Eugene Robinson: On Gays, Obama’s Turn

[bluedawg12]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090508_on_gays_obamas_turn/?ln

On Gays, Obama’s Turn
Posted on May 8, 2009

By Eugene Robinson

<snip>

Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a “fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans.” Now, with the gay marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy ripe for repeal, it’s time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is.

<snip>
Politicians in Washington who want to avoid what they see as a dangerous controversy have a convenient escape: They can say that the marriage issue should be left to the states
<snip>

But that’s a dodge, not a stance. It certainly can’t be confused with leadership.

Favoring “civil unions” that accord all the rights and benefits of marriage—but that withhold the word marriage, and with it, I guess, society’s approval—amounts to another dodge.

<snip>

Obama took the “civil unions” route during last year’s campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation—that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates—I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, then why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what might they be?

<snip>

Obama sensibly advocates the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He should press the case by publicly reminding opponents of letting gays serve openly in the military that their arguments—it would hurt morale, damage cohesion and readiness, discourage re-enlistment—are often the same, word for word, as the arguments made 60 years ago against racial integration in the armed forces. That was bigotry then, and it’s bigotry now.

<snip>

What the president shouldn’t do is stay away from the marriage debate on the grounds that it’s not a matter for the federal government. For one thing, he’s on record as favoring repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act—a law that blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages and relieved states of any obligation to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

<snip>

I’m not being unrealistic. I know that public acceptance of homosexuality in this country is still far from universal. But attitudes have changed dramatically—more than enough for a popular, progressive president to speak loudly and clearly about a matter of fundamental human and civil rights.

[katandmoon]

1. Mr. Robinson is 100% right

[WillParkinson]

2. Yes, but...

Will Mr. Obama listen? Or are gays destined to stay second class citizens in the eyes of our "staunch supporter"?

[bluedawg12]

6. It seems history is moving past him and things are changing rapidly

he can either lead or follow on this.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Eugene is correct and to the point. As usual.

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[tbyg52]

5. From Mr. Robinson's typewriter to President Obama's ears. nt

[Lex]

7. Robinson should quit being disruptive and stop bashing the President.

/sarcasm

[jody]

8. Obama has to break from his roots to support gays. Gallup reports 69% of black Dems say gay

unacceptable versus 39% nonblack Dems.

Gallup says 70% Repub say gay unacceptable.

[greeneyedboy]

9. which roots? his roots at Harvard Law School? his roots as an organizer? n/t

[bluedawg12]

10. You brought up a good point. No one has analyzed the underlying reasons

for why even Eugene Robinson, a staunch early supporter of the President, is now calling on him to lead on these matters, the question being why is he not? Or at least, not yet.

We can speculate:

He is too busy. He has other pressing matters?

He is afraid to upset potential political allies whom he may need on other issues such as health care?

He knows something we don't know:

For example about DADT the military is loaded with rrw phobes?

He doesn't think the issue of gay rights is sufficiently broad interest, too divisive and not worth spending his political capital on?


The premise of this OP is that the time is right and the President had come out pro-gay rights during the campaign and now seems detached from it.

The Lt. Choi matter.

State after State passes marriage equality and he is oddly silent except for an "Iowa joke."

The perplexing ly mixed messages on DADT from DEFSEC Gates.

OK, so if we accept the premise that more work needs to be done on this by the White House,etc.
the question remains unanswered.

Why is he so detached from these issues?

This is not a man who is unaware, nor is he out of touch. He is a strategist. Perplexing in all of this: what is his strategy for promoting his position as a "fierce advocate of gay rights?" Now that he is the man in charge?

[jody]

11. Bush used AG Ashcroft immediately to state the Second Amendment protects an individual right and

SCOTUS confirmed that with its decision in D.C. v. Heller, 26 June 2008.

Obama could strongly suggest that Holder issue a statement as a minimum recognizing CA Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's position that "same sex marriage has the protection of Article 1 and, like other inalienable rights, cannot be taken away by a popular vote" and offer DoJ resources if needed.

That's shouldn't take long and if CA accepts Brown's argument, then no popular vote can prohibit same-sex marriage because it would be recognized as an inalienable right not depending in any way upon CA's constitution.

[bluedawg12]

12. The Imperial Presidency.

I gather from what pundits have said, that there is a reluctance to take executive steps to over-ride laws, as * did.

Fine I can live with that. Because that's not the only recourse. As leader of the party there is a bully pulpit and we do have a Congress. So, rather than an argument that lead to a potential cul de sac, meaning, insisting for example, that this President override, or place on hold, existing laws, which is politically a tricky position for a new administration, why not use the bully pulpit, in the foreground to lend the support of his considerable power as POTUS to give support for Congress to act on say for example, DADT?

There was another attempt to pass legislation for fairness in the military and to repeal DADT before Congress this past March, for something like the fourth year in a row. Speaker Pelosi did not bring it to vote. I don't know why. Nor do I understand why.

The problem with Prop8 specifically, is that, as we know, the buzz phrase "States rights" has quite a history and is now a kind of side step by both parties. In particular, States rights still resonates with the right wing and as candidate Obama, he also used this phrase to side step marriage equality, as Robinson in the article reminds us, to throw the issue of marriage back onto the States. That position of course draws attention to the big, fat elephant in the room, DOMA and it also means that President Obama cannot be seen as going back on his own dictum, as Candidate Obama, when he said marriage was a State's rights issue. That is why it seems less likely that he could issue an order for AG Holder to intervene in California, especially since it is now still actively pending before the CSSC.

In summary, I would say, that there are several venues this administration can take without evoking counter claims of another Imperial Presidency, among them open public full throated leadership on these issues, then, some good old fashioned behind the scenes arm twisting with Congressional leaders to pass legislation for example the repeal of DADT.

Nothing happens, or doesn't happen, in politics without a reason. As puzzling as it is, as much public discussion as there has been that the time is right to repeal DADT, the administration seems very vague on their intentions and Gates seems to be back peddling furiously. The question is why?

It may be, as I posted in another thread here, that the military is heavily infiltrated by rrw extremists and that would be a very embarrassing revelation. It would also be embarassing to admit the the US military was so bigoted that it would not be safe to openly recruit gay Americans, as their lives would be at risk. It could make transparent that some military members are actively passing out bibles and crusading in Afghanistan and other similar disclosures. It may also reveal, as happened to a personal friend, who, a bright and optimistic openly gay young man tried to enlist last year and within two weeks in basic his life was under threat-literally- he had to be sequestered in sick bay and discharged for his own safety. Sometimes the simplest explantion is the best?

To be clear, I am not making excuses for anything. I am trying to understand the underlying reasons for what most of us see as passivity on gay rights despite promises to the contrary.

[jody]

13. Thanks, I've had several pro-GLBT LTTE published but I have not been a regular on this forum.

I wonder why GLBT rights haven't been more successful and conclude that the size of the minority is a factor.

I know the only way for the rights of a minority to be protected is by recognizing them as inalienable or pre-existing rights. Without that, a minority right can be prohibited by a simple majority of votes as is true for any right granted by government.

I also interpret candidates' actions on minority rights as to make campaign promises but when elected do little or nothing knowing the minority will chant, "tomorrow, tomorrow, not this time but tomorrow".

[bluedawg12]

14. You know when dealing with political issues that have an emotional component..

it is very difficult to get people to look at "civil rights" with out muddying the waters with half truths and going for a gut reaction and playing on old fears that are reinforced in our culture and still are often every Sunday morning at one or another pulpit.

That's what happened in PropHate8. The religious right played up old stereo typical fears, with lies about gays forcing Churches to accept their marriage (lie) and the even more insidious fear of "gay and kids," libel.

We may post statistics and facts but whether people listen or accept them, or whether they respond emotionally, is another matter.

True, numerically gays are a minority in this country. But having said that, the issues are quite prominent these days with State after State passing laws for justice.

Now, check this, the very same people (rw) that claimed that gay rights should be a matter for the people then turn around and fight and squeal, when The People ex: State legislators pass a law for equality.

That tells us that it is was a lie. That no matter what gays and allies do for justice, no matter how it is instituted nothing will satisfy them until all gays go away and have no rights.

BTW, this is another idea, that the most vocal of the hard core anti-gay rights cadre are also a minority, a dwindling and increasingly irrelevant minority. But, well funded, yes they are on the right. Yes they are.

"I know the only way for the rights of a minority to be protected is by recognizing them as inalienable or pre-existing rights. Without that, a minority right can be prohibited by a simple majority of votes as is true for any right granted by government.-Jody"

Well it was considered an inalienable human right by the Calif. State Supremes but, then, the rw mobilized, big time and with a war chest of 64 million, they put up Hate8, so much for inalienable. :eyes:

[jody]

15. 10X post. "so much for inalienable". Minorities can never stop fighting for an inalienable right,

there is always some group determine to prohibit that right by infringing upon it under the guise of control for the overwhelming social good to the point where that right is effectively prohibited.

I realize that I'm optimistic in hoping someone could develop a basis for SCOTUS to acknowledge same-sex marriage as a pre-existing or inalienable right under our Constitution and that such a decision would shift the question of degree of infringement of an inalienable right to Federal courts and away from each of the fifty state courts.

[bluedawg12]

16. It has been said it wil end up in SCOTUS sooner or later- but...

not until we have a little more of a fair fight and fair chance. Hopefully we can get some good Justices under President Obama.

"...under the guise of control for the overwhelming social good to the point where that right is effectively prohibited."

"But, it's for the kids" :evilgrin:

Heard that before? :rofl:

The numerical minority is another reason to achieve a coalition of progressives. Strength in numbers.

[Toasterlad]

17. How About:: "He's a Coward"?

[Lilith Velkor]

18. Fierce as a fucking kitten.