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

[LAJonathan]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Selling_gay_rights.html

Obama brought up gay rights to a crowd of Christians in Texas today. Please read. Very interesting, it is very difficult to get our message out, and it appears Barack has the courage and the balls to do so in his own way.

[inkabinkaboo182]

To answer your questions, no. Barack doesn't support gay marriage. But Gravel does.

[GLU]

The Clintons have thrown gays under the bus was to many times.

Don't Ask Don't Tell
The Defense of Marriage Act
Advising Kerry to Come Out in Support of State Gay Marriage Bans

Sorry, I am not going to give them another chance to throw us under the bus yet again.

[AguynamedWayne]

Don't Ask Don't Tell was a groundbreaking policy, it allowed for the first time, gays to serve in the military. It is by no means a perfect solution. But to imply that the Clintons' threw gays under the bus, because of Dont Ask Dont tell - is absolute B.S. The policy before Don't Ask Don't Tell - Was DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT - I should know, I was gay and in the army at the time. Back then NO ONE stood up for gay americans. Bill Clinton did, he may not have been perfect, but back then AIDS was still new, homphobia was RAMPANT, and the Clintons were courageous enough to stand against the bigots of the Right WING who at the time were gunning to gay people marked and sent into forced quarantine. That's what really happened, that's the kind of bigotry the Clinton's stood against. Stop trying to get it twisted.

[democraticjack]

The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was the compromise. Bill Clinton was going to issue an executive order allowing gays in the military. It was an extremely unpopular idea and contributed to the turnover in Congress in '94. You have to give the Clintons for putting their toes in the waters everyone else was afraid to swim in, including healthcare.
You might say they had a dream......

[AguynamedWayne]

Don't Ask Don't Tell was a groundbreaking policy, it allowed for the first time, gays to serve in the military. It is by no means a perfect solution. But to imply that the Clintons' threw gays under the bus, because of Dont Ask Dont tell - is absolute B.S. The policy before Don't Ask Don't Tell - Was DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT - I should know, I was gay and in the army at the time. Back then NO ONE stood up for gay americans. Bill Clinton did, he may not have been perfect, but back then AIDS was still new, homphobia was RAMPANT, and the Clintons were courageous enough to stand against the bigots of the Right WING who at the time were gunning to get gay people marked and sent into forced quarantine. That's what really happened, that's the kind of bigotry the Clinton's stood against. Stop trying to get it twisted.

Reply Favorite

[hoopesaz]

I have a serious question...I'm afraid I'll get slaughtered for asking it, but it really is a question that I've never been able to understand. I'm clearly not on the same pool with many of you, if you will, but I don't want to ridicule...I really do want to understand. That being said...

I understand the validity of the argument that being gay is a genetic thing. I'm not sold on that, but I do recognize there is a serious argument. But, the writer made this comment...

"Gays are still objects of amusement ..."

My question, isn't some of the "amusement" self inflicted? Many (though certainly not all) gays dress in outlandish ways, they speak in such a way and have body language that just screams "pay attention to me." They are dramatic and over the top. To the uneducated observer, they are trying to be amusing. While being gay may be a genetic attribute, all of the dramatic and stereotypical behavior has to be learned, right?

I struggle...I know gays don't want to be stereotyped, but then so many have stereotypical behavior which to me seems to be begging to be stereotyped...they want their sexual preference to be visible as they walk down the streat.

Totally complicated issue. Apologies if my comments are offensive, but it's a deep question for me and I'm not sure how to ask it. I do, however, welcome responses of those trying to help me understand.

[AguynamedWayne]

How many gay people do you actually know? You seem to think all gay people "dress in outlandish ways", unfortunately you comments show that you percieve gay people in a steroetypical way. You may be shocked to find that there are many gay people who dress conservatively, act quite masculine (even join the militaryz) and though they might not fit the stereotype of what a gay person is, they are, none the less still Gay. I appreciate that you say you don't want to offend, but unfortunately you views of gay people are somewhat offensive (though that doesn't seem to be your intent).

[hoopesaz]

Understand what you're saying. Perhaps my view is twisted by my primary exposure to gays on TV. And, honestly, I apologize for my comments being offensive. I'm sure I could have asked my questions without doing so, but I didn't manage to do that.

I do know a number of people that are gay. What's interesting is that of those that I can think of, they certainly aren't the flamboyant type. They generally have manerisms or voice tonations that would leave one guessing, but there is one that I would not have guessed in a million years had he not told me. In some ways I suppose I have answered my own question (in part at least) in that I do have a somewhat stereotypical view of gays that has NOT been formed by my direct interaction with people who are gay. That's dissapointing to realize.

Still, I am curious about the manerisms...what's that about? Like I said, most of the gay men (and I suppose women) that I know, one still could guess their sexual preference simply by casual interaction with them and I wonder why that is? Or if there are any theories to why that is? I'm not suggesting it's right or wrong, just curious.

[NicoleAnonymous]

Did you actually take the time to read what they wrote or do you automatically insult anyone who has the audactity to ask questions about gay people?

Here is what they wrote:

"Many (though certainly not all) gays dress in outlandish ways"

Here is your response:

"You seem to think all gay people "dress in outlandish ways"

I'm not surprised this person had to go out of their way to make sure nobody was offended by their question. If you ask gay people anything they will automatically accuse you of being homophobic and they won't even bother reading what you wrote.

[GLU]

Well I don't know where I learned to act like that when I was 4, because people have told me they could tell way back then I was a big ol' mo. My love, at that age, of unicorns and my little pony didn't come from my parents, and I didn't have any sisters. And its not like there were gay people running around my little home town that I got my hand gestures from.

Even if "acting" gay was learned, so what? There are lots of different "subcultures" out there that I do not understand (bikers, red necks, goths...) but I don't try to change them.

[hoopesaz]

Thanks for sharing...so one more stereotype I have that perhaps just isn't true. But, just to be clear, I'm not trying to change you...or even suggest that you should change.

In my experience the best way to accept others differences is simply to try and understand them. That's my only objective...not to belittle

[omaro]

Great article! Yes, it is a wonderful and potentially transformative change merely to hear a politician acknowledge gays in a regular stump speech, as Obama always does. And his message at Ebenezer Baptist Church was principled and, I believe, helpful. Now, about "marriage": Many (not all, of course) ACLU-dues-paying, Unitarian Universalist-church-member, progressive Democrats like me do NOT favor "gay marriage" at the governmental level, since to many other people, if not us, "marriage" means the religious blessing of a relationship. What we would like to see is CIVIL MARRIAGE (or some other term) FOR ALL at the governmental level, and RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE in the religious community of choice. This would allow the admittedly many people whose deeply felt religious beliefs confirm that "God" or whoever would not bless a same-sex marriage to have their beliefs, while the rest of us can get on with creating a just and equitable governmental structure for all people. I don't want any level of government to have anything whatsoever to do with "blessing" anything, just as I believe we should get phrases like "under God" out of the Pledge, and prayers out of the Senate chamber. (Ah well, an old lady can dream, can't she?) And meanwhile, I can happily and joyfully participate in the marriage ceremonies of all kinds of couples in my church of choice, where gays are welcome, and let the less-accepting sorts have their own heterosexuals-only-need-apply religious ceremonies. Since these beliefs come out of my own practically religious belief in the sanctity of the First Amendment, I wonder where Barack Obama's own positions that you have outlined above come from.

[gonavy]

Yes, great article. Keep it up, helps to raly up the conservative base that McCain needs!!!

[oafishcad]

Saint Barak does not believe gays are equal citizens, nor does Hilary. They're better than McCain on gay issues. Ccertainly not "the first gay President". Not even close.

[AguynamedWayne]

Beyond the fact that Obama thought it a good idea to partner up with a long time anti-gay bigot like Donnie McClurkin, or his snub to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (over Newsoms' efforts to legalize gay marriage) - I also take issue, and note the sad irony, that Obama, who is by all accounts the first truly viable African American candidate for the presidency, is still none the less, a candidate that advocates a policy of "Seperate But Equal" when it comes to equality in marriage rights for gay americans. A sad irony, indeed. I'm sure Bayard Rustin would have been proud.

[StephenDedalus82]

Obama has not shown any indication that he intends to stake out politically risky positions on anything. His entire shtick has been to claim to be a freethinking maverick, while hedging on every controversial issue and saying what his particular audience wants to hear (take NAFTA and Ohio citizens, for example). I'm not saying Clinton is any better when it comes to supporting good causes that are politically risky, but I'm tired of Obama getting credit for being such a progressive/independent voice when he's been one of the most opportunistic politicians in modern history.

[Brooklynindy]

He's proposing to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act; I think even that will be politically risky assuming he's the candidate.

[HollywoodBill]

It is highly unlikely that Obama or any candidate will be in favor of repealing the DOMA in the general election. It's probably a case of veering left for the primary and then trekking back to the center for the general. And being against same sex marriage is the center position on this issue. 27 states have constitutional amendments banning or recognizing same sex marriage. 43 states have laws banning it.

Even if Barama or any candidate were to have a bill introduced repealing the DOMA, it would have to pass the Senate and the House. In 1996 DOMA passed 85-14 and 342-67 in the House. Sure things are different today-- or are they? All the constitutional amendments and laws were passed since 1996, most in 2004 after the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision.

Should Obama or Clinton try to repeal the DOMA, it is almost certain that there would be a huge outcry for that constitutional amendment that Bush was sort of in favor of. Without the DOMA, all bets would be off. The day may come, but it is going to take a long time. A very long time. I'd put money that Obama will backpedal on this issue by November.

[SCharb]

Saying he's "opposed" to gay marriage is unfortunate language. He's strong on gay rights, and will work hard to make sure everybody is treated equally under the law.

This way the whole thing can fly under the radar and dodge the "sanctity of marriage" brick wall. The "marriage" designation will follow within a decade.

[godlessclif]

When black men got the vote in 1965 the moderate word was don't push for
universal suffrage all at once, get black men the vote now
and votes for women were supposed to follow in a decade.

It was 55 years later before women got the vote.

Obama is for separate but equal for gays. That really worked for blacks, NOT.

[LindaLee99]

Sorry, supporting gay marriage is too much change, even for this candidate of "change". Same ole' same ole, don't ask don't tell policies.

[pandarzan]

Sorry Shaun, but it's that "deep commitment to hallowed religious and spiritual values " that as a gay man still scare the pink and white 2xist undies right off me. For me, he sounds too much like a Baptist preacher and it is religion that has kept us gays out of main stream acceptance. With Hillary, I know I don't need to get my hopes up that high again, just to be passed over one more time. As you said, it will not be a politician anyway, it will be the public.

And I don't know from which "scholar" you are quoting, but you or anyone else for that matter, can call me homosexual, gay, queer, or even fag, anytime you wish because I, like most of us, live my life out and proud of who I am and those words cannot hurt me.

[AguynamedWayne]

Wait a minute, Obama hired a rabid anti gay bigot like Donnie McClurkin to represent his campaign, and that's what you consider supporting gay rights? Obama won't even have his picture taken with Gavin Newsom because Newsom tried to legalize gay marriage! Please, Obama is an absolute hypocrite when it comes to LGBT issues!

[BenMurphyNYC]

Is that true that Obama won't take a picture with the Mayor of San Francisco? I would really like to read more on that if you have an article

[AguynamedWayne]

Several news media outlets covered the story including HuffPost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/obama-snub-still-rankles-_b_85077.html

[BenMurphyNYC]

Actually - that only took a moment to find! Wow.

"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL

[GLU]

And the Clintons gave us the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[AguynamedWayne]

If Obama cared at all about LGBT issues he would not have hired and refused to fire a long time anti-gay bigot like Donnie McClurkin. McClurkin has long preached that gay people are cursed by god, and are "deseased" yet Obama had no problem having a bigot like McClurkin represent his campaign to woo conservative blacks in South Carolina. And Obama refused to even have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, because of the fall out over Mayor Newsoms push to legalize gay marriage. So Obama will tour with an anti gay bigot, but won't even have his picture taken with a Mayor who advocated equality for gays? If anything Obama has shown he will throw gays under the bus whenever it becomes politically expedient for him to do so.

[Geoffreys]

Funny. I distinctly remember reading this elsewhere. Being a bit of a one-trick pony today?

[AguynamedWayne]

Doing my part to get the truth out there!

[MsLiz]

I never read that McClurkin was hired by Obama, or was subject to being fired by Obama. What I recall is that McClurkin was performing along with numerous other gospel singers at a function at which Obama spoke.

Good grief. Many other politicians see the down side of getting photographed with the notoriously adulterous major of San Francisco.

Why can't you support a candidate who won't self-immolate?

[vernonbc]

Obama didn't even speak at the function where McClurkin appeared. Was in a completely different state thousands of miles away. It was a function put on to support him in the black community that featured gospel music where McClurkin is a well known performer. I can completely understand gays hating McClurkin and his screwy opinions but sorry, I still think all the hate thrown Obama's way because he doesn't shun those who have different points of view than he does is undeserved and way over the top. Obama strongly renounced McClurkin's views and by his words and actions has proven that his own are completely opposite.

[HollywoodBill]

Other than using his bully pulpit, there is very little that Obama or Clinton for that matter can do regarding same sex marriage. There are now 27 states that have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman that the voters of those states passed. And they weren't all Republican voting for those amendments either. The average on those amendments is around 60%. The only way that those amendments get repealed is to go back to the voters. Not going to happen anytime in the forseeable future.

In Massachusetts, there were 6200 same sex marriages performed in 2004. 1900 in 2005. And for the first quarter of 06, there were under 100 which annualizes out to less than 500. Hardly a pent up demand even within the gay community. No political party is going to go against the wishes of the majority on an issue that doesn't even resonate with its own community. There are no demonstrations demanding same sex marriage. No tv commercials promoting it when it has been on the ballot. It is a strangely passive arguement for what is supposedly a civil right.

Obama's standard unity stump speech which I heard for the first time on tv after his Wisconsin victory startled me with his mentionning of gays in the same breath as straights, blacks, white and hispanics and probably some other groups that I didn't hear. The blandness and the banality of the phrase struck me more than anything. Acceptance was fully there. It was assumed and for the first time I can ever recall mentionned in the same breath as anyone else. But gays were mentionned and not left out. No big deal that we were included. Nice. Accepting. And assumes that everyone is on board.

Gays have to get over the fact that it may take generations for same sex marriage to happen if it ever does. In the meantime Obama is a candidate who can make things happen. Increments are small, but attitude changing is tough work. Pettiness over supposed slights can be held as grudges or, in the greater scope of things, gotten over. Obama offers hope for a unified America if some small minds can overlook a few flaws.

[Geoffreys]

Gays do not have to get over any 'fact' regarding multi-generational fights toward same-sex marriage. In Europe it has become commonplace - even South Africa allows same-sex marriages. So what is this 'fact' other than an opinion that the US is backwards and repressive ...

You're 100% correct about the states that have amended their constitutions to forbid marriage and/or unions. But, what's been done can be un-done. I am of the opinion that for most Americans, Gay Marriage came at them out of left field and their kneejerk reaction was to side with the bigots. But, given the right amount of pushing in the right direction, they can be coaxed over the the side of inclusion. Once upon a time, it was a crime in most states just to be gay - and those laws are gone now.

I believe that most Americans are kind and accepting people but who are insulated from the outside world and can be easily scared when the right people press their buttons.

[HollywoodBill]

The anti sodomy laws were struck down with the famous Lawrence v Texas case brought before the SCOTUS in 2003. Four Republican appointed Justices, Stevens, Souter, and O"Connor joined with the two Democratic appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer to concur with Justiice Kennedy's writing of the landmark 6-3 decision that threw out the Texas and the few other states that still had sodomy laws on the books.

Anyone expecting the SCOTUS to overturn state constitutional amendments that voters have passed is in for a long wait. In the history of the country the SCOTUS has rarely overturned a state Supreme Court decision. Same sex marriage will have to be repealed the same way they passed and that is by voter initiative. There will be no relief from the SCOTUS.

[bradleyglisson]

Actually he said he believes in equal rights for gay couples just like married couples. And that if a church wants to recognize gay marriage then it's their right to. That's about as close to getting real gay marriage as is possible these days unfortunately. But it's a lot farther than Hilldog's willing to go.

[loisteagulp]

How is that further than Senator Clinton's positions? She also supports civil unions.

[vanessa04]

Would that be why he voted "No." on an Illinois bill that would have given same sex partners spousal recognition in the event of their partner's death?

That hardly seems like equal rights to me. Or support of civil unions.

But then, it's just semantics, isn't it? Unless you're gay.

[vanessa04]

Would that be why he voted "No." on an Illinois bill that would have given same sex partners spousal recognition in the event of their partner's death?

That hardly seems like equal rights to me. Or support of civil unions.

What he says and what he does aren't quite lining up. But then, it's just semantics, isn't it? Unless you're gay.

[midcenturymod]

Why can't you just make your point without being offensive?

[vernonbc]

And that's exactly how it's treated and almost universally accepted in Canada and the rest of the world. The ceremony (for anyone - hetero or homo) is a civil matter and can occur in a church or anywhere. The equal rights are lawfully guaranteed. Americans have to get over their religious hangup about it and treat it as a legal matter.