It’s been difficult to conceal our disappointment since President Obama took office ten months ago.
Yes, you read that correctly. And, no, I have not suffered recent head trauma.
Obama, self-proclaimed ‘fierce advocate for equality’, courted us well during the campaign, referring to us in speeches, even naming the multiple ways in which our state and federal governments discriminate against us. Despite his support for civil unions (as opposed to marriage equality), Obama became the rainbow candidate by default, his rhetoric leading us to believe that he understands on a logical and constitutional, if not empathic, level what needs to be done. Promises to repeal DOMA and DADT were made, as were promises to pass the Matthew Shepard Act and an LGB and T inclusive ENDA.
In the ten months since Obama was sworn in, we’ve listened closely, waiting for his first bold move enacting any of the promises he made to us. The bottom line? We’re still waiting. For a President so emblematic of the Civil Rights movement, so iconified through grassroots agitation, Obama has proven himself to be a fierce advocate of the status quo.
First, he selected Pastor Rick Warren, known anti-gay California megachurch leader, to deliver the inaugural invocation. This on the heels of Proposition 8, which Warren endorsed via the megaphone of his pulpit. Not to worry, we were told; the Obama administration also invited openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson to deliver the inaugural prayer at the pre-inaugural festivities. Funny how his was the only speech not carried live by HBO due to so-called technical difficulties.
Historically, we are a forgiving bunch, so we gave Obama the benefit of the doubt and waited some more. It wasn’t long, however, before we scratched our heads again.
The White House issued, at best, paltry responses to the landmark wins for marriage equality in Iowa and Vermont. Example? “The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law.” Notice the lack of the word “equal” in the part about protection. Following protests by the LGBT activist community, the WH revised their statement to include the word “equal”. Too little, too late. And what the heck happened to the federal action of repealing DOMA? Still, we knew Obama supported equality because he told us so. ‘He just believes it’s an issue best tackled by the states and he used to teach constitutional law, so he would know. We’ll wait some more.’
In June, we met with the most degrading insult of all. The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice had filed a brief defending DOMA. (Note: for those who don’t know, DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton, which limits marriage to a man and a woman at the federal level and prevents our legal marriage in Iowa from being recognized in our home state of Wisconsin.) ‘What? What kind of hypocrisy is this?!’, we wondered. ‘This can’t be! Obama promised to repeal DOMA!’‘. In fact, it was true. And worse, the brief cited legal precedent likening same-sex marriage to incest.
It was around that time that we stopped waiting and started to feel angry.
So did the LGBT activists.
His defenders were at the ready, though, and reminded us that Obama entered office with a plate more full than most Presidents. He barely had time to break in his leather, swivel chair in the Oval Office before going head-to-head with the economy, two wars, and health care, issues that effect ALL Americans. Not to mention teabaggers and birthers and wingnut generalists. ‘He’ll get to you,’ his defenders assured us. ‘Be patient.’
(By the way, to anyone who’s ever said this, bite me.)
More and more, LGBT Americans began to pay attention. Anger churned over the Obama Administration’s complete 180 on even acknowledging us, let alone fiercely advocating on our behalf. In recent months, contemporary activists have blogged their nuts off. Activists from the Harvey Milk era came out of the woodwork. Gay families posted youtube videos and visibility increased at every level. The WH press reporter from The Advocate continued to implore Press Secretary Robert Gibbs for substantive answers on DOMA and DADT (and he continued to evade her).
The first ever National Equality March was planned for October 11, 2009. The same day as the annual Presidential Cup golf event in California. We held our breath when we learned that President Obama would not attend the golf event, but instead would speak at the annual Human Rights Campaign dinner as an unofficial precursor to the National Equality March.
‘Okay. Now we’re getting somewhere.’
Still, we awaited the speech with trepidation as the HRC is reputed more for kissing ass than kicking butt regarding LGBT issues. We watched the speech online, biting our bottom lips and nestling into each other to quell our anxiety. Here it is so you can watch it yourself.
I confess to being moved by this speech. He hit all the relevant points in his customary thundering, musical cadence. I quivered, I tingled and, when he talked about the America where I’ll be able to walk down the street holding Jenn’s hand, a tear might have leaked out involuntarily.
‘THIS is the man I elected!’ I said to Jenn.
Then it ended.
He boomed ‘God Bless America’ and I felt used.
See, this was a speech. Words delivered by a man so powerful and so charismatic that the audience to which he spoke had no alternative than to be rapt, if not enamored. With each minute that passed after it ended, and particularly as we dissected it over the next 24 hours, we felt more and more duped.
Some things to consider:
This speech aired only on cable news networks on a Saturday night. A fierce advocate would have delivered it on the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX), from the White House, on a weeknight, to mainstream America.
This speech reiterates promises we’ve heard before. Some of the lines echoed almost verbatim sections of his campaign stump speech. A fierce advocate would have woven in personal stories, as he did so successfully with the economy during his campaign and as he’s doing now with health care.
This speech offered no new information, no timelines, no plans. A fierce advocate would’ve vowed more than to say he’ll sign the Matthew Shepard Act, a law eleven years in the making, if and when it reaches his desk; a fierce advocate would have vowed to use the bully pulpit to pass an all-inclusive ENDA and to repeal DOMA and DADT.
Better yet, a fierce advocate would have introduced his own bills on DOMA and DADT.
At the very least, a fierce advocate would have announced that he will sign an executive order immediately stopping all dishonorable discharges from the military due to DADT.
This speech, with all its flourish and its carefully lifted soundbites, did nothing to usher in equality. As a stand alone occurence at a black tie affair on a Saturday night, this speech reached barely a fraction of the people it could have reached.
Let me ask you this.
Did you watch the speech before seeing it here? Did you know about it? Did you know about the National Equality March? Did you know about the DOJ brief or the White House’s sad, sad responses to two of the greatest civil rights milestones of our time before reading about them here?
If you spend vast amounts of time trolling the internets for political tidbits, maybe you did. If you’re LGB or T, and this speech impacts you directly, maybe you did.
I’m guessing that, unless you fit into one of those two categories, this is the first you’ve heard about the facts I’ve itemized in this post.
The National Equality March drew 250,000 Americans who support equality. Not merely “tens of thousands” as the major networks quipped in their obligatory three second statements of fact the next morning. A quarter million people in one place at one time, marching for equality, not to mention the millions of Americans unable to attend, us included, who attended satellite marches, watched CNN all weekend, or blogged the rest of their nuts off.
Catch that? Millions of Americans.
President Obama, whatever your reasons for dawdling, the jig is up.
True, the burden to be fierce rests with us, also, and we’re holding up our end of the bargain.
True, you have delivered more than your predecessors by appointing openly gay individuals to federal posts, but given what you haven’t delivered, those individuals cannot serve openly in the military, marry, protect their children, or provide their partner with full health and retirement benefits.
We cannot walk down the streets holding hands in your America.
The time has come for bold action, follow-through, and a true, unpandering fierceness for what is long overdue.
Equality.
Now.



14 Comments
October 20, 2009 at 2:29 pm
You can walk down my street holding hands with your girlfriend. Hell, the two of you can have sex in my bedroom (as long as I can watch :) ).
October 20, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Couldn’t agree more.
And I was there on Oct 11th. As a tourist, living vicariously through some friends who marched while I was up in the Washington Monument taking pictures (just posted finally) that included shots of the marchers.
There were 3-Day walkers and Equality Marchers staying at the hotel with us that weekend. It was wonderful. Pink & rainbow everywhere we looked.
Now how ’bout it President Obama?
October 21, 2009 at 5:55 am
Hallelujah! Thanks for writing this. This is such a well-written, thoughtful criticism of a president who has not delivered on LGBT rights. We all assume that he *knows* that LGBT folks deserve equal rights, but he is *strategically* waiting…..But if he really gets that it is a moral issue, a civil rights issue, an issue of equality & fairness………then waiting is intolerable. Enough said.
October 21, 2009 at 3:16 pm
One thing is for sure . . . Barack Obama is very good at giving speeches.
As I was reading this, my son, 15, came in and started reading over my shoulder. While somewhat sympathetic to the cause, for a teenager anyway, he said “These things take time.” So I asked him if he knew who Matthew Shepard was. He didn’t have a clue. So I handed him “The Meaning of Matthew.” I can’t make him read it, but I hope he does . . .
October 22, 2009 at 7:16 am
@Ben – 1) thanks for the comment; 2) she’s my wife, not my girlfriend; 3) I’m afraid you’ve been terribly misled by the porn industry when it comes to the mythical allure of lesbian sex; and 4) the heterosexual male’s lust for watching two women get it on is objectifying and offensive (unless, of course, you’re just as open to watching two men have sex in your bedroom, in which case we’re all good).
@Rachel – thank you! :)
@Brian – You’re right re. the speeches. Don’t get me wrong — I still think Obama’s the best President of my lifetime (so far, anyway). On this issue, however, he’s alienating millions of people, which will hurt him in 2012.
October 22, 2009 at 10:54 am
Damn, girl.
Well done.
October 22, 2009 at 2:37 pm
@Christina – I’m totally jealous.
@Maggie – thanks, man. It’s a heart & soul post.
October 25, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Very well written. Good for you.
October 25, 2009 at 8:43 pm
What surprises me is that you’re surprised. Politicians promise. It’s what they do.
October 27, 2009 at 1:06 am
excellent post. however, i’m curious about this point:
At the very least, a fierce advocate would have announced that he will sign an executive order immediately stopping all dishonorable discharges from the military due to DADT.
the default discharge under AR 635-200 chapter 15 (discharge for homosexual conduct) is honorable (not dishonorable, or other than honorable). are you arguing that the honorable discharges should be allowed to continue?
October 27, 2009 at 8:08 am
@laloca – Good catch & thanks. You are correct that the default discharge for homosexual conduct is “honorable” (meaning they get to keep their benefits); however, if he/she fights the discharge, it becomes “dishonorable” or “general under honorable conditions” (meaning they lose all their benefits). Here’s an example: http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/02/another-veteran-fired/
So, no — I didn’t mean to say that all “honorable” discharges should continue. I meant to say that all DADT discharges should be stopped. Since Obama took office, hundreds have been discharged under DADT. Since DADT took effect in 1994, 13,000+ have been discharged under DADT. It doesn’t make any sense at all to discharge soldiers while contemplating a bump in troop levels in Afghanistan, let alone while fighting two of the longest wars in our history. Not to mention, it costs the US millions, if not billions, of dollars to train these soldiers in the first place!
A great book on the overall subject is ‘Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America’ by Nathaniel Frank. (Sidenote: I find it ironic that this book is shelved in the “Gay and Lesbian” section and not the “Military” or “Current Affairs” sections where it should be shelved. I’ll hold my commentary on that one.)
Thanks again for the catch.
October 27, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Excellent post, Erika. Thanks for writing this and sharing it with us.
I was getting ready to leave for JA when the march happened. I knew about it (know at least two carloads of folks who were there), but didn’t know anything about the speech until after the fact. One of my students showed me a brief news story about it and asked, “What do you think about Obama speaking out about gay rights?” I told her it was about time he did something about gay rights (clearly had my selective hearing hat on that day). Then I looked at the article and saw that it was ‘just’ a speech.
I want to believe there will be movement … but I’m disheartened and angered by the clear back-burner-in-someone-else’s-kitchen status of this issue. I keep thinking of all the people who told my people to wait, to just be patient when it came to civil rights, and I think of MLK’s Why We Can’t Wait, and I think of my friends Nina and Adrianna whose giddy and joyous plans to marry were thwarted by Proposition 8, and I am offended.
November 2, 2009 at 6:05 am
@erika – i am in absolute agreement with you that DADT discharges must be stopped. but until that happens, i will be irked by the plethora of misinformation about discharges under DADT that has propagated through a largely uninformed blogosphere. i do not mean to imply that the reality is somehow less bad than the perception – the fact that a good servicemember’s career can be ended because of bigotry and intolerance is reprehensible. but the reality doesn’t need to be embellished with misinformation. anyone without direct legal UCMJ experience who blogs about DADT discharges should at a minimum read the SLDN’s survival guide (http://www.sldn.org/pages/survival-guide).
there are many common errors i’ve seen in the blogosphere, including here.
1) the myth of the dishonorable DADT discharge. there is no provision for a dishonorable discharge under DADT. a DD can only be determined by court martial following criminal prosecution. DADT discharges are administrative in nature, and are limited to honorable, general, and other than honorable.
2) automatic loss of all benefits due to a lower (than honorable) discharge characterization. individuals lose access to those few programs where an honorable discharge is required for participation, the primary one being the GI bill. a general discharge does not automatically preclude the individual from receiving VA benefits.
3) fighting a discharge automatically downgrades the servicemember from the honorable discharge category. i’ve seen this claim made throughout the blogosphere, and have yet to find any concrete evidence supporting it. the SLDN actually recommends that soldiers fight for honorable discharges where they are merited.
regarding Amy Brian’s ordeal – there is nothing in the blog post or news coverage upon which it is based (the remaining live links, anyway) that indicates she fought the discharge and thus received a GD for that reason. in fact, the articles specifically say that she waived her right to a board hearing – an action the SLDN warns may result in “giving up the most valuable way of fighting a discharge recommendation or inappropriate discharge characterization.” i suspect that what happened with Ms. Brian was that she was pressured by her command to accept a GD, and for whatever reason, did so.
November 6, 2009 at 10:20 pm
[...] Erika, at Be Gay About It, with: Stuffings or No Stuffings, We’re Getting Some Kids and President Obama Fierce Advocate of Rousing Speeches and the Status Quo [...]