Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Dear gay Americans upset with President Obama: Get over it

Published: Thursday, January 21, 2010

Updated: Thursday, January 21, 2010 00:01

Obama

President Barack Obama speaks in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in D.C., Wednesday. From left are, Chief Performance Officer of the U.S. Jeffrey Zients; IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman; Vice President Joe Biden; Obama; Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo; Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y.; Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind.

I am not exactly sure what America's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community expected to get out of this past year.

But whatever it was, they didn't get it.

I know this because a great number of my peers in this community are being terrifically loud about how upset, disrespected and betrayed they feel by the man who actively courted us from the beginning of his campaign nearly three years ago, President Barack Obama.

It's important to note Obama didn't conduct an especially effective courtship for most of that time.

To the extent that anyone can infer from evidence that is mostly anecdotal, the LGBT community supported his rival would-be nominee, Hillary Clinton, in numbers that were probably overwhelming, right up until the moment Clinton conceded at the Denver convention.

Once the nomination was official, though, our demographic dutifully moved its support, more or less monolithically, behind the man who promised to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but held on to public opposition to gay marriage (and, for what little it is worth now, Clinton maintained the same position).

There were good signs early on. Obama spoke to us; he acknowledged us; he recognized our existence and our general right to exist.

(Of course, he also recognized our increasing skill for organization and growing economic power. He would have been foolish not to.)

He did better than threaten to merely "tolerate" us, as Sarah Palin did in her debate with Joe Biden; he promised that our fight would be his fight.

We believed him. We had to – what alternative did the opposition represent?

So we were as elated as anyone on Inauguration Day last year. I traveled to Washington, D.C. for the event and wrote about it in this space.

But I am a lifelong student of politics, and thus I am a realist, and I am skilled at the tempering of expectations.

I said the following, not in reference to prospects for LGBT citizens under Obama, but merely in reference to his coming presidency in general:

"Everyone accepts that over the course of the new administration, no one is going to get precisely his or her way. The nature of all things in government is compromise.

I am fine with that ... I just want competence. Though we may each find ourselves disappointed in the direction of this policy or that, I believe we will at least find competence rather than indolence."

That's not asking much.

But the expectations of my LGBT peers were apparently much more demanding.

A year later, they haven't gotten precisely their way, and many of them are furious.

To this, I have two responses.

First, consider the alternative (I suppose I've already said there wasn't one, but let's have a thought experiment anyway).

We had a binary choice, and this may not be ideal, but it's the system that we've long since bought and paid for and so we must participate accordingly.

In this case, we could have chosen Obama, who at the very least spoke to us and made us a part of his platform, and who had the support of (and a quiet, though not especially well-kept secret, cabinet post offer for) our original favorite candidate, Clinton.

Or we could have chosen John McCain, who kept a 20,000-league distance from our community at all times during the campaign, and who selected Palin – openly hostile to any manner of civil rights action for us – as his running mate.

You're disappointed with where we are now? Where on Earth do you think we would be if we'd made the other choice?

Second, let's consider what has actually been done.

Obama started with appointing the openly gay John Berry as director of the Office of Personnel Management.

It sounds like a small victory, but OPM is a massive enterprise.

Berry is responsible for almost as many government employees as the Secretary of Defense (and in the coming years this role will only expand).

Speaking of the Secretary of Defense, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" remains on the books, but the Pentagon under Obama has quietly and gradually sought new ways to circumvent its legally required enforcement.

Most importantly, however, the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act added sexual orientation to the list of classes federally protected against hate crimes.

It is the first time in history we have been acknowledged in federal legislation that wasn't denying us marriage.

There's one more thing, and it's probably the most important.

As LGBT Americans, I fear we too often allow the wrong identity to take precedent.

We have a duty to remember that we too are Americans.

We had to make the choice that was right not only for ourselves but for our country.

The incoming president had to take on a mess that defies any analogy I've been able to come up with.

Don't dare tell me you think, between the choices that we had, that we made the wrong one in that respect.
 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

22 comments

Anonymous
Wed Feb 10 2010 23:49
I am not in favor of Palin, but something people forget is the first veto she used as governor of Alaska was against an anti-gay rights bill. She blocked a bill that would have prohibited the state from granting health benefits to same-sex partners of public employees. As I said I am not a supporter of hers, but give her credit where its do.
FW
Fri Jan 22 2010 22:19
I voted GREEN and will do so again in 2012. I never believed this would get off the ground as all Democrats are essentially Republicans, in all but name. The GLBT community would do best to establish themselves in a third party, and NOW. If you don't use your abilities to influence the voting process, then you should never be in politics.;
Your name
Fri Jan 22 2010 13:11
Definition of hypocrite: someone who does not “practice what they preach’; someone who pretends to live by a set of values, but in fact does not.
Anyone who dates a woman while still married, and then divorces her to marry the woman he dated while cheating on his wife is a hypocrite when he/she speaks of sanctity of marriage.
Not saying he's not human since we all make mistakes. But he is a hypocrite for hiding behind " sanctity" of marriage. All he needs to say is he believes marriage is between one man and one woman and leave it at that.
Dave
Fri Jan 22 2010 11:22
DEAR CHUCK:

#1- I think you made that up.
#2- even if you did not make it up, does that make it right?

Hypocrisy abounds. And you are immature.

Your name
Fri Jan 22 2010 01:04
To Gary in CA. Just because John McCain was unfaithful to his first wife and says he believes in the sancitity of marriage, it does not make him a hypocrite, it makes him human who is imperfect and falters now and then. John McCain has the courage to state his convictions and Obama doesn't. When either Biden or Obama was asked his point of view on gay marriage during their campaign they gave some mumble jumbled answer and avoided actually answering the question. John McCain gave a truthful answer and if you can't understand that he could be against Gay marriage and not against gay people then your short sighted. if you think Obama thinks anything different, stop deluding yourself, and listen to what he said.
Your name
Thu Jan 21 2010 22:04
"We had a binary choice, and this may not be ideal, but it’s the system that we’ve long since bought and paid for and so we must participate accordingly." This is probably some of the most flawed logic I've heard recently. Not that I look to the DA for any great arguments about, well, anything. The author is simultaneously advocating participation and non-participation: participate in and don't question the two-party electoral system, but, for the love of God, don't air your grievances to your elected officials! Sit back; they got this! Are you kidding me?!

On a more serious note, if one wishes to have more than a "binary choice," it seems that the logical solution would be to reform the electoral system to allow for greater diversity in political candidates and strategies. A great part of this could be achieved with campaign finance reform. Who bought and paid for this "binary choice"? Well, it certainly wasn't the American voters. Try corporate lobbyists. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I go to the store, I don't like to choose between bananas or mushrooms when I don't like the taste of either.

Your name
Thu Jan 21 2010 20:01
Am I happy that its Obama and not McCain? Yes. But am I "over it"? No. I won't be "over it" until someone does something to make me feel equal under the law. you may be a "lifelong student of politics, and thus a realist" but I am a pharmacy student, 22, have been in a comitted relationship for 1.5 years. I want to be able to marry my bf and it hurts everyday that I won't be able to...so don't expect me to "get over it".
Gary in CA
Thu Jan 21 2010 19:56
Chuck Anziulewicz is correct that McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman, in fact McCain was just interviewed by Wolff Blitzer on CNN and when asked to comment on his wife and daughters support of NOH8, he again gave the sanctity of marriage quote. What I find hysterical is he thinks marriage has so much sanctity that he started dating his current wife while still married to his former wife. How on earth does that support the sanctity of marriage??? He and all others who make that claim as their defense of what is really hatred of gays and gay civil rights are phonies. If they really believe in the sanctity of marriage, then they should support an end to divorce, period.
And to the gentleman that has gay Republican friends... so do I. I always tell them being a gay Republican is like being a Jewish Nazi. the team you want to belong to hates you.
Aaron M
Thu Jan 21 2010 17:03
@Chuck...I'd like some proof on the allegation that the Tea Party movement first called themselves the offensive slur, "Tea Baggers."

Also, assuming that your allegation is true (which I do not), how does your argument take away from the fact that it is still offensive, immature, and hypocritical?

Just because a group may refer to themselves in a certain fashion, does that make it right for you lib loons to do the same? Using the P.C. lib standard – OF COURSE NOT! Let’s see…..Blacks can call each other Ni%&#r, but no one can even utter the word in description of a situation, let alone to describe a person. Homosexuals can throw around queer and fag all they want, but here comes social justice if it is uttered by someone other than a homosexual.

Your argument is fatally flawed, but I would expect no less from a lib.

Lason
Thu Jan 21 2010 16:33
CG is gay.
Chuck Anziulewicz
Thu Jan 21 2010 15:13
DEAR MATH GRAD:

I know you're not alone. Among all my Gay friends, some are more conservative than others. McCain-Palin did indeed get some of the LGBT vote. Even I find myself becoming more conservative as I get older, especially when it comes to economic issues. I know people who are card-carrying members of the Log Cabin Republicans. More power to them. I'd like to believe that perhaps SOMEDAY they'll be able to finally convince the GOP that strident anti-Gay rhetoric is no longer going to be the vote getter it once was.

But for me, marriage equality is a pretty fundamental issue. Consider, Mr. Math Grad, that as a law-abiding, taxpaying Gay American, you are being forced to subsidize all the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married couples take for granted ... yet cannot take advantage of those same incentives to marry. Under the clearly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton), your spouse will never be entitled to survivor benefits under Social Security in the event of your death.

I'm no more of a single-issue voter than you are. I simply found I could not stomach the overall political positions of McCain-Palin.

C R c
Thu Jan 21 2010 15:08
What a strange message C.G. Fields sends, the gist of which appears to be that those of us who voted Obama have no right to criticize his performance….because the ‘other guy’ would have been so much worse? Obama has not been the “fierce advocate” we believed him to be. If this is to be considered common political compromise, does it not stand that the McCain administration would not have been so “openly hostile” to GLBT’s desires for positive movement in civil rights? I voted for Barry. I believed him to be a smart man who knew exactly what he was getting into with regard to the mess this nation was and is in. He came into office with glowing support and a nearly universal expectation of change on so many levels—including advancing GLBT rights. I’m truly disappointed that he did not grasp the nettle when he had the opportunity. I helped vote this president in; don’t dare tell me I don’t have the right to air my grievances.
Chuck Anziulewicz
Thu Jan 21 2010 14:32
DEAR DAVE:

In case you didn't know, members of the so-called "Tea Party Movement" were referring to THEMSELVES as "Tea Baggers" BEFORE they became aware of the term's sexual connotations.

Chuck Anziulewicz
Thu Jan 21 2010 14:29
YOUR NAME writes, "McCain never said he was against gay marriage, indeed his wife and daughter are part of the anti prop 8 campaign."

Let me correct you: John McCain's office said in a statement that the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage. "Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman," the statement said. John McCain backed an Arizona ballot measure passed by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The NOH8 Web site praised Cindy McCain's willingness to publicly endorse a cause that is unpopular within the Republican Party. "The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot."

SOURCE: joemygod.blogspot.com

Dave
Thu Jan 21 2010 14:19
"Tea Baggers"

Do you not realize how incredibly immature saying that makes you look?

Do you also not realize the irony and hypocrisy of calling others names such as this when you would get incredibly upset if you were called a gay slur?

Grow up.

Ethan
Thu Jan 21 2010 13:54
I want to echo what Chuck said with a slight addition: I don’t regret voting for Obama over McCain, but I don’t regret voting for Clinton in the Primary, either, whereas I WOULD regret voting for Obama then, if I had. Obama is better to us than McCain would be, but not nearly as good as we deserve - even taking into account the fact that he is a politician.
math grad
Thu Jan 21 2010 13:11
This is what happens when you 'pick a side' for one single issue. As a member of the LGBT community, I voted for McCain because I agreed with him on more fronts by far. Get over and step outside your bubble.
Your name
Thu Jan 21 2010 12:56
McCain never said he was against gay marriage, indeed his wife and daughter are part of the anti prop 8 campaign. Sure, Palin was an idiot and was a homophobe, but McCain (who was running for president) wasn't, and Obama said on the campaign he was against gay marriage. Guess it sucks to just always back the dems.
steve
Thu Jan 21 2010 11:20
The divide among young well educated thoughtful people and the intellectually stagnant older generations is growing more and more. Equal rights will eventually happen, it'll just take those older generations dying off.

In 50 years gay citizens will have complete equal rights and the general population will look back at this one and laugh at how moronic we were.

Brian
Thu Jan 21 2010 10:53
Sometimes to gain political power you have to demonstrate that you are not always reasonable, but emotional. All our good manners has shown the Democratic Party is that we can get walked all over. Obama as commander in Chief dumps gay vets every month, and has vigorously campaigned against our right to equality in legal briefs. Schwarzenegger won't defend Prop 8 in court, why can't OBama? There is no requirement to defend a law a president knows to violate the Constitution.

Gays have been too nice and reasonable in relation to the Democratic Party. The Party have to see that we have the ability to walk away. And at this point, walking away from the party is the most rational think one could do. Vote "no confidence" in 2010, by choosing a candidate not currently sitting in the House or Senate.







log out