Next week in Washington I'm hosting an LGBT Leadership Town Hall which will be broadcast live nationwide on my radio program on Sirius XM and streamed online. The Path Forward, as the title of the event suggests, will look at the critical next several weeks and months in Washington at a time when many gay, lesbian and transgender people are frustrated with the pace in the Beltway, and are often critical about how their own leaders have engaged the White House and Capitol Hill.
Call it an emergency summit meeting, trying to get at what LGBT leaders have done, what can be done and what people should expect at a time when many believe Democrats have wasted much capital and may lose seats in Congress, perhaps stalling the gay rights movement for years to come.
President Obama's order this week to extend visitation rights in hospitals to partners of gay and transgender people was a welcome advance. And he did it literally with a few strokes of a pen, writing a memo to the Health and Human Services secretary. That underscores the fact that it could have and should have been done in February of 2009. The president has said he is a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights, after all, and anyone so committed would have done whatever he could as soon as possible.
The president instead issued this order over a year later, on the very day that he headed to Miami, launching a fundraising campaign to raise money for Democrats in the mid-term elections. Gays have been a loyal constituency that has donated much to the Democrats, and some of us are boycotting the DNC because of the sluggish pace on LGBT rights, particularly on don't ask, don't tell repeal, passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and repeal of the Defense of Marriage act. A lot of people are wondering if Obama's hospital visitation announcement -- which did not offer any new rights of any kind -- is in fact all that is coming in 2010, as he has not pushed Congress for a repeal of DADT this year and hasn't spoken out on ENDA either.
And that's why I'm hosting this town hall in Washington, to talk about where things stand and how to move forward. On the panel will be Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign; Mara Keisling of the National Center for Transgender Equality; Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; blogger and activist Pam Spaulding of PamsHouseBlend.com; Aubrey Sarvis of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network; and Richard Socarides, former advisor to Bill Clinton on gay rights.
Since literally the first day that president took office, with the Rick Warren controversy, there has been disappointment that boiled over into anger on several occasions, such as when the Department of Justice filed it's heinous Defense of Marriage Act brief in June 2009. The problem is with Congress as well, which has dragged its feet. A hate crimes bill that languished for over a decade finally passed last year but it was long overdue. A vote in the house on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act may finally happen in coming days - at least that's what we're told - but it has been promised since last summer. In the Senate, the prospects for ENDA are apparently not good. And the president isn't using his bully pulpit to push for it.
The same is true on "don't ask, don't tell" repeal. The White House has sent conflicting messages, with the president announcing his desire to repeal the law and the Pentagon launching a study on implementation. But the White House hasn't publicly called on Congress for a vote this year, before the mid-term elections when Democrats could lose seats, putting any vote on repeal off for years. And repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act - another campaign promise from the president - isn't even on the radar.
Throughout the past year and half LGBT leaders have sent conflicting messages as well, often praising the White House while, to some of us, not pressuring the White House hard enough on demanding votes from Congress.
So on Thursday of next week, from 2-4 ET, we'll be hashing it out at a town hall that will be aired across the country on Sirius 109, and XM 98, as well as online at Sirius.com. We'll be taking questions from the studio audience and from listeners on the phones and it will surely be a lively and spirited discussion. Hopefully, by the end, we'll have a bit of clarity on that path forward.
Author and columnist Michelangelo Signorile is the host of "The Michelangelo Signorile Show," which airs weekdays, 2-6 ET, on Sirius XM's OutQ, Sirius 109, XM 98. He can reached at www.signorile.com
Michelangelo Signorile: Expanding the Conversation
So this attitude that a minority is "ungrateful" for the progress being made is nothing new. In fact, it's very, very old.
Peace,
J
1) What do you want?
2) What is your plan to get it?
3) What will you take?
4) What do you bring to the table?
I'd like the audacity of hope. I'd like change I can believe in.
2.) My plan to get it? I thought working for Democrats was part of the plan. Now, I am only going to contribute my energies to proven progessive legislators and groups. (So yes to the progressive caucus and no to the DNC, etc.) And if that means I'm working for/funding groups that are fighting the administration on particular issues--so be it.
3.) I'm open to compromise--but that means BOTH sides of the arguemen give and take. It does not mean the left moves to the center and the center moves to the right. That is capitulation--not compromise.
4.) I once told my boss that I would bust my rump to help someone who was failing--but trying as hard as then can to do a good job. I won't lift a finger to help someone who isn't even trying. I feel the same way now.
You were stating "facts" not in evidence.
And I don't believe you are correct. It is highly doubtful that the religous right--who might enjoy Obama telling gays to kiss off--are ever gonna join him anyway. There are too many issues--like abortion--that would get in the way.
Again--that's my opinion. I try not to state "facts" that are actually just my belief.
Reply:
Obama got more evangelical votes than any Dem since Carter so your reading of his appeal to the evangelical crew is suspect at best. Next, your entire premise is based of a fallacy, which is that you help the President as a constituency. If that were the case than congress who needs the help, would be flocking to your standard and pushing your agenda instead of hiding in their office when your agenda comes to call. No one on the dems side outside of certain geographic areas, does better with LGBT issues than ignoring them. Your delusion that your are a net positive to the dem political process is so wrong that I can't even get into the opinion/fact argument.
That concept is discredited by FACT that every time the gay community gets vocal--the White house trots out some initiative. Just like when they hurriedly signed the limited federal benifits when the DNC gay fundraiser was getting boycotted.
Just like when the White house sends out the hospitalization memo after the community gets riled up about the DADT brief.
Or are you suggesting they only want our money? That we could agree upon.
Is it a secret that the LGBT community is unhappy? Then why on earth would you assume that the white house is reacting to that anger now instead of planning for it well in advance? Your belief that the President is making this up as he goes along is insulting as well as being simply wrong. I state that as a fact because it is one. Whether I can prove it to your satisfaction is another thing.
ironic. when the president uses the "power of the pen" in this instance, it's hailed as a victory for humanity. but when thinking GLBT citizens make the same argument regarding DADT dismissals, it's "impossible".
i didn't realize there was a quota of people negatively affected as a bar for supporting correcting a wrong.
2) stop loss has negative consequences
a) political will to pass a repeal dies
b) service men/women are warehoused not at their active duty stations
c) the military can refuse (and follow the actual law on the books causing a crisis)
d) the law is constitutional
i) it shouldn't be but it is
ii) congress makes laws the executive branch enforces them
iii) the law has been challenged in court and failed to win repeal
3) There are a ton of short and long term issues that stop - loss doesn't solve
4) The president made a political decision about the best way to win this issue
5) The LGBT community has never won on this issue or any other major issue listen to the president
Because we've been lied to by politicians. Including the president.
Actually, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that DADT is unconstitutional as a blanket policy. That is, the military cannot dismiss gay and lesbian servicemembers based simply on the premise that they COULD pose a threat to unit cohesion, they actually have to PROVE that the member's sexual orientation hurt morale. The case - Witt v. Air Force - is still pending, but could substantially scale back DADT if it doesn't get repealed before the case is resolved.
Why should President Obama wave his magic pen and give the gay community evertything on it's to do list? Why?
J
For example, I think the hospital visitation memorandum that he approved of, while appreciated, required the expediture of little (if any) political capital; only the most rabid and loudmouth homophobes on the right wouldn't think that that's a good idea.
J
The LGBT community is horrible at politics. Before you go to the President and ask for help passing legislation you get your ducks in a row. You load up on votes, you have the breaking point legislative goals already researched and listed. You have people from multiple organizations ready to start lobbying and pushing. You have a war chest of tens of millions of dollars and a machine that is lean mean and ready to fight in multiple locations. You have a list of all the open senate seats and candidates to run for the seats. You have millions in individual funding and in DNC DCCC DSCC funding ready to go at the drop of a hat. You have people who can actually make deals sitting in the room and people the community will trust when they come out of the room and say this is the best we could get. The LGBT community did NONE of this. Not even close. Emily's List doesn't go into the white house and have no idea what they are talking about politically. They don't go in and say, women should be treated equally, they say, here is our legislation here are our cosigners and here is our money/political organization. We are ready to play. You have done none of prep work none of the structural work. When the white house, the most political place on the planet, sees you coming they see amateur hour. Get your act together
We shouldn't have to beg and scrape to get Obama to do the right thing. We are winning hearts and minds on the ground floor, yet being pushed back by a monstrous tax free church network.
It's us against the church, just like the blacks against the slave trade, yet where is Lincoln? There were allot of white faces during the civil rights era. Where are the straights to help our cause? Afraid to be associated, or just plain disinterested? The more people focus on our sex lives, the easier it is to objectify. We are objectified due to the "ick factor" which keeps us unequal for no good reason.
2) Dude, read a history book. "I will have the union with slaver I will have the union without slavery but I will have the union." You aren't slaves and the comparison is insulting. But typical. Which is another reason you don't have your act together.
3) I've been writing about these issues for years now. I have posts and blogs where I make the following argument.
"no one who has ever won a civil rights battle in this country did it alone." There are millions of straight people who believe in your cause but are frustrated because you guys don't know what you are doing.
Finally, you are objectified because the majority of you are in the closet. I understand the reasons for passing, but there is a cost for it that is shared over the entire community.
J
He's using a 1993 playbook, and he's going to get 1994 all over again.
Instead of blaming the LGBT community, or progressives in general, why don't you blame the centerists who are going after the center right white male vote (which they won't get) at the expense of the progressives, which they will loose.
I'd like the see the following headline:
"White House doesn't learn from history. Rahm and centerists poised to facilitate repeat of 1994."
The centerist policies are a like a brain tumor--it will eventually kill the administration. And you're trying to blame and fix a headache.
The fact that you are gleeful about losing seats is emblematic of the problem with the LGBT community. Losing seats would actually help the President in 2012. He wouldn't have to pass anything else. He could blame the GOP for everything and reitre to the country and still win in a landslide in 2012. But it kills the rest of us. So instead of being happy that you are about to be screwed over by the system, again, you should be knocking on doors raising tens of millions of dollars for candidates and firing up the base in order to save your agenda. You will never pass anything if we get clobbered in 2010. So, good luck with that strategy.
Finally, you have to read what I wrote. There are basic things your community has failed to do. Over and over and over again, while demanding other people win your fight for you. It doesn't work that way. Sorry. Come to the table with real things you have to have and with real things you bring with you in order to get them.
He had formed what was going to carry him through to the end and into the first year of the white house. And the LGBT community, who should have backed O from the start, was left out in the cold. You weren't the only ones. The DLC was decimated the same way. The moderate dems were decimated the same way. That is why the Obama admin is filled with progressives for the first time since Kennedy. My point, you guys blew it. Sure the white house blew it with the DOJ memo, but Rick Warren was an attempt to find commonalities, to close the gap, and to put himself in a position to influence Warren, not the other way around. It was sophisticated politics, that would have worked if the LGBT community had been on board, but you weren't because you were out in the cold, screaming about prop 8 and how people should wear sheets to the inauguration and calling black people the N world and blaming us for the loss in Cali. And when the white house blew the DOJ memo you could have made them wear it, but you had already savaged the President for 3 months and his inner circle said, "f them if they can't take a joke," and moved on.
I am sure rational and logical thinking will be lacking in that emergency summit.
These people remind me of the tea baggers. Screaming and yelling about things that are easily explained but they fail to listen.
As usual I luv reading your posts.
Just like selling missiles to Iran was an attempt to influence the mullahs...
J
More, they had no one in the inner circle of Obama because for the most part they backed Hilary. Not maybe that was an institutional problem, maybe that was a NY thing, I don't know, but by the time the LGBT community jumped ship to the Obama campaign he had been the nominee for almost all of March April and May and the beginning of june. Normally here is what happens. A candidate loses 14 primaries and caucus in a row and then they drop out of the race. Hillary should have been out the first week of March, the two campaigns should have spent two weeks combining and you should have ended up with three or four people in the inner circle of decision makers. Instead, the structural part of the LGBT community stuck it out with Hillary, mostly because they believed like a lot of white people who stuck with her, that there was no way Obama was actually going to win. It wasn't until all hope was lost in May that the LGBT community started pulling away from Hilary and looking over at Obama. But it was too late.
Gay democratic political operative Steve Hildebrand was with Obama from January 2007 as deputy campaign manager.
Nice try.
J
It is time for the President to stop spending any political captial on a group who do nothing to support the administration.
Let them vote in the repubs who will do wonders for gay rights. At least Bush kept them quiet.
Dude, put the gin down already.....it's making you think like a crazy person.
J
And when you say you can't suspend constitutional laws--well--I'd suggest you tell the administration to stop using signing statements to do exactly that.
J