Barack Obama: America's First Gay President?

Our historic President is squandering an historic opportunity.

During his campaign, Barack Obama made some audacious promises to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. He supported the repeal of both "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act. He rejected the Federal Marriage Amendment and any attempt to stifle state efforts to legalize civil unions or same-sex marriage. He stated that the federal government should recognize all state laws respecting such relationships. He called for a more comprehensive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the inclusion of both sexual orientation and gender identity in federal hate crimes statutes. He supported Medicaid coverage for low-income, HIV-positive Americans, and sharp increases in funding for HIV/AIDS research. He endorsed the re-authorization of the Ryan White CARE Act and was a vocal advocate for expanding initiatives to deal with the increasingly global AIDS crisis. He wouldn't support marriage equality -- a stance we understood politically, but never accepted morally -- but he did endorse civil unions that give same-sex couples the same legal rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples.

On paper, then, Barack Obama was perhaps the most LGBT-friendly Presidential candidate in the history of the United States. He was our candidate. When he was elected last November, we had every reason to hope that there would no longer be a gay America and a straight America. Under his leadership, we would finally become full, free, and equal citizens of the United States of America.

We are still waiting.

Granted, there are a few glimmers of hope. Over the summer, he posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk, the first openly gay American political official who was murdered some thirty years ago by a fellow member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In July, Obama signed an executive order extending some benefits--though not full health-care coverage--to same-sex couples employed by the federal government. He has appointed some openly gay and lesbian people to important jobs in his Administration, most recently, David Huebner, the prominent gay attorney, who will become the U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa if confirmed by the Senate. On the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion--the series of protests that marked the formal birth of the gay liberation movement in June 1969--President Obama invited 300 gay and lesbian leaders to the White House for a reception, where he gave one of his trademark speeches about "hope" and "change," honoring the historic commitment of LGBT activists and pledging to "not only be your friend," but also "an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you." This weekend, as we prepare to march on Washington for full equality, the President will give another one of these speeches at the fancy Human Rights Campaign annual dinner.

This hardly constitutes the bold agenda he promised us. Indeed, when it comes to full LGBT equality, President Obama is more symbol than substance, a lot of talk and not much action. This is painful for me to admit, because I was inspired by his candidacy, and worked very hard, along with so many others, to get him elected. Election Day 2008 was one of the greatest days of my life, notwithstanding the painful setbacks that came with the passage of anti-gay ballot initiatives in California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas. Still, there was ample cause to celebrate -- and celebrate we did -- because we finally had an ally in the White House who would fight with and for us.

In retrospect, we were foolish to have such hope. After all, given the history of the United States, we should know that Presidents are almost never out in front on matters of great social change. Despite the preponderance of candidates historically who have run on platforms of "change," more often than not, Presidents play it safe. After all, Lincoln did not come into office an abolitionist. FDR did not come into office a union man. LBJ did not come into office a civil rights activist. And yet Lincoln saw to it that slavery was abolished, FDR signed legislation protecting the rights of workers to collectively bargain, and LBJ eventually pushed for the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Each of these men--all great Presidents in terms of domestic policy--presided over periods of profound social transformation because they were moved by the progressive forces around them. But they were exceptions to the general rule. By definition, Presidents are conservative, even the liberal ones. Jesse Jackson has reminded us that social change only occurs when enlightened leaders are moved by an energized electorate. If Obama wants to be a truly great American President, he will need to become an enlightened exception.

Barack Obama may yet become our President, but he has a long way to go. In the meantime, we must remember that Obama is not the leader of our movement; he's not even a member of our movement. He never has been and he never will be, and we cannot wait for him to come around. There is too much work to do, too many people suffering in silence and sickness, too many instances of violence and discrimination, too many laws to overturn and hearts and minds to change. Like the abolitionists and workers and feminists and civil rights activists before us, only we can determine our destiny and lay the path to our own liberation. Progress comes from the people, not the President.

That said, our movement stands in the midst of a curious paradox. On the one hand, it is intoxicating to think about all the progress we have made in a relatively short period of time. Many of us--though not nearly all of us--have a place at the table, a voice in the debate, the power and privilege to have some influence and get some things done. On the other hand, partial inclusion is not the same thing as full equality. It's nice that Obama invited 300 of us to the White House on the anniversary of Stonewall, but it was troubling to see so many angry activists transformed into smiling sycophants at the mere prospect of a photo op with the President and First Lady. It's gratifying to hear "gay and lesbian" included in the President's speeches, but it's frustrating to know that gay and lesbian concerns and perspectives are largely absent from his Administration's policy agenda. It was energizing to hear candidate Obama call for the repeal of DOMA and maddening to watch President Obama's Justice Department defend that same heinous law. It was a long overdue relief to know that candidate Obama would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and an unexpected slap in the face to hear that President Obama would sooner increase troops to fight the "good war" than end discrimination in the military once and for all. It is inspiring to see so many gay and lesbian activists, myself included, protest this weekend's HRC affair, and insulting to hear that the dinner was sold out rather than shut down when the President agreed to deliver the keynote address. If the President wants to speak to us--all of us--and if he actually wants to hear from us, he should march with us, side by side, from this day forward.

Throughout his campaign, Obama frequently invoked the "fierce urgency of now." He was quoting Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech from the 1963 March on Washington--a gathering not unlike this weekend's march for LGBT equality. For King, of course, words meant nothing without action. And so it is worth remembering that nearly five months before his iconic speech, he had been arrested in Birmingham, AL--"the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States"--for leading a series of protests against the city's racist Jim Crow policies. From his cell, King wrote the "Letter from Birmingham Jail," one of the great moral treatises of American protest literature, where he criticized not only the racists who sought to deny black people their full rights of citizenship, but also moderates who stood in the way of the more radical goals of the Civil Rights Movement. Five years later, King was dead, murdered in Memphis, TN, because he had the audacity to challenge his country to live up to its founding ideals.

Obama is hardly the first person to invoke Dr. King's words for political purposes. And he is hardly the least deserving, considering the fact that his success has been made possible, in large measure, by the courage and sacrifice of Dr. King and his compatriots. That said, we should remember that the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" also contained these words: "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." Before Obama was elected, he went out of his way to convince the LGBT community that he is a man of good will, and that is why we are so frustrated with his inaction as President. Again, we can't help but hear the words of Dr. King: "For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.'"

We will wait no longer, Mr. President. It's now, not never.

When Bill Clinton -- another great gay hope who proved a bust -- was elected, the Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison famously referred to him as America's "first black President." Of course, Clinton wasn't actually black. But Morrison meant it in a deeper sense -- Clinton was a person who understood black people, who grew up with and around black people, who cared for them and about them, a white man willing to challenge America's brutal legacy of slavery and racism by embracing a broad civil rights agenda. Whether or not Clinton lived up to this billing is a matter for another day. But Barack Obama has a similar opportunity with respect to the LGBT community. He can stand with us or work against us. He can become an ally or an adversary. If Bill Clinton was America's first black President, surely our first black President can become America's first gay President.

 

Comments

[judgeinmillvalley]

To say that he's not yet your president is unpatriotic. We all have special interests. He's our president despite those who want to say he was born elsewhere or won't accept him until everything is changed. Get over it--he's the president. Support him or you'll get somebody far worse.

[superstition]

There is nothing "special" about the Constitution.

[superstition]

Audacious? No.

"Barack Obama made some audacious promises..­.supported the repeal of both DADT & DOMA. rejected FMA...stated that the federal government should recognize all state laws respecting such relationships. called for a more comprehensive ENDA...hate crimes statutes. supported Medicaid coverage for low-income, HIV-positi­ve...sharp increases in funding for HIV/AIDS research. endorsed re-authorization of the Ryan White CARE Act ... expanding initiatives to deal with the increasingly global AIDS crisis. "

Cheney came out against the FMA in 2004 while Bush was promoting it. That was audacious in comparison. Majorities of church-goers, conservatives, and Republicans wanted DADT ended before Obama was elected. Bush, as far as I know, increased AIDS funding (although also the stupid abstinence-only nonsense the Democrats just passed from the finance committee)... Nothing in that list qualifies as audacious. The Constitution already gives us equal rights and we're equal to heterosexuals. Is it so audacious for a politician to realize that to some extent?

"He wouldn't support marriage equality -- a stance we understood politically, but never accepted morally --"

That is audacious from a Constitutional Law professor, because it's a violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments, if not more.

[KofTX]

I just wanted to clear a few things up....

DADT is a LAW.
Congress and congress alone must repeal that law...

No executive order or signing statement can reverse LAW.
Or don't you remember why so many of you are asking that the Bushies be investigated because of torture. BUSH TRIED THE WHOLE SIGNING STATEMENT/WAR TIME EXECUTIVE ORDER DEFENSE.

[Yalin]

Actually that's completely incorrect. DADT has a clear provision in it allowing the President to stop loss DADT expulsions.

[JohnSawyer]

It's not completely inaccurate--though DADT does contain a stop-loss provision that Obama could take advantage of, DADT is still a federal law, not an executive order. Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, under pressure from Republicans and the military, but signing a bill into law is different from signing an executive order.

[SeymourButz]

Having the title "first gay president" isn't going to help him win middle america.

[johnfoirdfw]

I for one am hopeful. I do not think we should sit and wait but I think we need to be somewhat patient and not attack our allies. Are things perfect? No. They are a sight better than they ever have been. I think this man, OUR President, will keep his word. There is a high probability that he understands the politics of the situation. Give him a chance please.

[bluestems]

thank you!

[BrotherTheodore]

"In retrospect, we were foolish to have such hope."

DUH!

[Paris]

Somebody please list a few politicians who do not promise the sun moon and stars if they are elected. Once in office, suddenly our idols have feet of clay The gay rights movement needs to insist on human rights now, because it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, but we must all understand it's not going to happen now. The last administration, for 8 years, was at best indifferent, if not actively hostile to gay causes. I believe we now do have a president who believes this is important but without pressure it will become a back burner issue.

[Katayev]

Excellent comment. That light at the end of the tunnel's lookin' awful small and dim these days, but victory has never come to those who failed to keep on fighting and (and I do hope this word doesn't lose all meaning following the election) hoping.

I really do wonder what scenario those here and elsewhere demanding the gays shut up and lie down envision. Are they worried Obama is going to get mad and enact more anti-gay legislation? Or is their sympathy for their gay brothers and sisters really so shallow that they'll abandon it if someone so much as says anything equivocal about a politician they like?

[ImissBush]

self hating gay
mayB

[Doc0976]

Call me cynical, but to refer to President Bill Clinton as the nation's first black president is just as empty and baseless as the notion that President Barack Obama is, or even could be considering the political landscape, our nation's first gay president. I think gay rights is as simple as civil rights, or human rights for that matter. The problem is that, like everything else in the political realm, gay rights is now the new, highly coveted "black vote": pulled out when needed for a boost and neatly tucked away when no longer viable or convenient.

I understand what Toni Morrison meant when she used the phrase, but in retrospect, saying that Bill Clinton is the nation's first black president is a slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands of Rwandans that lost their lives due to his inaction (the UN's then-SG Kofi Annan is not blameless either). On the same note, considering how much was promised and hoped for under the banner of gay rights wielded by the candidate Barack Obama, that same slap resounds very loudly. It should not have taken this long to address gay rights, but politics reigns supreme and everything changes once you win. I'm all for President Obama and believe he has the capital to effect positive change, he just needs to cash that check in ASAP.

[SiberianRat]

My gosh, all of these articles are the same. Does anyone have anything new to say?

Btw, Clinton was NOT the 1st black Prez and Obama is not the 1st gay Prez--do we really need to take identity politics to such an extreme?

[Doc0976]

Cosign.

[ckfan]

Bravo!

[JLI1976]

Agreed.

[houstonbch]

"Once you label me you negate me" -- Soren Kierkegaard

I agree with you. I do not see the need to place labels, especially ones that don't apply, to people. Clinton was not the first black president. Obama gets that honor. And the first gay president, when he or she is elected, will get the honor of being the first gay president. I am fine with that labeling since it is an accomplishment and a huge milestone. But outside of that, being labeled the gay anything is disrepectful to the person being labeled. (for instance, I am not a gay man. I am a man who happens to be gay, and Irish, and employed, and a list of adjectives that only describe one small piece of the whole that is me.

[websmith]

The Constitution provides equal rights to the People. It's the law. If you're a human being, you don't need an act of Congress, executive order, or another bureaucracy in order to get these rights. You need a government that will protect them.

[JohnSawyer]

On the other hand, the founding fathers, primarily Jefferson, decided that the Constitution, by itself, without the Bill of Rights, might not have explicitly and clearly enough set forth the rights the founding fathers wanted to be the law of the land, so they went along with Jefferson's insistence. As Jefferson said to James Madison, in 1787:

"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations."

[Coinyer101]

I agree. There is no logical reason for the President to continue to allow this to go on, while waiting endlessly for a useless congress where dems have a 21% approval, and repubs have 9%. He is CIC during a time of war with troops stretched thin. He has every legal authority to issue a moratorium through an executive order until congress can get their stuff together. It's time he stopped ignoring the folks who helped elect him, and the dedicated troops who only wish to serve their country.....,

[KofTX]

he cannot break the law...dadt is a law. congrees must repeal it.

[JohnSawyer]

He can take advantage of DADT's stop-loss provision to order no further dismissals for anyone he chooses.

[happycozy]

I'm still confused as to why the gays are throwing in the towel ten months into the guy's administration. If Obama had nothing on his plate but gay rights, I'd be angry, too--asking what he's waiting for. But it's not like he's clearing brush at his ranch. We've got people dying because they don't have access to affordable health care. We've soldiers dying in Afghanistan. We've got people losing their jobs and their homes. Give the guy some time.

[JohnFromCensornati]

That is a tired argument. How much time does he need to sign an executive order?

[raop]

An excutive order is not something you conjure up in a jiffy and sign. It needs a lot of background work and legislative set ups in place. I am sure Obama is already feeling the heat for the Guantanomo Bay closing executive order. He is not going to step into another hasty one now. I agree with happycozy. We can only judge him in 3-4 years. There is far too much " brushes to clean up on his plate".

[makeshiftriot]

None. He just needs to do it. I hope after this he does the right thing.

If it were me I would have done it on day one.

The bill on the other hand does take some time and that is understandable... to an extent.

This needs to happen.

[DorianBrandon]

Talk about being selfcentered and narcissistic; the world revolves around us alone and the rest of you can go to hell.

[jmundstuk]

You can't really believe that DADT can be eliminated by executive order and that would be the end of that. If you do, you need to learn more about the way American government works and the political balancing act that is going on right now regarding hcr, climate legislation, financial reform, consumer protection, etc. I realize that it is fun and liberating to sound off here, but that doesn't get us very far. Please look at a little history of the civil rights movement and the 1993 fiasco on gays in the military, then think what might possible be in the minds of the Obama administration, aside from a desire to affront you personally. Sorry, but I get a little annoyed with the simplistic solutions.

[Denise96]

Signing an executive order will be a big mistake. President Obama is right. If the law passes through congress, it will be hard to overt urn. If he signs an executive order, a different President, most likely a republican one will just simply sign an executive order to over turn it.

[Coinyer101]

It's not just gays. It's the many people who support their rights to equality, as well....,

[AlaskanWannaB]

I totally agree with you. Sorry, folks, but the gay rights issue is not a priority when their are people who don't have jobs, men and women dying in two wars, and people dying because of inadequate healthcare.

This is the first President who are interested in solving "some" of the gay issues. If you have someone better for 2016, I suggest you do as you threaten to do and vote for him.

And, instead of you sitting on the sidelines complaining, why don't you do what your other gays are doing and protest and write letters to your representatives. While the gay community is important to us all, it is a small community. And even within your community, most gays realize that this is not a priority due to the U.S. current economic woes. People need jobs, houses and food.

I think President Obama will do away with DADT. But, he would be a fool to make civil rights his primary issue to tackle given the state of the U.S. economy today.

[rebrarenee]

I co sign with you. I understand the LGBT community frustrations. They have spent scores of years being cruelly discriminated against. YET...I am sure that many of those same members are also suffering from our broken healthcare system, the zillions of dollars spent on nonsense wars, the collaspse of the housing industry. the rampant greed of wall street, the nonsensical violence in our cities, high unemployment, and climate change. I am not saying go to the end of the line, but if you really want DADT repealed, you need to organize and ELECT senators and congress people who are empathetic to your cause. The President can ONLY sign a law into existent. I think everyone "forgot" that that is how our system works, since the we lived thru eight years of a President doing whatever he wanted. It's time to PAY ATTENTION to ALL the elections. I personally vote EVERY time I am asked to. I wouldn 't care if it were for city dog catcher. It is not only your right but your responsibility if you want to change things.

[Katayev]

If Obama considers his supporters so expendable he can't take an hour to rescind an executive order or prioritize talking to Congressmen about letting them to visit their spouses in the hospital over, say, getting Chicago the Olympics, you're looking at that choice coming up in 2012, not 2016. Obama wouldn't be the first lame-duck president who sold out his base and paid for it.

[sacosta]

"National Coming Out Day," was celebrated all around the country, even on the very conservative campus of Southern Methodist University- This shows much progress on diversity being excepted more in our nation. Check out how students at SMU in Dallas, TX celebrated: http://www.smudailymustang.com/?p=16009

[truthartbeauty]

People who are not gay cant even imagine what it meant to have Mr. Obama include us during his acceptance speech. many of us were moved to tears, and I don't think straight people quite grasp how significant it was to us. they can take far more for granted in this society than we can. no big deal to them, our rights, our inclusion. We who have sat and listened to idiots that hate us for no good reason, over and over year after year. It was huge to have Obama talk to us, to include us. Maybe even Mr. Obama does not truly grasp the level of hope and anticipation it created. I am not ready to give up on him. Yet. He is a good man. Politics will eat the nobility and the good character out of the best of men, but Obama has not yet been there long enough to turn into the same old predictable shallow promises and lies of politics. I still think he is a good man, not yet destroyed by politics. I have long ago reconciled the fact that the world will always be filled with ignorant bigots. I am glad to have risen above that and that I am not like those people. I dont expect people to suddenly be kind and smart and decent. they wont. but I do hope and expect Mr. Obama understands the power of his promises and what it meant to us.

[Christina4]

Could it be that the President does have intentions and a plan, but is timing everything to get the maximum support for these important issues? He's received massive opposition from the GOP and moderate Democrats for his work for the economy or healthcare-- maybe he's waiting until there's a clearer road for gay rights. Even immigration issues are being delayed and this has many disillusioned; but I believe he intends to tackle immigration forcefully later when the dust settles over healthcare and bailouts and the legislators are more amenable to his proposals. I really don't believe he has forgotten his promises to the gay community, or immigrants or others.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"He's received massive opposition from the GOP and moderate Democrats for his work for the economy or healthcare-- maybe he's waiting until there's a clearer road for gay rights."

One of main objections to him is that he worries more about what Republicans want than he does about what Democrats want. He's waiting until there's a clearer road? The people who object are Republicans! Who cares?

[David Speakman]

Hi. Gay guy here.

I'm not at all impressed when any politician includes a reference to LGBT people in a laundry list of other peoples.

They need to say something substantive ABOUT gay people - not expect us to be happy just because they remembered to call us out.

I ain't no holla back girl.

[Griffin Lewis]

It did sound like a "laundry list" to me. Besides most gay people I know voted for Hillary Clinton.

[FrenchWomenDont]

True he could just ignore you like Bush did.