Brokeback Barack: Our First Gay President?

If Bill Clinton was, as Toni Morrison once argued, our first Black president, could Barack Obama be our first gay? Is Obama the hope lesbians and gays have been waiting for -- and if not, why should all Americans care?

Ellen is an outspoken Hillstar and gay boys, of course, have long held a soft spot for a tragic diva -- even a hawk-diva in a pants-suit who has only been married once. (Did Obama really think his booty-shaking on national TV was going to impress America's favorite lesbian?) But it may be the drama-free Obama -- despite his opposition to same-sex marriage -- who engenders a cultural breakthrough in LGBT history; at the very least, his example offers some hortatory lessons for the gay community.

One would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to recognize that gays would prefer any Democrat campaigning in 2008 to the night-of-the-living-dead running for the homophobic-is-my-sobriquet-GOP-zombie of the season. Taking a seat at the back of the Straight Talk Express, fast on its mettlesome road to cementing the status-quo, is hardly how any lesbian or gay person hopes to escape the fetters of second-class citizenship. Thanks, but I'll pass on President McLame.

But hope for legal equality no longer comes easy for gay and lesbian Americans -- not even from a Democratic party celebrating the historic milestone of nominating an African-American or a woman. The LGBT invitation to the Democratic orgy of multiculturalism has been tepid at best: the only candidates to unequivocally support same-sex marriage have long stepped off the primary stage (one of whom also believes in UFOs).

Though same-sex liberation defiantly emerged alongside its path-breaking sister movements in the 1960s -- the civil rights and women's rights movements -- not many in the Democratic Party seem disquieted that, while a women and an African-American share a milestone for their respective histories, a lesbian or gay presidential candidate remains beyond even the reaches of fantasy.

For all of our so-called American progress, lesbians and gays continue to suffer discrimination in the most retrogressive and violent (not to mention un-Western) of ways -- just ask the family of Lawrence King, a fifteen year old boy from Oxnard, California murdered this month by a classmate after proclaiming he was gay.

Not surprisingly, Hillary and Obama share almost all of the same LGBT policy proposals (with one exception: Obama avers that he will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in its entirety; Hillary only in part), but many of these policies have been promised -- and abandoned for political expediency -- before. The seismic Clintonian disappointments of the 90s -- including the execrable DOMA which Bill signed--still cuts deeply. We have no real evidence that either candidate will remain solicitous to deliver once elected (though certainly this goes for non-LGBT promises too). Fool me once...

Why then should lesbians and gays heed Obama's call to open their hearts again and hope?

The legal, political, and social changes lesbians and gays are fighting for will only come with a cultural revolution that changes the internal attitudes of the general public. It is no secret that American culture still vilifies lesbian and gay people. Gays are still objects of amusement or fear or hostility, but little else. As one scholar put it over a decade ago, "No one wants to be called a homosexual."

No one, perhaps, but Obama. Obama is rewriting and reframing the cultural discourse on gay and lesbian rights. He nearly always includes lesbians and gays in his breathtaking visions for our country. From his very first oration marking his entry into the primary to his unprecedented confrontation with African-American ecclesiastical leaders at Ebeneezer Church (on Martin Luther King Day in the heart of the South!) to his stump speeches across the country, Obama has found a place for the LGBT community within his American dream. "If we are honest with ourselves," Obama railed to black leaders, "we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."

I am often sympathetic to Hillary's peevish refrain that Obama may be all Elton John and no Bernie Taupin -- all performance and no substance. Obama might move an audience to tears now, but will his speeches translate into real change as president?

Hillary fails to consider that sometimes rhetoric is change. With his rhetorical defense of lesbian and gay Americans, rooted in an ideological and philosophical commitment to re-humanizing and de-vilifying LGBT folk, Obama is creating the cultural conditions within which political, legal, and social change can take place.

Obama is showing gays and lesbians how to win. His rhetoric transcends the we-they mentality that pervades our culture wars and prevents productive political dialogue: "[As president] I would encourage people to recognize themselves in each other." Rather than vilify the opposition, Obama has an understanding of his political adversaries.

Obama engages with the political opposition regarding the moral linchpin that divides this country with respect to gay rights--religion. Both in form and in content, Obama's speeches are infused with hypnotic spiritual power. He defends gay rights from conservative opposition--as very few other national figures have--on the latter's own religious terms, challenging those who, in his words, "elevated one line in Romans above the Sermon on the Mount." Because the gay rights movement has largely been defined on secular terms, religious conservatives have been given a free-pass when it comes to religious issues. Obama is willing and able to co-opt a spiritual orating style, to use Biblical allusion, and to speak from a deep commitment to hallowed religious and spiritual values when defending and embracing his gay brothers and lesbian sisters.

But Obama is no gay Moses. He refuses to bring gays and lesbians to their promised land: he strongly opposes same-sex marriage rights. Ironically, Obama points to his own interracial parents and the horrors of anti- miscegenation laws to express his solidarity with gays. I wonder: if Obama's parents had been forced to settle for a civil union instead of a marriage, would Obama have found it equitable and just? Obama has argued (mistakenly) that the difference between a marriage and a civil union is one of semantics, but was it not Obama who taught us to take our semantics seriously? Senator Obama: Just words?

There are millions of lesbian and gay Americans who dream about their wedding day just like straight Americans. Barack Obama has called on Americans, including lesbians and gays, to place their hopes in him, but how can the gay community support Obama when its dreams and hopes are too audacious for even him to support?

Comments

[Chadnnocal]

I am so tired of hearing the media claim that Obama is OUR candidate... At the end of the day he is in his first term as a senator and has spent over half of it, "Out of the Office".

Sadly if Barack Obama is the DNC Candidate I will be voting for McCain. I just don't trust Obama enough to believe any claims. As I watch him in debates I have serious concerns about his ability "show up" in a meaningful way when there are conflicts.

[inthemachine]

I really enjoyed this article, but I do have a question if anybody wants to take the time... it seems that obama has said that the government really only has the authority to sanction "civil unions" and that it is really up to a church to conduct a "marriage"... if this in deed his intension then wouldn't all people that want to be recognized by the state would have a union (and therefore equal and no longer separate) and leave the marriage to the church (it seems in line with the separation of church and state). ???

If anyone wants to take this on, I'd really appreciate it.

[alkamm]

Some people use the separation between church and state to retard rather than advance liberty. These people are usually religionist fools without the abilities to see the contradictions between their prejudices their conventional morality allows them.
Leaving marriage to the church leaves the refusal to accept some marriages to the church. These churches range from the more and the less open-minded. The less, who can be compared to Fred Phelps's Westboro Baptist "God Hates Fags" crew, use a racist phrase that makes discrimination their business rather than the business of those who are attacked with bias, great prejudice, and gleeful self-righteousness that so many otherwise good people buy just like they bought snake-oil during the days of segregation when they agreed with signs "We reserve the right to reject service to anyone." That "anyone" was black people, as a rule.
So by leaving marriage to them, it's like leaving slavery to them, or witchery, or the upbringing of your children, nothing personal or anything. They campaign for adherents using these biases as well, so they are the bread and butter of their advertising campaigns.
Right wing Republicans are more than happy to campaign as this kind of defender against the state, if not vote that way.

[rachaelisacancer]

I totally disagree. If the argument against leaving churches to marriage is that the churches will discriminate against who they marry, so be it. Leave the idiot sheep and all those who want to join them to themselves. You're church doesn't accept you? That's your problem - not the government's or your fellow citizens'.

And should marriage ever be left to churches (where it should be), the government's recognition of relationships between two people as a "union" only will still be there for all the people the church rejects. They can get their benefits, they can be recognized, etc.

The government should have no say in what two people join together in union for tax benefits and whatever other benefits the government is offering. The government should have no say in who stands beside my hospital bed as I lay dying. And please people, let's not dive into the argument that starts, "Well what if I want to marry my dog?"

If I want to form a union with my best friend, I should be able to. If I want to form a union with my boyfriend so he can get a green card, I should be able to. I should be able to form that union with anyone. There is absolutely no constitutional argument to say otherwise - only bigotry and ideological bullshit.

[HollywoodBill]

There are a lot of gays who know the Donnie McClurkin story and frankly don't give a fat rat's ass about it. There are also a lot of gays who understand that a photograph with Mayor Newsom is not a politically good idea and can be used to undermine a presidential candidacy and frankly don't give a fat rat's ass about such nonsense either.

The options are to vote for Obama or McCain. Or not to vote which is what the people with pure principles often do. No one is ever good enough for them. A shame that they just don't shut up and take their misery with them to stew about the state of the world in their own private little worlds. Some of us want to enjoy this historic moment without having some repetitive loudmouths raining on our parade.

[AguynamedWayne]

So Senator Obama hires a known long time anti-gay bigot to represent his campaign, and then tries to make gay americans believe that this is some new way to be inclusive! Are you kidding me?! Obama has no problem touring with a hateful bigot like McClurkin; And yet Obama refuses to even have his picture taken with Mayor Newsom, who actually stood up for the equality of Gay Americans! My god, the Obama's hypocrisy is astounding!

[dykalg]

...not gay.
Happy Warrior, maybe... ;-))

[Reeceecup]

Everyone keeps citing this Donnie McClurkin incident as their reasoning for not supporting Senator Obama. Actually it should be just the opposite. I don't want a president who speaks to the choir meaning- someone who goes to gay friendly event and says "accept our homosexual brothers and sisters". What's the point; they already do. What Senator Obama actually does is he goes to these events where they not accepting of homosexuality and says "accept our homosexual brothers and sisters." His goal is to change the hearts and minds of the American people so that we can legislation passed. If we have so many citizens are homophobic then we weill never get beyond the hate.

[jeffhas]

When these events are put on, it's not like anyone makes a profit right?... like getting national exposure on stage (or even an 'entertainer fee') to the guys selling water.

By being there, attracting crowds, he's literally supporting their message.

He lost me for so many other reasons (how about just pretending to be 'a different kind of politician' - all the while being exactly like every single one - Rezko/Alice Palmer/Exelon)... but the Donnie McClurking episodes... those were the first hints that he was not the uniter he says he is.

I guess maybe you've had to have seen many a Motivational Speaker to know when the wools being pulled over your eyes.... 'cause this guys selling something... and a lot of people may be buying, not me.

[AguynamedWayne]

Obama DID NOT go with McClurkin and preach about accepting gays. It was the exact opposite! Donnie McClurkin got up on stage and defended his right to be a bigot. He accuses gay people of being "deseased", "cursed" and that gays are child molesters. And the fact that Obama refused to fire McClurkin and would willingly court this type of hatred for votes, shows you exactly what Obama thinks about gay people and our rights.

[WaveFunction]

I don't see why we don't just rename 'all' legal marriages, heterosexual and same-sex marriages, to 'civil unions', because that is what they are, in terms of the law. The law can preside over citizens that unite with each other in legal status(just as it presides over other civil agreements and contracts), while religious institutions can preside over 'souls' or 'spirits' that 'marry' each other. Why do we have this term 'marriage' at all in our U.S. and state codes?

Everyone gets to have their cake and eat it to. You get married in your church, you get your civil union certificate from your local judge, no boundaries between church and state are crossed, the equal protection clause is preserved, any citizen can be united with any other citizen and have the full benefits of what was once called 'marriage' under the law.

Of course, I'm dreaming. Religious conservatives will never let us get rid of the term 'marriage' - they'll see it as a destruction of the institution of marriage due to their notorious deficits in abstract reasoning and their inability to see that enshrining a religious concept in law sullies both the concept and the law. But, I think that would be the best idea. Just abolish the word (rather than the concept) 'marriage' from our laws altogether and we could fix our problem right now.

[bellecloche]

I agree! In France and Germany you HAVE to have a civil ceremony at city hall by a justice of the peace - you can get married in a church for show later on if you want to, but the result is that few bother to unless they are particularly religious. It is also more acceptable for couples to have families and never marry, which I think is a healthy trend. Many are attributing this lax attitude toward partnership to the higher tolerance for non-heterosexuals in Western Europe. 79% of Germans polled said they'd have no problem with a gay chancellor (the mayors of the two biggest cities are both gay) - I can't see Americans saying the same until we more aggressively tackle homophobia in school and in society and de-emphasize these divisive tradition.

[inthemachine]

people can call it anything they want, but the state should be consistent and just call it a union.

[rainbowblue]

This is unbelievable! I'm truly offended as a gay man to be told that Obama could be the next gay savior. The community should not forget how he refused to remove an “ex-gay” gospel singer from headlining a rally for him last year. There are far more issues that are important to the gay community than marriage. If he was truly going to be the first “gay” president then he needs to champion all of our issues. Some of the issues are (in no particular order):
1. Job discrimination (Including rights for Transgendered people)
2. Hate Crime legislation
3. HIV/AIDS research
4. HIV/AIDS prevention
5. Shelters for runaways
6. Mental health (Gay men are far more likely to commit suicide than the general population)
7. Substance Abuse
8. Creation of safe havens for LGBTQ youth
Of course there are more that I cannot think of at this moment. From what I have gathered about Obama, his gay commitment involves championing the pointless endeavor of civil unions and telling black ministers to stop preaching against gays. As far as I know the only HIV/AIDS work he has done has been in reducing the stigma in the black community (which is great, but not gay related). I didn’t survive high school, where I was beaten up and harassed, only to find out that as an adult the only thing that I could get from my government was a message of hope from a guy who has not acted on any of these issues.

[DonaldD]

I am gay and I am for Obama all the way. Hilary, a friend of the gays? Give me a break. Obama has mentioned gays deserve rights more then any of the other candidates. I would work for Obama for free if I could.

[BenMurphyNYC]

Hillary Clinton was one of the most important Senators in defeating the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2003. Joe Solmonese is the President of the Human Rights Campaign and he said his first meeting on Captiol Hill was with Senator Clinton when the FMA was proposed by the GOP. The Clinton meeting was first because she called Joe before anyone else in the Congress.

I hate to sound cliche - but Hillary has gone all out for our community and Obama is promises and no action.

[cylindar]

Yeah you should probably vote for MCain--hahahaha

[meileen]

AS MY FIRST POST SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN LOST, HERE IT IS AGAIN:


Is Obama really a friend of gays or is he just trolling for our votes?

Well, let’s start with the mis-step that Barack Obama made when he included Donnie McClurkin at a gospel concert tour he organized in October, 2007. McClurkin is one of those ex-gays we hear about, and in addition to gospel singing, he purportedly rants and raves about the travesty of the homosexual lifestyle, declaring that the lifestyle can be cured through prayer. When this poor decision was pointed out to Obama, he stood by it rather than un-invite this nasty fellow. And during the event, McClurkin spoke his mind. For more, check out this NY Times article of October 29, 2007: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/obamas-gospel-concert-tour/

In addition to the above, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom held two fundraisers for Obama, and apparently, Obama refused to be seen in the same room as the gay-friendly mayor. Newsom recently spoke on this issue, stating he would support Obama, “I believe in his leadership qualities, and I look forward to voting for him,” Newsom said. “In eight years.” For more on this issue, check out the SF Chronicle at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL

As for what Hillary has done, she’s actually met with the Human Rights Campaign while Obama only phoned it in. She has outwardly spoken of her regard for us, stating, “I am proud to stand by your side,” and “I want you to know that just as you always have an open door to my senate office, you will always have an open door to the White House and together we can continue this journey.” (For more, check out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500490.html

[itmaybetoolate]

I am glad you brought up McClurkin. I cannot believe that this writer would ignore that episode! However, when I bring it up to Obama supporters, they brush it off as if means nothing! One woman said gays and lesbians should just get over it! And, Senator Obama, civil union = separate but equal.

[BenMurphyNYC]

I couldn't agree more. There was real outrage when Obama refused to cancel that event with McClurkin and ignored the demands to cancel the event. Obama stepped on us to woe South Black voters. I have heard several people in the community express a willingness to support McCain in the fall instead of Obama and that worries me.

[GLU]

The Human Rights Campaign has been in the tank for Clinton from the start, and I have never seen them do anything aside take my money when I didn't know better.

[itmaybetoolate]

Don't forget that they supported the re-election of liberman.

[MsLiz]

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/morrison.html

This is Toni Morrison's article which explains why she said Bill Clinton was the first Black president. It was not so much that he was empathetic to Blacks, it was that he was treated by the powers-that-be like a Black man.

[MsLiz]

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/morrison.html

[MsLiz]

I'm sorry, my second paragraph was omitted. This is Toni Morrison's article and explains that she thought Bill Clinton was our first Black president because of the way the powers-that-be treated him, not because of his empathy with Blacks.

[MsLiz]

I have not gotten used to this new system.

[Boobaloo]

I guarantee Huffpo wont post this but Im going to pretend I live in America and we have Freedom of Speech.

Shaun,

I dont believe religion should be involved in making decisions in this country, ever, that includes issues surrounding Gays & Lesbians but, there is a dangerous trend being created and promoted by Gay lobbies that has decided that Homosexuality is next to Godliness in perfection, holyness and innocence.

Gay people are people and they're good, bad, racist, good hearted etc. so I dont automatically assume that b/c someone is gay, they're immediately above repudiation. I love the gays and I have two couples, together collectively for over 47 years whom I value and care about immensly so there's no homophobia on my part.

Gays are grown people, they're adults and being an adult in this world is not without risks for both straight and gay people and to be so arrogant as to demand the whole world place gays and gayness on some pedestal for all of us to protect is infuriating and is alienating many of us who support Gay rights.

Women and children are the most vulnerable on this planet and need our protection not people are gay; equal rights, yes. Pedestal and protection? no, that is requesting worship and special rights that I dont support.

Also you make this statement: "Lawrence King, a fifteen year old boy from Oxnard, California murdered this month by a classmate after proclaiming he was gay".

****WE actually dont know why this kid was murdered yet and hundreds of students have been murdered this year alone just for going to school that day so what makes King anymore special and in need of special protection more than those other students?

[EspritDeVoltaire]

I wholeheartedly agree. Being Gay is no political raison d'être.

[GetHappy]

And you base your blithe conclusion on what personal experience?

[AguynamedWayne]

It's called a hate crime. We do know why that child was murdered. He was targeted and killed because he had been telling his classmates that he was gay.

[vernonbc]

No. He wasn't murdered because he was telling his classmates that he was gay. He was shot because he was making advances to the kid that shot him. Not that that in any way excuses such horrific violence but the victim was extremely confused and was acting out as was the shooter. Fourteen year olds have a tough enough time figuring out life and their sexuality and this situation took those troubles to an extreme. If only the U.S. didn't have so many guns floating around, this could well have been just a fist fight out behind the school but tragically it involved lethal force and several family's lives have been shattered.

[Silpat]

I thought you liberals loved the idea of gays, gay marriage, gay adoption, gay parades.....