The Cutting Edge of Civil Rights: Why President Obama Must Lead on Gay Marriage

It was the best of elections, and it was the worst of elections. Like everyone but the Republican base, I've been savoring Obama's stunning and beautiful vistory -- YES WE DID; but there's no denying anymore that the passage of anti-gay propositions is a fat dead fly floating in the middle of the colorful punch bowl.

Now that some of the giddy elation of electing Barack Obama president has begun to settle, a bitter irony is sinking in: the same historic turnout among African-Americans and Latino voters in California that helped Obama shatter the ultimate color line is also largely to blame for the passage of Proposition 8. Blacks voted to strip some of their fellow citizens of civil rights by margins of at least 7-to-3, if exit data is accurate; and a late ad campaign appealing to the religious values of Latinos seems to have hit its electoral mark as well.

Like it or not, we must admit that civil rights were treated as a zero-sum-game here: that in the end, the most startling and joyful civil rights triumph of our history for non-white Americans was in part won at the direct expense of gay Americans. How does this suck? Let us count the ways.

First, it provides a bracing and sudden puncture to the illusion of post-everything politics. In an unfortunate inversion of Obama's most inspiring stump speech rhetoric, we are the United States of America, indeed, but sadly we are also a gay America and a straight America; a black and Latino America and a white America.

Second, Prop 8 didn't merely fail to open up more civil rights; it actively took rights away. This is a dangerous step from a constitutional perspective. A progressive view of U.S. history, in a nutshell, goes like this: The founders and the framers wrote a constitution that in word if not deed enshrined equal rights for all in a secular state, and we keep getting progressively closer to making that equality a reality on the ground. Ending slavery, women winning the right to vote, dismantling Jim Crow court case by court case, and the emergence of civil unions all represent key moments in this progressive extension of rights -- or the progressive realization in reality of the rhetorical rights enshrined in the Constitution. Because the California legislature had already conferred the right to same-sex marriages, Prop 8 represents is the opposite -- a fully regressive view of our constitution, stripping rights after they have been conferred. By actively restricting rights this way, Prop 8 is the very picture of the electoral danger our framers feared -- the tyrrany of the majority against the minority.

Third, it's a trend. Prop 8 was only the most visible of four anti-gay measures passed Tuesday. Arizonans and Floridians also chose to vote their fears over their hopes on this subject. And the sweeping initiative in Arkansas actually denies adoption rights to any couple -- gay or straight -- co-habitating without a marriage license; by the way no gay couple can get a marriage license, so this efectively ends hopes for Arkansan gay couples to create even a shadow family.

There's no explaining the way some people use marriage as an arena for all their fears and their prejudices (well, actually there is; it's called religious intolerance and it should have no place in our country). Not so long ago it was African Americans who were in this scurvy boat. Marriage was the battlefield for white America's fears of miscegenation and the dangers of "racial mixing." Across the south, until the late 1960s, state after state still had laws on the books designed to maintain the myth of racial purity and to protect the institution of holy matrimony from the barbarians at the gates -- namely, the descendants of slaves.

In 1958 a black woman from Virginia named Mildred Jeter and her white boyfriend Richard Loving -- the father of the baby she was now carrying -- decided to get married. They were in love, they were about to start a family -- just like a lot of gay people today. They drove 90 miles north, across the Virginia line to DC, where no anti-miscegenation laws prevented them from being wed. Then they drove home to Caroline County, VA -- where soon, a neighbor disgusted by the sight of an interracial couple called the law.

Picture this scene: at 2:00 a.m. on a July night, the county sheriff banged on their door and arrested them for "unlawful cohabitation." They were informed that the DC marriage certificate was no good in Virginia, and taken to the county jail. They had little recourse but to plead guilty, and Caroline County Circuit Court Judge Leon M. Bazile sentenced them to a year in prison. They were offered the alternative of a suspended sentence if they left the state of Virginia, never to return for 25 years.

These details are important. Because every time a social conservative talks about the good old days of states' rights and a "republic" of different legal systems, this is exactly the type of utopia they're longing for. If you want to get married, just move. Leave your job, your life, your family, your home.

The Lovings moved to DC, where they never grew accustomed to urban life. Six years later they ran afoul of the law while traveling across state lines, and this time they reached out to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. His office referred them to the ACLU, and the Loving v Virginia case proceeded to wend its way to the Supreme Court.

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification," the Court decalred in its unanimous ruling against the anti-miscegenation law. "The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. . . . There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause."

The Loving decision was the death knell for state laws discriminating against interracial marriages. Now we seem to need to learn the lessons all over again. But it's important to remember that without a climate of federal leadership on integration in the 1960s, these laws may never have been exposed for what they were: vestiges of slave time and violations of the Constitution.

Anti-gay marriage laws passed by the states -- whether through legislatures or pernicious ballot initiatives -- are every bit as unconstitutional as anti-miscegenation laws were. But it's in large part the very constituency who benefited from the Court's rulings in cases like Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia -- African Americans -- that has helped provide Prop 8's margin of victory in California. This sounds like a job for someone with tremendous moral suasion and the power of his character and a bully pulpit from which to teach. It is imperative that Barack Obama, as president, begin to reframe the question of gay marriage to African Americans and Catholic Latinos. He must lead on this issue. He needs to help people see this for what it is: the cutting edge of civil rights in America today.

Hawaii had no anti-miscegenation law on its books. But if Barack Obama's parents had met at the University of Virginia in 1961, our history might have gone very differently. That is why President Obama must spend some political capital to make the case for gay marriage clearly and unequivocally to those of his supporters who need help understanding how their rights and their histories re bound up with the stories of the millions of gay men and women who seek equal protection before the law. Casting gay issues simply as civil rights issues, not moral or religious ones, is long overdue.

Comments

[ReverseCurve]

The joining of a man and a woman as one in a sexual relationship (barring birth control, infertility or a host of health issues) will result in the creation of a new life. Even if one does not include a biblical or religious relation/philosophy to this fact, it (the creation of a new life) can ONLY happen between different sexes. That magnificent FACT is at the heart of what is DIFFERENT between the sexual union of same sex vs heterosexual couples. A healthy heterosexual couple will ALWAYS have the ABILITY to pro-create if they choose. That does NOT void a marriage if they choose not to have children. The FACT is the ability to do so. Not so with same sex couples.

Ultimately the title "civil union" for same sex couples (imparting the same rights as married couples) versus marriage is definitive while simultaneously denoting the DIFFERENCE between the two entities.

President-elect Barack Obama is a Christian. I wholeheartedly believe that this is his interpretation of how the same rights can be given to both "groups".

[zenxen75]

I'm not a California voter, but I'm wondering how many people actually understood what they were voting for or against. How was this thing worded on the ballot? We had a statewide referendum. Quite frankly as educated as I am, I had to read the thing a 2 or 3 times just to make sure I understood what I was voting for.

[JohnBryansFontaine]

If President Obama wants to enrage both the 70 percent of CA African-Americans who voted for Proposition 8 as well as a majority of the country, as well as embroil himself in a needless, futile controversy, then by all means, he should take up the hopeless cause of gay marriage. Fortunately, Obama is far too bright to do this and will instead devote his time to more winnable, practical issues, such as the ones that he has been discussing throughout the campaign.

[JohnBisceglia]

We can - in this moment - decide that our families do not deserve another 5-30 years of legal hate and suffering. We can refuse to file our income tax forms this April 15th, 2009, and continue refusing to file until our apathetic society and government WAKES UP and listens with a KEEN ear, instead of the disinterested "listening" and "tolerating" we've come to know and accept as OK.

SOME THINGS ARE WORTH FIGHTING FOR - FAMILY IS ONE.

[csfw]

I've been mulling over the impasse on this issue and might have a solution to it. Since the people with "deeply held religious beliefs" are so sensitive to the word "marriage", and gays believe it's an issue of equal treatment by the government, I'd be all for state governments only issuing "civil union" licenses to BOTH heterosexual and homosexual couples and having both the federal and state governments conferring the same rights, benefits, and privileges to both, EXACTLY EQUAL. Churches could call the relationships whatever they wanted and governments could get out of the "marriage" business.
For gays, the problem lies in the fact that civil governments call heterosexual relationships "marriage" and homosexual relationships "civil unions" and in many cases, confer unequal rights, benefits, and privileges; hence, separate, but unequal. And, even if the benefits, etc., were equal, having different titles conferred by the state is discriminatory and reprehensible.

[abmabardy]

.
Your proposed solution is EXACTLY whay needs to happen. ALL legal civil "marriages" issued by the state should be called civil unions. The term "marriage" should be left for use only by religious institutions. With civil unions would come ALL rights equally to both heterosexual and gay couples.

This proposal is both reasonable and fair. And I'll bet you could NEVER sell it to those opposed to gay marriage. The truth is, regardless of what you call it, they do not want gay people to be able to have legally sanctioned unions with full equal rights.

The good news is that in the under 40 demographic, there is roughly a 70/30 split supporting gay marriage and gay rights. Eventually the bigotry will die off.

[ReverseCurve]

This is an acceptable compromise, but most gays & lesbians throw out the baby with the bath water in refusing to accept that ALL couples joined under law, sans religion (not sacred under God). All couples (heterosexual and homosexual) should be united by civil unions. Heterosexual couples who want to be united under God, inclusive of their religion, would be married.

If the gay community would retrieve the baby and drain the bath water, it would be DONE.

I totally understand why President-elect Obama struggles with this tipic. He is s Christian, yet wants equal treatment for straight and gay couples. The solution (which he would likely promote) is aforementioned.

[NickOLess]

I'm a big supporter of this approach. The arguments against gay marriage are based solely on religious traditions. As such, they have no place in governance. What the LGBT community wants out of so-called "gay marriage" is pretty straightforward (no pun intended): equality under the law. Civil unions are a good compromise: "marriage" is kept "sacred" for all those whose religious faith might otherwise be offended, and homosexuals can have the practical benefits afforded to straight couples.

Civil union = the union of a couple under law
Marriage = the union of a couple under God (or Whoever)

What's the big deal about that? Live and let live, render unto Caesar, etc.

[jrockbg]

I find it so insulting that the GLBT community equates their struggle to the blacks for civil rights. So insulting. Anyone doing so should read a little more history so you can understand why it is so small minded to equate that struggle to those of my father.

[Pete Cenedella - Huffpost Blogger]

This isn't a competition. This is about realizing the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution. It's pretty simple. If some people "equate" a particular struggle to another struggle, that's pointless. There is in my mind one larger struggle -- the struggle to realize the promise of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for all citizens. I think gay marriage falls under that rubric. It has nothing to do with who has more, bigger, or deeper scars.

[JohnBisceglia]

Seriously. No one has a monopoly on the word "civil rights", nor "marriage".

While I understand SOME African Americans "uneasiness" about the LGBT community's use of the term "civil rights", I wonder if it's their homophobia talking, since they may want to DISTANCE themselves from us in any way possible (less-capable readers, please re-read and see the aforementioned word "SOME").

As many have said before, Gandhi fought for civil rights. I would bet Jesus fought for civil rights also.

Let's not compare battle scars - they ALL hurt and do unspeakable damage to our bodies, minds, and souls.

[xdevildawg4u]

Perhaps its you who needs to read a little more history even though it may be very difficult to find most GLBT history since it is all too often unknown, unreported and unrecorded, or at the very least, less known, under reported and under recorded. For example, how many people know who Bayard Rustin was? How many people know the details of the lives of George Washington Carver, James Baldwin, Langston Hughes and possibly even Abraham Lincoln?

And lest we forget, there isn't a SINGLE oppressed minority in human history that hasn't included GLBT people among them. GLBT people were among the black slaves of the American South AS WELL AS the Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt. They were lynched in Montgomery and tortured in the Spanish Inquisition. They have been shunned, discriminated against, enslaved, lynched, derided by and outcast from NOT ONLY society but even by and from their own families since the beginning of time.

No the struggles are not identical. Rather than focusing on how our minorities’ oppression don't share ALL of the nuances of their respective groups (like the fact that black people aren't disowned by their families for being black and black kids don't fear telling their parents about the racial bullying they face in school) I hope that MOST people can see that our struggles certainly do have important similarities and because of this we should be allies rather than adversaries in our fights for full equality and inclusion in American society.

[jrockbg]

I assure you that I am an ally in anyone's fight for civil liberties. An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. But just as there have been GLBT people in every oppressed minority, they have also been simultaneously in the oppressive majority!

I'm not saying that there aren't right being denied to GLBT. I'm saying that you're not demanding the right thing. You want gay marriage. You want marriage because you feel it will validate a gay union to the same extent a marriage does between a man and woman. There is one large problem... MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN ONLY! It's also a religious institution.

I know reading that ticks people off. I'm only stating fact. The truth is that since its inception, marriage has always been between a man and woman. Going back thousands of years, and pre-dating this country. To change the definition of marriage is to break a bond with a thousands year old religious institution.

The fight should be for strong civil unions. Not weak ones that only let you do power of attorney or visit someone in a hospital. Strong civil unions that mirror that rights recognized by marriage in most ways.

But back to civil rights. GLBT is NOT the same as the black civil rights movement. I know its not a contest but the mere fact that you get to protest as loudly as you do shows that our struggles have more differences than similarities.

[hbhawaii]

"Hawaii had no anti-miscegenation law on its books. But if Barack Obama's parents had met at the University of Virginia in 1961, our history might have gone very differently. That is why President Obama must spend some political capital to make the case for gay marriage clearly and unequivocally to those of his supporters who need help understanding how their rights and their histories re bound up with the stories of the millions of gay men and women who seek equal protection before the law."

Brilliant! Thank you, my friend.

[Manbearpigisreal]

Stop trying to scapegoat Black people for the passage of prop 8. You need to look at your own race first!!!

Black people make up only about 6% of California’s population. Whites are 60% and Hispanics 35%. Our numbers are too small to be responsible for the passage of prop 8. Those are the facts! DEAL WITH IT.

Blaming black people is a sad and pathetic attempt to avoid looking in the mirror at your own community. Think about it, how many gay people have parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins that “disapprove” of their lifestyle? Work it out with them first. Blaming black people has always been the easy thing to do in this country, but you won’t get away with it this time!

Like it or not a lot of straight people of all colors just don’t believe that people are born gay. They view it as a choice (unlike skin color or sex). Until there is scientific proof of the “gay gene” there will be great difficulty in convincing people that this is a civil rights issue.

This is coming from a straight black man who happens to SUPORT gay marriage. I don’t live in Cali but if I did I would have voted no on prop 8. I have friends of all races and sexual orientations, unfortunately most people don’t.

[Pete Cenedella - Huffpost Blogger]

Hey, I appreciate your passion on this subject and I wish you DID live in Cali for the election. Now let me take up some of what you say:
First of all, don't make assumptions about my community: I happen to be straight and white, live in a mixed race and gay-supportive suburban town, and I have spent my life fighting for civil rights for all Americans -- civil rights that as a straight white male I have never really had to worry about for myself. So when I say this is, for me, a question of NOT making liberties a zero-sum-game, I mean it.

Second of all, facts are facts. Blacks voted in favor of Prop 8 70 percent of the time. I'm not scapegoating anyone. I'm pointing out a bitter irony, and that, in my opinion, work needs to be done to reframe the issue of gay rights to anyone who views it as something other than a civil rights issue ... which leads me to...
Third, you cite the line of "reasoning" that says if it's a choice it's not your right, and that unless or until a "gay gene" theory is proven, the case for gay rights as civil rights is not sound. I would argue that drawing the genes vs choice distinction is the type of argument made post facto by people looking to justify prejudices they already hold, a slender logical reed.
(cont)

[Pete Cenedella - Huffpost Blogger]

Finally, you imply that there are no gay black people! I'm sure you didn't mean to do this, but re-read your own words: Gay people need to "work it out" with their disapproving relatives first before talking about black people not approving of them? You lost me there.
Anyway, thanks for responding.

[hbhawaii]

So how much longer do you think you can keep on milking this whole victimhood thing Manbear?

The inescapable fact is that 70% of black Californian voters supported Prop 8. That is just shameful. Telling me it's wrong of me to feel crappy about that simply won't cut it any more.

Hate to say it, but I suspect there are now a lot of hard feelings about your community among gay folks in California. Deal with that.

[berrycooda]

Pres. Elect Obama already stated his views on gay marriage....He agrees with civil rights for Gays,
but holds the belief that MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
This is a Bible fact and why should it be changed just to justify the fact that Gays want a marriage cert.
Will this make any difference as they are already together just as many live together heterosexuals
are today as well.

Too many things need attention in this country to put this at the top of the list.

If this many people (who are protesting) would band together and do something for the good of
this country, they could be more helpful to society than what they are doing to disrupt the peace
in Calif.

[LitDr2B]

Bible "facts" have no place in civil legislation.

[csfw]

Gee Berry, why didn't all the people who stood in public demonstrations, on street corners, and in parades who were for Prop 8 before the election "band together and do something for the good of this country" as well?
Also, no one is wanting to change "a Bible fact". What gays are wanting to change is civil law. Like it or not, there is still a separation of church and state in this country and your view, or Obama's view, or 52% of CA voter's views of the Bible shouldn't be translated into the law for the whole state or country.

[Pete Cenedella - Huffpost Blogger]

Excuse me, did you REALY just use the phrase "This is a Bible fact"? Oh, Gov. Palin, it's so flattering that you stopped by to read my little blog post, LOL.

Now, silly wabbit, repeat after me: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BIBLE FACT. It's a bunch of stories, just like Rabelais or Gulliver's Travels or the Arabian Nights. But good luck with your policy of oppressing people because some piece of literature told you that's the way to go.

[hbhawaii]

So, Berrycooda, say we propose a ballot initiative to really enforce and preserve traditional, biblical marriage in California: make divorce illegal; make adultery a felony; literally impose the one man and one woman rule with the force of law.

Would you vote for that?

[PlantGod72]

If this disgraceful example of misguided intolerance and discrimination concerns you.........TAKE ACTION!

The time for merely blogging and kvetching is OVER!

If you're in Southern California----if you're gay, straight, young or old---there will be a massive demonstration TODAY, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 8th, at 6pm.

Trust me, it will bring you a sense of empowerment that is healing and UNDENIABLE!

Gather at Sunset Junction in Silver Lake, east of Hollywood.

Corner of Sunset Blvd. and Santa Monica Blvd, Los Angeles 90029

PLEASE join us. We voiced our power this week with our vote for Obama, now voice your power with you FEET!

[HappyEqualiser]

We'll keep fighting and fighting!

But fear not: EQUALITY FOR ALL is COMING SOON:

http://www.comingsoon.cz

[wolverine442]

I was worried that i wouldn't have anything to pour my energy into after the election, looks like i was wrong, the fight goes on!!

[wolverine442]

Buzz this one up folks!!!

[JohnBryansFontaine]

Mr. Cenedella:

Barack Obama won the Presidency inspite of, not because of gay marriage. Had he supported GM and opposed, instead of avoiding Proposition 8, he would have lost to John McCain.

Democrats and Liberals therefore owe nothing to gay marriage advocates. And contrary to your insular thinking, there are many issues which are immensly more important than the 'issue' of gay marriage.

When calmer minds prevail in the gay rights movement, civil unions will once again gain popularity.

[TGrantE]

Mr. Fontaine,

You're wrong.

How do we know you're wrong? Because Senator Obama was VERY CLEAR in his opposition to Prop 8 and he did not lose to John McCain.

I take exception with the rest of your faulty reasoning... but will leave it at that.

[Speakupper]

Barack Ad no on 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXdliDGXs

Biden says no on 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDdwdaMP9vo

[abmabardy]

.
Civil unions, even the most comprehensive ones, do not come close to offering the same number of civil rights as civil marriages. There are over 1000 federal civil rights that come with civil marriage.

Another poster on this thread has suggested that all civil "marriages" become civil "unions" offering EXACTLY the same civil rights to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Churches, synogogues, etc. could then claim the word "marraige" as theirs, to grant to whomever they wish.

That sound reasonable to you?
.

[jhNY]

To date, the greatest power gay activists have had to wield in the political life of the nation has been to inflame those prejudiced against their existence to new outrages against them whenever politically possible, usually in the hope that those voters excited by the prospect of denying to gays the rights other citizens enjoy will stay in the booths long enough to vote the straight Republican ticket.

And there is little political downside traceable to this despicable gay-baiting practice, as nearly nobody has won an election by making gay rights the central theme of their campaign. Several office-seekers have however, vaulted to victory by opposing them.

Whatever your projected hopes are for Obama's championing of the cause, they are likely misplaced, as he has said he is opposed to gay marriage whenever asked, and so far as I know, has never said otherwise anytime.

What to do? Organize and gather funds within the gay community for the purpose of donating to politicians who at the very least will never campaign against gay rights, and even possibly will introduce supportive legislation. The income of gays always tracks higher than the national average. Take in as much of that money as you can and buy some influence. It's the American way.

[Pete Cenedella - Huffpost Blogger]

Gay people are a significant minority therefore everything you say about winning or losing elections on gay issues is on its face true. Big whoop. Political courage involves doing the right thing and standing against the tyranny of the minority. I happen to think Barack Obama has political courage and I am arguing that he should find ways to reframe gay marriage and gay equality generally as a civil rights issue. As for gay money going to buy influence, believe me, gay money is sloshing around the Democratic Party. It's not buying as much as it should.

[FearlessFreep]

Obama may have political courage, but will he use it or not? Courageous is as courageous does.