Obama Needs to End Silence on Biggest Civil Rights Move of Our Time

Barack Obama has appointed a hyperactive director of faith-based initiatives, Josh DuBois, and sees little problem continuing the blurring of church and state that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton initiated in their terms. I remain very uncomfortable with evangelicals and other preachers -- many of whom have narrow and bigoted views of America's 21st century civil rights challenges.

That said, I realize that faith-based initiatives are here and part of the scene. I get it.

But there needs to be equal time for some of the victims of this cozy relationship between the oval office and anti-gay religious adherents.

Same sex marriages are now a real part of the scene too -- something allowed in the enormous state of California for a short time until the day that Barack Obama himself was elected nationally and won the California vote.

Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, and Iowa are the five leading states that endorse and provide for same sex marriages. New York and Washington DC (at least for 30 days) recognize these marriages. And New Hampshire is likely to be the sixth state to provide for same sex marriages.

Eventually, California will be back in the same sex marriage column.

This is happening as the weeks unfold -- and President Barack Obama has said NOTHING.

Yesterday, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs had an exchange with ABC's Jake Tapper:

"No, I think the president's position on same-sex marriage is -- has been talked about and discussed," Gibbs curtly replied.

"He opposes same-sex marriage?" Tapper asked.

"He supports civil unions," Gibbs said, not really answering the question.

Obama is basically ducking the issue for the time being -- voting the proverbial "present" without indicating support or opposition as he basks in Oval Office power -- present, there, watching -- but doing nothing.

For him, it's a states rights issue -- not a civil rights issue at the federal level.

I can't quite believe that our first African-American President is sitting this one out -- but I do get the politics of it, to a point. What I don't get is his withdrawal from other key gay community issues.

What is directly in Obama's purview -- as not only a federal issue but one directly linked to the office he holds -- is the "don't ask, don't tell" order regarding discrimination against gays in the US military. Obama promised during his campaign to end this hypocrisy that leads to the expulsion of a full brigade a year from the armed services. Those thrown out are qualified men and women who are replaced in part by those needing criminal file "moral waivers."

In fact, Aaron Belkin points out that Obama is about to preside as Commander-in-Chief over his national security bureacracy's first firing of a gay Arab linguist.

Obama's position of total silence on this fast and historic expansion of gay marriage rights could be offset if he finally asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a new impact study of what gays in the military (and they are in the military if anyone cared to look -- in very, very large numbers) would do to "morale."

General Colin Powell has said that it is time to review this issue -- and is keeping his powder dry until such a review by the Joint Chiefs is done. Former Senator Sam Nunn -- who fired two of his own personal national security policy staff in the 1990s for being gay -- has also said that "times have changed" and that it is time to review the policy.

And yet... what did President Obama do?

As John Aravosis recently shared, Obama's transparent presidency significantly weakend the Don't Ask/Don't Tell commitment and policy position from the White House website.

This is unacceptable. I don't like but do understand the internal debate inside the White House on the issue of "civil union" vs. "marriages". Obama's view is now behind the times as many states leap frog forward into the 21st century in a way that Obama is not doing.

But there is no excuse at all -- none -- for allowing the bigotry and harassment of gays and lesbians in the armed forces to stand. Gays populate the armed services now.

Obama's silence is disturbing and wrong. While he may not be able for political reasons to move on marriages, to do nothing on the military front -- which is in his portfolio -- deserves serious criticism.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Comments

[carsntrucks]

I wont vote for Obama if he legalizes gay marriage.

I will lose any and all respect for him if he concludes that gay marriage is a "civil right". He's a Constitutional law scholar. He oughta know better.

[Dots]

Don't Ask Don't Tell is UNAMERICAN, unconstitutional, hostile discrimination.
It needs to be changed by Executive Order asap.

Here's the other Solution:
Under the constitution everyone should have the legal right to get married with all the rights afforded.
The church itself can decide if it is willing to marry them also.
It's this simple. One or Two ceremonies.
All are "married."
Those with two ceremonies are "church married."

[MAH1952]

Okay, why is anyone surprised. BO is turning out to be a black GWB. Even though I am a Republican I voted for him in November thinking he would change things. He isn't. He claims to be like FDR but he is making GWB look like a radical.

[LeftLeanWing]

Oh Please .....

[steamboat]

You might be right....Inherited unemployment at 7.2% and it is now 8.9%. And has increased deficit to where it use to be our children would have to pay to end this defict. Now it'll be our great-grandchildren's responsibility. Oh yeah, escaltion of Afghanistan and over-running into Pakistan, and with many civilian deaths. And there will be troops remaining always in Iraq....Yep, still as when you were all talking about Bush.

[DRaymond]

So in less than a half year six new states will have recognized gay marriage.

How many would there be if Obama had issued a big push, or maybe even a national legalization agenda? Fewer, most likely none. The states would have dug in against federal pressure or a federal mandate.

Sometimes the best thing Washington can do about social progress is stay out of the way.

Clinton made gay rights a day one issue and wound up having to order DADT and it energized the anti-gay movement for years.

Obama is a national politician and this is not an issue ready for the national venue. 20 states recognizing gay mariage (which I think you would regard as great progress) still leaves 30 who would not and many of those states are decades away from it. When the nation is ready for a gay marriage version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act then it would be time for Obama to do what LBJ did. But it is nowhere near that point now.

Keep chipping away at the states. Treat it like an electoral college map. When states equaling a majority of the house and senate recognize gay marriage the time for a national law will be at hand. In the meantime be glad that a Democratic President and Congress (unlike under Bush and the Republicans) will not be pushing through a harsher or even punitive version of the Defense of Marriage Act.

[FearlessFreep]

"How many would there be if Obama had issued a big push, or maybe even a national legalization agenda? Fewer, most likely none. The states would have dug in against federal pressure or a federal mandate."

What makes you so certain of that? What makes you so certain that an Obama push wouldn't actually increase the number of states?

[LeftLeanWing]

The Clinton Example..

Bill Clinton started out with trying to rescind the Military's Ban on gay men and women and we ended up with Don't Ask Don't Tell. The opposition was relentless in their pushback.

Obama is allowing consensus to Build and waiting for stronger indications from the military establishment and the public that there would not be any large and strong opposition.

[Cool-headed]

I agree. Obama can't be all things to all people. If he supports gay marriage explicitly, all hell would break lose and he would not be able to accomplish other things. He must keep to the center, he can't afford to lose all the support of religious people . I think Obama is being very smart, as always, by keeping his mouth shut and letting the ball roll by itself - although it's pretty obvious where his heart is. He is already being called a socialist, a marxist and so on - imagine if he gives explicit approval to gay marriage. No, no no. He's right on this one.

[Dustee]

What I've been reading to date from different groups is....

This is the best time for President Obama to support the LGBT causes because we went out of our way to put him in office.

This is the best time for the president to push through immigration while his numbers are high. We went out of our way to support him.

This is the best time for Obama to speak out for the AA causes because we voted overwhelmingly to help him to be president.

Why is Obama spending so much money and has yet to clear up the issues with the economy and he chose all the wrong people.

What's up with those two wars? He's doing everything wrong. He needs to prosecute all those people involved with torture, now!!!.
I guess it's time for Obama to get off his behind and start fulfilling his promises, *immediately if not sooner*. He has done nothing for anyone in the last three and a half months. Now everyone wants to replace him I see.

My question, is 3.5 months enough time to please all these groups and their concerns?

[MAH1952]

No, it is too short a time for that. BUT, he can demonstrate a desire for change which he is not. He is putting people in power fro past administrations, but in his case it is the Clinton rather than the Reagan as GWB did. The problem is we need NEW ideas, not failed recycled ones.

[SalemCat]

Guess what ?

I think we just got Bush's Third Term.

It's called Barack Obama.

[dianhow]

Steve I'm a liberal who voted for OBama, believe in a womens right to choose etc.
. But I am so tired of you guys calling this a civil rights issue. It is NOT. Myself and my firiends
all want gays to have all the rights we all enjoy. However- Folks like me believe that ' marriage ' is a special thing between a man and a woman. It holds much symbolism for us.
So - why must gays DEMAND to have one of our most treasured commitments ?
. This issue does have two sides - not just one side.

[MAH1952]

Then let us do what most civilized first world countries do. Have civil and religious ceremonies, with every one required to have a civil, only those who want (gay or straight) can have a religious.

[Strepsi]

As long as marriage is a civil institution granting certain rights, your beliefs and "symbolism" are irrelevant. This issue does have just one side. There were many people who could not handle the symbolism of a black person at the front of a bus -- again, too bad for them and irrelevant. This is not a human rights issue, but it IS a civil rights issue.

[Matt Carter]

Wow, that was some truly breathtaking ignorance right there.

You ask why we must demand one of YOUR treasured committments? That sums up the debate perfectly.

Here's the thing -- IT'S NOT YOURS. It doesn't belong to you. Only YOUR marriage belongs to you. Just like only MY marriage would belong to me. Get it?

[patsynow]

Pleeeeeeeze.. obama has absolutely no reason not to work on gays and liesbians in the military you say --except for a ga-zillion things on his plate. Give me a break with your agenda. Cool it, you will be getting your way. I agree that the military should make no distinction re sexual orientation. Just stop the militancy and bashing all kinds of people because you do not get instant gratification about your wishes. And yes, it is sameful that good men and women are discharged from the military. But again, cool it. Take some systematic steps and stop with the acting up behavior.
Patsy now.

[Ironfox]

Yea, stop being so "upitty", they'll get around to you eventually.

[Liberalpoop]

"Just stop the militancy and bashing all kinds of people because you do not get instant gratification about your wishes."

Instant gratification?!?! Um, I think the LGBT community's been waiting, PATIENTLY, and I mean PATIENTLY for a long...long....long...long time. Furthermore, this is not simply about our "wishes", this is our lives, our rights, and our existence.

[CherokeeGirl]

the biggest civil rights move of our time is moving on torture and war crimes and upholding the law.

I have gay friends, good friends, and the minute they start talking about the bedroom, I tell them "hey, I don't tell you about mine, I don't wanna hear about yours." And they understand that and we laugh about it.

I wish we could just let people be who they are without them having to exclaim it and expect everyone to accept it. Gay couples should be able to file joint tax returns and share health insurance and live together raising their kids in peace.

Unmarried people are descriminated against on taxes and in some circles of society. What about that? We don't get weddings or wedding gifts or mothers days. We aren't all up in arms about it. We are scorned too.

What do gay people expect from the public? Total acceptance? That’s unrealistic. Get married, that's great, but do I have to hear ALL about it? Why the piece of paper?

And why tell everyone your gay if you're in the military? I don't understand why they are saying they are being made to lie about who they are. Who cares if they're gay? I would keep it to myself. We don’t want swooshie troops walking around. Well, it’s TRUE!

Someone's gonna have to explain this to me. I'm stumped as to what is so horrible happening here.

[FearlessFreep]

"Total acceptance? That"s unrealistic." Why?

[CherokeeGirl]

I just mean that 1 in 10 people hate Obama, so that probably means these same people hate gays because they are total bigots.

I wish everyone would accept everyone else, but it's just not yet realistic and will probably take another generation before that happens.

[Strepsi]

Gay people do not expect total acceptance but they do expect equal Civil rights under the law.

P.S. > How about you stop your mind from going to "the bedroom" every time someone says "my husband"?

[DnDCfromChi-town]

WHY ARE YOU MODERATING MY COMMENTS????? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[DnDCfromChi-town]

I never equate the G&L struggle with the struggle of African Americans in this country. B4 i am bombarded with accusations of bigotry my uncle; a VERY gay black male will never see the struggle as being alike either. He is an activist in Chicago that helped craft the Quality of Life Bill in IL.
Here is the link to the bill:
http://www.chicagofreepress.com/node/1274
… I belonged to a very progressive church in Chicago b4 I moved 2 DC, our church was unfortunately tainted during the campaign by many whites in the L&G without realizing that our church is a friend. Others were silent.... I would have voted against proposition 8, it was stupid....
I understand that I saying a lot about my background. I sense I need 2 because when you criticize on this blog u are completely attacked for being a bigot; then the comunication gets lost. No one listens therefore, no one learns…. My heart is open to some quality dialogue about the differences/similarities between the groups. I realize that there are some within our community who don’t mind the comparison however many AA's I know do..

[FearlessFreep]

"Our church was unfortunately tainted during the campaign by many whites in the L&G..." Be more specific.

[GraceNeeded]

"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury." No one I know whether they be straight or gay, Christian or Atheist, married or single, etc. etc. wants any American citizen to be discriminated against based on their status, religion, ethnicity or sexual preference under ouor secular laws. What I do strongly take issue with is redefining foundational terms of our laws, both secular and religious. YES, please make civil unions so they have the same protections under the law for those who are gay, but NO way do I feel comfortable redefining marriage. When we start redefining foundational terms from our Judeo-Christian heritage and all of English Law, than anything is open to negotiating. Next thing you know, we have children saying it is their 'civil right' to have sex with whomever, afterall adults do or the decriminalization of incest, rape, etc. because afterall we are infringing on some person's civil rights to choose whatever partner they would wish, irregardless of gender, age or familial relationship. This the majority of Americans cannot abide by. We NEED absolutes that we can trust and foundational terms in our laws, both secular and spiritual are too important to negotiate on. They are the underpinnings of our government, history and lives. It is my 'civil right' to be able to depend on the definition of terms that predate all of us and reach back in history 10,000 years.

[StevenKeirstead]

Absolutes that perpetuate discrimination are destructive. Marriage equality is not hurting anyone in Massachusetts, and it won't hurt the rest of the US. Keeping gay or lesbian couples from marrying is harmful, causing all sorts of financial inequities for all of these people. Marriage inequity especially hurts same sex couples with children. People in Maine and Vermont get that, and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the country follows.

I know this change causes cognitive dissonance for "traditional marriage" advocates, so perhaps Medicaid and Medicare should set aside some funds for psychological counseling for the fundamentalists.

[SJBrown]

There is nothing about marriage that stops the government from changing tax laws or social security rules. Marriage is not the financial equity mechanism for this country.

Any company or government can change the way it aligns benefits independent of marriage.

And guess what, when marriage becomes independent of gender, we can change the law to make it easier for all of us that don't want "until death do we part every thing is yours and mine contracts" to get benefits for our lovers, love ones, and relatives.

[GoldStarMom]

I think the Government - on both federal AND state levels should issue ONLY Civil Union Contracts. These would take the place of - not merely be an addition to - the currently issued Marriage Licenses and would permit any two consenting adult PEOPLE to enter into such a contract. The EXACT same benefits that are currently accrued and granted when a couple "gets married" would INSTEAD be granted by entering into a Civil Union Contract.

"Marriage" or "Wedding" ceremonies - if desired - would be optional and at the discretion of the couple. Who a particular (church/synagogue/temple/ or whatever) chooses to conduct such a ceremony for would - as they do now - depend entirely on their particular religion doctrines.

Just as background, I'm a straight white female who has been happily married to a straight white male for nearly 31 years. Together we have raised 3 straight white male children. Whether any two people of the same sex decide to get married to each other or not has never and will never have any impact on my marriage or personal life whatsoever - just as whether a heterosexual couple getting married or not doesn't affect me and my life - except for making me happy, if I know them.

[Strepsi]

Your post is untrue. America DID redefine marriage -- radically re-defined traditional marriage -- in the 1980's, when the courts ruled that a man could rape his wife. The "traditional" view that "each back in history 10,000 years" is that a man OWNS his wife and can bang her when he wants until she has a son or dies trying. Traidional marriage is dead. Modern marriage is better. Gay people deserve equal civil rights, and your "comfort" level with the concept is irrelevant.

[Wileynight]

Please, be patient: Obama inherited HUGE problems thanks to Bush, so he is forced to prioritize. The fact that he has been silent on the issue tells me he is keeping his cards close to his chest and will make a decision when the time is right for him to do so. He's only been in office for four months and yet people of all political stripes are clamoring for him not only to walk on water but to change that water into wine. He is not "Jesus Christ Superstar," people, no matter how much you expect him to be.

[joebftsplk]

Hi, Creepsinc,
You're not making sense. You knew that W. would be a disaster yet you voted for him? So you're one of those responsible for the mess he made! Obama has made great strides in the right directions. He hasn't made everything right yet; he has Congress and politicians to deal with. But he's on his way.

[creepsinc]

Are you KIDDING me? I never said I voted for GWB, because I didn't vote for GWB. I said I voted for Obama, though. WHEN are people going to learn to comprehend the words they allegedly read?

[pfranklin400]

yet another liberal trying to break the law. Agree with it or not, today that is the law and to liberals the laws are of no concern.