Gay America's Afternoon in the White House

Even with its bulletproof glass, handsomely clad guards, vibrant colors, master paintings, and lavish food and drink, my visit to the White House Monday left me dissatisfied. The Obama Administration assembled a group of two hundred or more of America's well-heeled leaders for equality, but like little doggies most were wide-eyed at his feet.

Politicians work for us. If they do their job with good intention, they demand our respect. They deserve fervent applause when they are heroic. Today I expected to hear the explanations of a champion knocked off his path by a country in financial distress, but instead I heard platitudes, cracked promises, and disappointments. Still, the crowd cheered for more.

President Obama would be well served to offer an emotional response to the discrimination and bigotry suffered by gay Americans. At Monday's address, the President renewed thin promises while asking for patience. There was no message indicating that homophobia is the problem, not homosexuals. Without an outward push from our President, the evangelical undertow will continue to pull America's common sense into the darkness. Church and state must stop sharing the same bed. I support President Obama in a race towards that end -- surely then, equal rights will follow.

Today's address left me wanting. The pain experienced by homosexuals is deadly tragic. Annually, thousands of American children kill themselves due to the bigotry pervasive across America.

In today's speech President Obama said gay America would be happy by the time his administration is over. If he doesn't stop offering excuses and empty promises, they will be.

Comments

[zbig]

Obama's tactics are quite obvious: he knows he can help the most people by passing health care, fighting global warming and fixing the financial mess which has led to record job losses. He knows he doesn't have enough votes in the Senate and engaging anti-gay Republicans at this crucial time will just cripple his ability to pass the substantive laws. So what does he do? All he can to mollify the right until he can fix these 3 biggies.

Once he's gotten these in the bag, expect a more vibrant and forceful Obama on gay matters. In the meantime, the wisest course is to continue to support him in health care, the environment and job creation. Continue the pressure on gay issues, but be supportive on the other issues to help him get those done.

[Shawn Fraine]

While I understand what you mean and I do support him on other issues...his DOJ didn't have to say what they said to defend DOMA...

[Chitown46]

I agree with you and I have said the same thing over and over again but all that happens is I get accused of being hateful / impatient / ungrateful. I also agree that the President has a lot on his plate and I think he is doing a great job on most things but I disagree with the language used by the DOJ and that fact that the President signed off on that. It’s kind of a mixed message on this issue.

I do know that all Democratics seemed to be on the same side of this when Bush was in power. Any Republican that compared same sex marriage to that of incest was (rightfully) criticized by most people in the Democratic Party but somehow now its suppose to be different. The language of that document has yet to be addressed.

[raker]

Gays are always told to wait, wait, wait for the right moment, the right political shift, blah blah blah. How long would you be willing to wait for your civil rights? The Republicans and Bluedogs have an inexhaustible supply right wing bigots. We'll never outlive them all. Act now. Equality for all.

[jcwtts1]

Everyone is told to wait wait wait. Did you hear the luke warm Affirmative Action comments from the President yesterday? Do you think blacks and other groups enjoyed them? But we understand how the game is played and we are looking for our opportunity to push our agenda. In the mean time, Sotomayor is on our side, the first supreme court appointment on the side of affirmative action in 25 years. So we read between the lines. The LGBT community refuses to do that. Ok, I sort of understand that tactic, but how is it working out for you? For me... I have a black president and more blacks and minorities in the cabinet and sub cabinet than ever before. I'll take the slam on Af Action. The crazy thing is that there are more openly lgbt members of the cabinet, sub cabinet, and departments than ever before. The Labor Secretary founded the LGBT coalition in congress, and is waging a war with neanderthal employees who keep ripping down gay pride signs at the office .The Dept of Education is under fire because of openly gay members of their safe schools committee, there are petitions and attacks and Arne Duncan the secretary has been under fire for the last 5 years because he tried to start an LGBT magnet school in Chicago. The brief wasn't good, but no one read the brief until you guys started screaming about it. You are missing the forest for the trees.

J

J

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Paul Monette's final essay spoke to those in our community who PANDER, and he kept a list of them, because it was happening on his watch.

The list continues.

[oafishcad]

Keep giving us money and maybe someday we'll get around to keeping our promises to the gay community. Maybe by the end of 4 years a crumb will be tossed. How about, the Gay TM is closed until there actually is movement on gay issues?

[marignymitch]

Whitehouse guests were firmly stonewalled Monday to wild applause. Is it any wonder we still are at the back of the bus?

[Romulus]

It's only recently that I have begun to pay attention to the DETAILS of SOTUS and lower court rulings. With so many current rulings coming down to 5-4 votes, it dawned on me that SCOTUS rulings are really a matter of opinion and not incontravertible law. Prior to this realization, I would say or think, "the Court ruled this and the Court knows what the law is."

But when we get a 5-4 ruling, 5 Justices say the law is this and 4 Justices say "no it's not; the law is THAT." Now theoretically each of these Justices is equally educated and experienced in the law and yet they disagree. So, it seems obvious that the law is a matter of opinion and not cast in stone.

In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 22 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. End of story, right? But the ruling was 4-3. Almost half of the court believed Prop 22 did NOT illegally discriminate against gays and lesbians.

I'm not writing this because I agree with those 3 Justices, or disagree for that matter, but to point out that when people (or Courts) say that banning SSM does NOT violate the Federal 14th amendment, that's just a matter of opinion and when people (or Courts) say that it DOES violate the 14th, that also is just a matter of opinion.

[jcwtts1]

Here is the deal, if you apply strict scrutiny to the LGBT community and their cases they win, if you do not apply strict scrutiny, they lose. strict scrutiny refers to make a particular group a protected class. The Supreme court enumerated the protected classes in the 80s and specifically left LGBT off the list. But that doesn't mean a state court can look at the facts of a case and apply strict scrutiny anyway. Because a judge can do something doesn't mean they will, and that is why you get "opinion" it isn't really opinion it is a choice of lens or rubric by which something is examined. Did that make any sense?

[Romulus]

It makes perfect sense. Making the LGBT community a protected class would completely change the ballgame and I have to admit that I wasn't thinking about that when I wrote the above. Does anyone know how to go about getting the LGBT community designated as a protected class?

[oafishcad]

Yes, it did. Judges are people, and many judges think it's OK to treat gays as "them". Maybe they think gays are treated badly. They may think that's just fine. So they are not going to include gays as a protected class, because they do not want gays to be protected.

[ez duz it]

The Matthew Shepard Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act or LLEHCPA) is currently sitting in Congressional cold storage.

If the Matthew Shepard Act were enacted, it would expand the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability -- expanding the current classifications of actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin. If LLEHCPA became law, it appears that DADT and DOMA would have severely compromised legal standing.

Despite their rhetoric, neither President Obama nor Congress seems to have demonstrated very little substantial action to see LLEHCPA enacted as well as DADT and DOMA overturned. In fact, the Obama DOJ defended the former before the Supreme Court and the latter in Federal Court.

By the same token -- and quite unfortunately -- it seems that the LGBT community is failing miserably (in my opinion) to spearhead a nationally coordinated and unified campaign to pressure Congress and the White House to implement legislation guaranteeing LGBT persons equal protections and rights under the law as are currently enjoyed by heterosexuals.

[oafishcad]

One thing that isn't a matter of opinion. Gay couples have fewer legal rights and options than straight couples. Gay soldiers are denied rights afforded straight soldiers. Gay citizens are attacked and beaten or killed for being gay. Straight people are not attacked and beaten or killed for being straight. Whether this amendment or that court ruling say Gays are not discriminated against, facts are facts. Gays are discriminated against. Dancing around the truth doesn't change the truth.

[Romulus]

I agree. That's why it's important to get ENDA and the Hate Crimes bill passed. Even more important, IMO, than SSM.

[jcwtts1]

Absolutely. Everything you said is true, though I would add that there are other reasons beyond orientation that gets people beat up or denied their rights. But everything you said is dead on.

J

[jcwtts1]

Here is a political ramification that just struck me. Let's assume that the stop loss plan would actually work, that the President could stop the dismissal of LGBT servicemen and women. Let's further assume that these service people would be allowed to return to their duties rather than being stacked and packed away in a warehouse somewhere. Let's assume that it works exactly as the LGBT community hopes it will. Then what? How exactly do you plan to overturn DADT if DADT isn't working anymore? What I mean is would congressmen and women be galvanized to actually fight to change a law that has been circumvented or would they just tell their LGBT constituency that it was over. I'm not sure if that is what would happen but I mean, couldn't it?

[Romulus]

Great insight!

[jcwtts1]

I know people think cutting off the money is a good idea. In a limited way I do as well. But I would ask people to think about give the same amount they would have to the DNC to individual candidates who actually support and push your agenda. If people fighting for LGBT rights raise extra money then more people will do it, and it also protects people who are on your side from getting slammed in the primary or the general by someone who is against you. Stop funding the DNC and start funding your friends.

J

[cminca]

Or the ACLU and/or Americans United for Separation of Church and State who will use your money to fight, no just purchase access.

[elusiveyo]

no, bad idea to give them extra money, they will just give the extra money to the party, no rights, no votes, no action=no money, no more, now is the time, fight for our rights, if obama and the corp dems cant stand up to bigotry because there afraid of losing votes, that is there fault, being a leader means you have to have principles, otherwise people will see thru the act, which is what is happening now, and thus they will lose influence, by standing up, this pres has the ability more than any one else to change minds, by being a coward, he reinforces the bigotry, oblahblah should realize this, and he's smart and im sure he does, that is whats so infuriating about his actions, he and his advisors are scared to death of what happened with clinton, i believe thats called moral cowardice, (especially considering it's a different situation now), this man built his image, carefully crafted it, nothing is by chance, including his back hand to lgbt, simply put, he flip flopped on gay marriage when he went after a statewide/­nationwide office, sacrificing his principles for votes, or maybe he was lying for votes back in 96 when he said he unequivocally supported marriage equality, either way, he's tarnished himself,

simply put BARRACK OBAMA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE

[Aaror]

"homophobia is the problem, not homosexuals"

Except that homophobes are repressed homosexuals, so the issue is really a bunch of homosexuals having a fight while the rest of us watch, bewildered.

[Tom Fennell]

Reviewing the comments below, I am struck by how few people (on both sides of the issue) focused on on key line: that Obama admits he is in no place to counsel patience to us.

He WANTS us to scream and demand change. If you've ever read Obama mentor Saul Alinsky, you know this fits a pattern. Obama wants US to push things, and to push him. Alinsky has a tactic called "rubbing salt in the wound" to activate the community - that could well be what Obama is doing now. Given my experiences with trying to spark political engagement among gay people, it may not be the worst tactic.

As for those saying we must wait, they just weren't listening to the President.

[jcwtts1]

The louder the protests the more likely congress is to actually make changes.

[marignymitch]

Yes. Thanks so much for pointing that out, Mr Fennell. It was an important and encouraging statement from Obama.

Another important yet overlooked statement was made in his empathy speech. In it he expressed (I'm paraphrasing) his desire to seat judges who were unwilling to make American citizens enemies in their own country. It was a brilliant challenge to jurists and lawmaker alike and an apt description of the courts', especially the Supreme Court's', decades-long treatment of gay Americans.

Thanks, again.

[PlaceboStudman]

All right folks, time to start hitting congress where it hurts. It isn't enough to just withhold personal money from their campaigns. Now we need to tarrget the big boys, the corporations who fund these people. The FEC is required to publish lists of campaign donors, and while it is illegal for corporations to donate to campaigns, its not illegal for the individual business owners to donate out of pocket. So we need to find the list of donors, figure out who the biggest donors are and hit them in their pocket books until they stop funding these folks in congress

[1dogs2]

Now you're talking! Count me in.

[Awake-and-Sing]

That's the kind of real word power we should be exorcising.

[jcwtts1]

Also, what companies sometimes do, law firms especially is they give bonuses that are design for individual contributions. The max is what 2300 a person, so everyone gets a 2300 bonus with the understanding that they contribute the money to dems or republicans. The goal is just to make sure the firm raises money for pols, of both parties, that way they have juice no matter who wins. Deeply disturbing practice.

[ptfcNassoc]

Part 2:
The last thing you want O.bama to do is sign executive orders that can be overturned. You need laws passed. Gay people contact congress and blame them (the people that have been there for years not a man that has been there half a year with his head spinning because of disaster the rethugs left him.) As a biracial person of TWO minorities I empathize, there's a lot of issues I would like him to address on racial inequality (epecially poverty among minorities, which has caused just as much hardships if not more on a daily basis then any thing homosexuals face) but yet I'm realistic and know O.bama can only do so much so quickly but he is going to get there. As one minority to another, yes I am saying to you "be patient" because BOTH of us know deep down inside we are hella lucky to have O.bama as prez it could be SO much worst and we may not get someone like this that are on our (minorities) side again in the future.

[Geoffreys]

Who said anything about blaming Obama for not waving his magic wand and making it all better? Putting a hold on our financial support is not the same thing at all.

I'm perfectly willing to give him the breathing room to fix the myriad problems facing the nation. In the meantime though, he needs to make a more consistent show of supporting equality and not bouncing between having the DOJ defend DOMA and telling us that we just need to be patient.

As a minority, you know as well as I do that politicians come around in election years, promise the world and then ignore us until the next election. Well, I for one am tired of that cycle. I will support and will stand up and demand recognition as well.

[elusiveyo]

Apologist you are, indeed, im sorry you have had such a hard time of it being biracial, but to say youve probably suffered more that the lgbt is pitiful, this isnt a competition, as a biracial person you have more rights than i do as a gay man, but that is not the point, the lgbt dont need to out suffer some other community in order to obtain the same rights everyone else has, maybe they do in your world, but i find that pathetic, i am not happy or lucky to have obama as a pres, as a matter of fact there is NO proof that Obama is good for the lgbt, absolutely none, he's done nothing, i repeat nothing

BARRACK OBAMA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE

[ptfcNassoc]

Part 1: ATTENTION GAY PEOPLE, stop blaming O.bama, one man, that has been president for only 6 months during a sh.yt storm, for all your problems. Decades and decades of discrimination against gays and O.bama just walks in the white house with Iran, Iraq, health care, the economy, job losses all on his plate but somehow all is supposed to be well in the gay community just like that? "Do you believe in magic"?

[Glenn1441]

As the author of this post has pointed out -- along with countless leaders of LGBT communities: Current gripes with the Obama administration revolve around what the president can do NOW, including waiving military discharges based on DODT, and, condemning the heinous language contained within the DOJ's legal brief defending DOMA.

Continually, Obama has asked the American people to speak out whenever we feel he is coming up short on the issues. We oblige.

Moreover, the countless comments posted to various progressive articles at HuffPost regarding this subject, urging gay men and women to 'have patience' and to 'lay off' Obama because he has too much to do, etc., will have no effect on continued LGBT pressure on the president to remain true to campaign promises to LGBT voters. The pressure will continue, as it should.

The Editor-in-Chief of HuffPost herself has consistently held fire to the president's feet regarding his approach to the bank bailouts, Bush-era torture, transparency, Afghanistan, etc. Indeed, she too is answering Obama's call to hold him accountable for campaign rhetoric.

LGBT citizens are a significant voting bloc,... It should greatly disturb, nay, anger, every democrat, liberal, independent and progressive that not all citizens are held equal under the law.

This post will be my last on the subject, and in the meantime, I will continue to withhold financial support from the DNC, and I will continue to support the HRC and Stonewall Democrats until meaningful action is taken by this administration.

[jcwtts1]

The problem is people are asking for political solutions and they are doing it without any real understanding of politics. There is a reason there is a disconnect between the beltway LGBT community and the general population. The more people understand about politics it seems the less inclined they are to scorch earth.

Just two quick questions about DADT, first, when stop lossed to DADT people go back to their commands and duty stations or do they get warehoused to wait for clarifications? What I am asking is whether keeping them in the military, but not working, is the result of what people seem to be demanding. Second, could commanders criminalize the behavior so that gay service men and women would be, rather than discharged, court marshaled? I am not sure but I think someone should actually find out before you demand something.

J

[elusiveyo]

nope, we believe in truth honesty and equality, and keeping your word apparantly the pres and his apologist dont, we dont need magic, we need honesty, integrity and equality

[LeaderofMen]

I am a gay American. I served in the USMC in the late 70s. Just after Vietnam. I served in all three Marine Air Wings. Every single base I ever visited or was stationed at was saturated to the brim with fundamentalist Christians. From the lowly privates, to the top brass, fundies run the military. The military is a harbor for them because war and religion go hand-in-hand. This is obvious because of the nature of the vast majority of the conflicts on this planet: they are fomented by religious differences.

Axioms: Fundies hate gays. Fundies gravitate to the military. Fundies must be directed since they have external loci of control. Fundies love DADT because it makes them right and makes them feel safe.

DADT is a result of the nature of US fundie military personalities who run the show. Obama knows this. I know this. Anyone who has been in the US military knows this. The vast majority of the US public is unaware of this problem. The vast majority of the US public that has never served would even reject this observation out of hand - without even investigating it. How do I know? Because they do RIGHT THIS SECOND.

If Obama overrules DADT, it will result in a gigantic religious war within the military and it will spread out into the general public. Then the real drama will begin.

[TheBaffler]

So your answer is to keep appeasing the bigots to make them happy? Brilliant!

[1dogs2]

No, Leader has made a case for proceeding with care rather than like a bull in a china shop. The President has tasked the military brass with planning how to implement a repeal of DADT and with producing rules and regulations for dealing with any backlash within the military before pushing a repeal of DADT through Congress. Especially while American troops are engaged in several wars, the CIC cannot responsibly impose by fiat an order that contravenes an act of Congress, particularly one that may sow dissension within the military.

While it is now fashionable in the LGBT community, judging from the comments on this and other sites, to lash out mindlessly against the President and his handling of this issue, Leader has suggested why concern for the safety and well-being of gay service members may counsel precisely the route to reversing DADT that the President has chosen.

[LeaderofMen]

Appeasing. Right. Read the post again.

[TaxDayMan]

Dispite MSM and liberal cover up Duke professors have condemed gay racism, here, here:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/07/01/duke_professors_condemn_gay_racism

[Awake-and-Sing]

ZZZZZZzzzzzzz.

Nice try trying to divide two communities that should be working together.

[TaxDayMan]

No I leave that to Frank Lombard!

[oafishcad]

Over 70% of American's support gays in the military. More than voted for Obama. His excuse that somehow the support isn't there is just not true. President Obama basically said he will do as little as he can get away with doing for gay citizens.

[Charmed]

Do these 70% of Americans work in the house of congress or the senate? If not then you need to get 70% of those people to write the law, pass the law and send it to President Obama.

[1dogs2]

Co-sign.

[oafishcad]

Quit making excuses for Obama's insulting treatment of gays.