President Obama Should Show He's Queer Like Us
One of the least glamorous ways to advance gay rights is to tell our stories. Again and again and again. Lavish fundraising balls are more fun, as are marching past the White House, meeting with senators, and blogging or writing op-eds (my own personal weakness). Introducing ourselves over and over again to the nation can be boring, can seem unnecessary if you live in an urban bubble where most people already get gay people, and is definitely an unfair burden: gays who seek basic equality must always be on their best behavior to try to earn rights that heterosexuals take for granted.
Gays and non-gays should share this burden, and my hope for President Obama's "big gay speech" tomorrow is that he has absorbed this lesson. Many of us have expressed frustration with the president for his failure to put real political capital behind campaign promises to fight for equal rights for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation. It's hard to imagine that the president has yet developed the courage to announce at this speech a major new policy initiative such as lifting the ban on openly gay troops by executive order, or a legislative effort such as beginning the work to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. And his presence alone at a dinner of the largest gay rights organization in the world will not quiet the gay community. Nor should to it give license to the rest of the progressive community to stand idly by.
What President Obama can do at this speech is to model how a genuine straight ally can do his or her part to help end discrimination against gay people. Yes, he's the President, and so he ought to do much more. But until he does, he should be sharing our stories with the world, to help make it clear why equal rights matter--to gays and non-gays alike. Show the world, Mr. President, how we are just like you, and perhaps more important, how you are just like us: In what ways are we pretty normal, and in what ways are you kinda Queer?
Show how we're like you by telling the story of Michelle Patrick and Jennifer Putnam, mothers of Sam Portland, a high school football player in Portland, Maine, whose family is faced with the cruel and unnecessary loss of state marital recognition next month if Maine voters repeal a state law allowing his parents to be married. "We are an average family," says Sam, but society, his school, his doctors, and even some of his friends' parents view his family as "lesser" when the state says they don't count. Sam's family just wants to be treated like everybody else.
Show how we're like you by telling the story of Lt. Col. Edith Disler, a 25-year veteran and Air Force Academy professor who happens to be a lesbian. Disler was investigated and pulled from her classroom for discussing gays in the military, and she feared she might face a court-martial before her retirement. "I had to sneak out of a twenty-five year career in the Air Force, and throw my own retirement ceremony," says Disler, who also served our country as an arms control inspector and executive support officer to the Secretary of Defense. "It wasn't quite what my career was worthy of." Disler just wanted to teach her cadets to defend our country with the highest standards of integrity, but was foiled by an Air Force that sees homosexuality as permanently "other."
Many people--even those who support gay rights--don't seem to realize that literally tens of thousands of gay Americans are being wrenched from their partners or families because, absent marriage rights, they're not allowed to sponsor foreign nationals to reside with them in the U.S. So tell the story of Janet Dagley of New Jersey, whose son had to choose between his mother and his partner because his foreign-born partner can't live with him in New Jersey (while his sister was allowed to just because her partner is a man). "If you want to make a mother angry," writes Dagley, "give one of her children a right that you deny the other. And if you want to break a mother's heart, force one of her children to move far away from her in order to keep his household together." Dagley's son wants no more and no less than what his sister enjoys.
As a hate crimes bill finally makes its way into law, remind America of the tragic story of Matthew Shepard and all the untold youth who have suffered hate, abuse, brutality, and death just because of whom they love. And tell the story of Evangelical Christian, Brent Childers, a father who writes in Newsweek this week of his transformation from a hateful enabler of such violence to a gay rights advocate heading to this weekend's Washington march to show his "love for our LGBT brothers and sisters."
No speech by the president will be enough if he doesn't pair it with real action. But discrimination in America results in part from the nation's failure to understand that gays and lesbians are not alien beings but are, more or less, just like everybody else. After all, the rationale for banning openly gay troops is that straight people find them so alien that they could never trust them enough to share a foxhole. And a main rationale for banning gay marriage is that the love felt by a gay couple is too different from that felt by Barack and Michelle Obama to be called a marriage--a thoughtless echo of the sentiment and laws that once blocked marriages like that of President Obama's own parents.
The president has the chance on Saturday to help show the world that this ain't so. How are you like us, Mr. President? Your love for your family is just as important to you and just as prone to fragility; you've worked hard and paid your taxes and, like us, wanted to believe your government wouldn't slap a surcharge on your life just because of whom you love; and, despite what you've achieved, you've suffered discrimination and denigration because you're seen as different. Like it or not, you're Queer like us!
President Obama remains popular with his base, but he risks appearing to lack Clintonian empathy, for the jobless as well as for the GLBT community he has so far failed to lift up. He does not count gay people among his closest friends and aides, and if he fails to show that he truly gets gays, he will be damaged for the long haul. The question is not whether he says he favors our rights or even whether he favors them--those are both easy; the question is how much he'll risk to fight for us, and if he's not yet ready to go into battle, he'd better show, and not tell, us why we ought to trust his good intentions.
Gays and our allies must do our part, too. However inclined a politician might be to do the right thing, politics is about pressure, and we have the responsibility to continue to exert unbending pressure on our government and our fellow citizens to recognize that equal rights hurt no one but make all Americans better.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
quick little personal demo as to why MARRIAGE is important for same sex couple as for different sex couples. otherwise a short tale on why "we're just the same as you...."
My partner ( of 32 years) and I were able to become legal spouses in California last fall, and when we went to renew our package of homeowners, liability umbrella and car insurance this month- being classified as "married" saved us $700 bucks a year. That's why .....
By all means, call yourself "queer" if you want to. But DO NOT use it as an umbrella term for all LGBT people. I am a gay man and I AM NOT "QUEER"
Not trying to be rude, but i'm a heterosexual female who is often "gay"*. Why do homosexuals use the term "gay" rather than "homosexual"?
I've just never understood that.
* as in "happy & gay"...
I like the term "queer", and the term "gay" means different things to different age groups. In the 1930's, Cary Grant used the term in "Bringing Up Baby" to mean "homosexua
"Queer" is a great word, not a good or bad word, in my opinion.
I love the word 'queer' I want to be one too!
I'm queer cos I like to eat crisps with vanilla ice cream, I'm a woman who doesn't dye her hair, I actually like my job, I get on well with my ex, and I let my kids feel adversity, cos it's good for them.
Part 1:
"Gay also means "happy" or "merry." Some resent the co-opting of that word to identify "same-sex" individuals, organizations, and the community they have created for themselves. So, in order to assuage the sensitivities of those individuals who long to return "gay" to its original meaning, should another term be coined, just because some are unhappy?
"Queer" was appropriated in 1990 by an organization that grew out of an effort to confront heterosexism and the ghettoization of segregated bars and other venues to confine homosexuals away from the "mainstrea
Read more at: http://www
When you say "queer was approriated in 1990, do you mean that was when the term was first used? Because I remember telling my aunt after high school graduation that I wanted to go to art school and she said "oh, honey, you don't want to do that. It's full of queers". That was 1960.
It means that the term was prominentl
Turned out to be quite a successful way for some very disparate people to show common cause against a common bigotry: one may say, 'I'm not like this one' or 'not like that one' but when it comes down to it, we're all subject to being treated the same, whether they'd be calling you the Q word as a slur for being in the Log Cabin's closet or wearing sequins and mincing around the entertainment districts.
Part 2:
Well, that approach has had limited results. Cultivating sympathetic heterosexual elected officials and a "normal" image has left the issues of DADTDP and DOMA as codified denials of equality, not to mention all the state constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage. Now actual legislation or initiatives have to be won in order to repeal those acts of repression, unless they can be overturned in the courts. So far, the California Supreme Court, in validating Prop. 8, despite that same court's earlier finding of a "fundamental constitutional right" under the California State Constitution of marriage equality without regard to sexual orientation, has set the most recent and prominent example of that avenue of redress. The case seeking overturn of Prop. 8 currently wending its way through the Federal Court system will be confronting an even less sympathetic U. S. Supreme Court.
Confrontation was the only way that equal rights were finally devolved upon African Americans. It may take that to achieve GLBTQ rights, as well.
"Gay also means "happy" or "merry." Some resent the co-opting of that word to identify "same-sex" individuals, organizations, and the community they have created for themselves. So, in order to assuage the sensitivities of those individuals who long to return "gay" to its original meaning, should another term be coined, just because some are unhappy?
"Queer" was appropriated in 1990 by an organization that grew out of an effort to confront heterosexism and the ghettoization of segregated bars and other venues to confine homosexuals away from the "mainstrea
"gays who seek basic equality must always be on their best behavior to try to earn rights that heterosexuals take for granted."
that says it all.
Everyone needs to recognize that equal rights means EQUAL....a
I know alot of gay people and I love them. Having said that, they are happy with their lives. I respect them and they respect me. We each have different views and each respect that. I guess I must live around different people.
This President has been in office what 9 months? Is he supposed to change everything in that time? I would think and this is my opinion, I would want someone in charge of this country to 1. keep the country safe. We are at war, have been in wars, and I for one would rather have the President right now to keep the country safe.
Forget trying to reason with this one. S/He suggested we throw shoes at Obama--no reasonable dialog possible with such types.
The Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to a dog, the best humanitarian among us! A dog doesn't care about sexual orientation, skin color, or faith. A dog sets a better example of tolerance than I ever will. I'm thankful for the lessons that dogs taught me about liking and playing with others when the adults around me preached prejudice.
Dogs are fantastic with people (truly our BEST friends) although they're not always nice to each other.
If only they could vote.
Anyone who argues that the president should use his power under the stop-loss provisions in order to overturn DADT in a sneaky way must have real contempt for the U.S. constitution. Ours is a nation of law, and the congress, not the president, regulates the armed forces.
I totally agree. Moreover, it's short-sighted in that it can be overturned fairly easily.
I am gay and came of age post-Stonewall in the 1970s (the generation of gay men that was almost entirely wiped out by the AIDS epidemic). I also worked for several years for a social agency that dealt with gay seniors. I can assure you that the word "queer" was not and is not a liberating word for the gay elders that preceded me, when the word "queer" was usually followed by a blow to the head or a nightstick to the groin. I too often have found that "queer" is used by individuals too afraid or closeted to come to terms with using the word "gay" to describe themselves, or else by academics who rarely come into contact with the real world where "queer" is still a horrid pejorative. You are not "queering" mainstream culture by using that word: look at the trouble that Kevin Jennings is in because of his contribution to the book, "Queering Education" (or whatever the title was) -- he's being pilloried for it by many in the so-called "mainstream culture." Gay people always joke among themselves and call themselves self-deprecating names, but no self-respecting gay person I know takes it out into the world at large. I look at it this way: "queer" was probably one of the last words poor Matthew Shepherd heard while the brains were literally beaten out of his head -- it wasn't a word of liberation for him. It was a death sentence.
So, it's not for you--it is for me.
Queer best describes my sexual orientation--none of the other monikers suffice. It has nothing to do with being closetted; if anything, the word queer is even more threatening than gay or lesbian as it is not understood.
I'm not gay or lesbian b/c I am not attracted to women. I'm not bisexual b/c I'm not attracted to both sexes. My sexuality is atypical and queer encompasses those of us who don't neatly fit under the LGB banner.
Maybe in Canada it is more accepted? We use the acronym LGBTQI (and there's more to that) quite regularly.
The *Q* in the rainbow is not going anywhere.
What's "I" ?
To me, the issue of the use of this term is similar to the use of the n-word in among blacks. Some find it appropriate, especially in HipHop/Rap circles, but others find it offensive. I personally do not find it empowering at all and I don't like to be called it by anyone. I don't see myself as strange (at least not b/c of my orientation) and I think that it's a slippery slope to use the word in greater society as it is pretty strong and can turn off the very people we're trying to win over.
Faved! I too find it totally offensive and this "Queering of Education" title is a disaster. I'm gay and an educator and cannot embrace such rhetoric.
I'm queer and an educator.
*smile
I don't give a blankety-blank what the rest of my fellow citizens think of me or my sexual orientation. But I pay the same taxes as everyone else, and for that, I deserve the same rights, benefits, and protections. If you don't want me to have the same rights, benefits, and protections, fine. BUT LOWER MY TAXES IN PROPORTION TO MY DISENFRANCHISEMENT.
There's an idea! I've seriously considered defecting and claiming amnesty from my oppressive government right here in my own former country so that I can have better benefits.
Of course, most people would look at me and see an average, middle class, white conservative, married, mother of three and question why I have any reason to complain at all. The trouble starts when we try to generalize anyone based on some convenient category or another. When we start to categorize, the needs of the few begin to take precedence over the needs of the many, often at the expense of the many, without taking into account the needs of the many. Categorizing me as the above fails to see that my mother and grandmother are both widows, that I live in the town I live because I have to take care of both of them (especially my grandmother, who is lucky to have $100 left over every month after bills and medicines, so whenever something goes wrong, I end up taking care of it), that I have two children who need major dental work, or any number of other factors in my life that make it impossible for me to worry about the needs of anyone else, especially when no one is considering my needs at all.
EXACTLY. What many heterosexuals fail to realize is this - Guess what?! Gays/Queers (whatever) experience ALL of the same kinds of difficulties and sufferings life brings - PLUS the extraordinary burden of horrific suffering due specifically to laws that segregate and demonize our family. Heterosexuals can hardly say they are experiencing anything near what we do in terms of financial and emotional suffering due to legal segregation. HETEROSEXUAL DICTATORSHIP.
BTW - we are also female, black, disabled, widowed, or any number of things people want to toss out to diminish these unconstitutional attacks on our family or the pain they bring.
I too, struggled with the word "queer". My 18 year old college age son joined the Queer Alliance in San Francisco and while I applauded his political move, I questioned the name because I found it offensive. We had quite the discussion and I found that it is a generational gap. He grew up hearing the word "gay" used as an insult, not even really used to denote homosexuality, but for anything and everything stupid, day in and day out all through his life. "That's so GAY," was on everyone's lips. To be called gay now, is offensive in many ways to these young people. It was hard for him to understand why I found the word "queer" to be so offensive and to hear that I would never want to call anyone that. It was akin to the conversation Oprah had with the young African American males who felt free to use the "N" word amongst themselves but she felt appalled and would never use it. When I told him that even other friends of mine my own age who were lesbian, hated the word, he was surprised. Then he felt as if there were no words at all left that could be used that were not CHARGED. It is a difficult and perplexing dilemma for everyone.
God, how I wish we were beyond this by now. Gays are OUR children, born that way, and deserve to be equal to all others. When AID's went full blown, they did brain studies on those that didn't survive and the brains of Gays (male and female) were different . They did many studies back then but am sure it was to back up Regan on his beliefs that it was a choice. It back fired and he cut funding to help people with HIV and AIDs. We really do live in an ugly world when we can sit back and let this happen to human beings. We are ALL guilty of a minimum of cowardise if nothing else. Does it really matter "how" they became gay? No. They are our children, nieces, nephew, cousins, sisters, brothers, parents, which makes them family. I saw what was done to them in the early 80's and had a chance to educate my children to the ugly of hate out of fear. Although one was a teen and one under 10, they saw, knew, met and liked many in the gay community and finally understood the hurt and tears they suffered . This DADT sucks and should be done away with. I have many issues with Obama but do realize that many of the things I want will not be done until his second term. If he followed through with any of them, it would be used against him when he ran again.
"Gay People" If you only see the word gay then you will be afraid. You will not understand and your own sense of morals will cause you to oppose them. But you should focus on the word people. As people they should have the same rights that everyone else should be entitled to.
As a Christian I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also believe that adultery and fornification are sins, but I don't here anyone questioning the rights of adulterers and fornicaters. Oddly they are accepted in church, whispered about perhaps, but accepted.
On a personal note I have more respect for two men who are willing to make a lifetime committment to each other than for so many men and women who think divorce and adultery are okay.
I disagree with you on a theological basis, but I agree with you in part. People who view homosexuality as a "sin", completely ignore the other "sins" written in various parts of the Bible. Last I checked, Jesus was no fan of hypocrisy. I also have yet to hear anyone arguing for the re-criminalization of adultery, or banning divorce. I also haven't heard of any disobedient kids getting stoned by their fathers. I thank you for your honesty.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
