

However, I believe that all around, Governor Brown is a better candidate for the job. California is in crisis and he knows the levels of power well enough to help us.

We have two solid choices for Governor. I wish I could vote for them both.

[johnsopinion]

You can demand "change," "your rights," etc., from now til the cows come
home, and this holds true for any group, but as the article tries to lead,
until you affect them where it counts the most, their pocketbooks, nothing
substantial is likely to happen.

Withhold the money. That, they understand.

[daltexman]

why haven't more huffposters posted a comment on this article? my guess is that the truth hurts -- you know who you are, Obamapologists!