The junior senator from Illinois broke into the national scene after a speech given at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. But for those living in Illinois, and especially for those living in Chicago, he was a man with a political history.
Today, The Windy City Times looked at some of that history and discovered that, while the rest of the country is fighting for progress, Barack Obama's views - at least on gay marriage - have only moved backwards.
Obama was a candidate for State Senate in 1996 and, as is the custom, Outlines, the then gay newspaper in Chicago, sent him a questionnaire asking his position on equal rights for same-sex couples. He stated then, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." He also wrote, "I would support and co-sponsor a state civil rights bill for gays and lesbians."
In 2004, Obama decided to run for U.S. Senate and again, as is custom, he sat down for an interview with The Windy City Times (the new Outlines). There, he began to hedge his bets on marriage: "I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue." He continues,
What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.
Finally, he tells Windy City,
Tracy Baim: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?
Obama: I would oppose that.
The evolution of his views are more tactical than substantive. But the 1996 comparison does illustrate how years in politics have convinced this Senator that gay marriage isn't a winnable option. Still, for those with a warm spot in their heart for the new President, his views on rights seem consistent, even if he does underestimate the implications of legal inequality in name and the potential consequences of that inequality.
But, as we begin 2009, the resolve of the more powerful, more experienced Obama caves. In 1996 and in 2004, Obama stated that he would oppose state legislation aimed at restricting the rights of same-sex couples. In the 2008 election he had the opportunity to speak out against Proposition 8 in California, Proposition 2 in Florida and Proposition 102 in Arizona.
He did not forcefully oppose those amendments. The opposition he did express was limited to early on in the primary race.
Vocal involvement in those races, even simply to dispel the rumor that he supported a ban on gay marriage, might have made the difference between a win and loss for equal rights in those states.
This was not only a failure on the part of the President-Elect. It was a denial of a political stance he consistently held for the last 12 years.
Obama stated that he supports full equal rights for same-sex couples in the form of civil unions. He also stated that he would co-sponsor such a bill. I encourage him to re-read his questionnaire from 1996, and again, re-read his answers in 2004. I encourage him to remember that having great power does not mean that advocating equality should be replaced with middle of the road decision making.
The struggle for LGBT rights continues in the United States. Equality will come, and I can only hope that the Obama Chicago grew to love works hard to be on the right side of history.