Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The Point, You Have Missed It Previous entry: Bamboo Review: The Invention of Lying

On Obama’s HRC keynote—plus watching the LGBT movement in flux

I was live on-the-air for SiriusOutQ’s coverage of the HRC Dinner featuring the President’s historic keynote address Saturday night, and I have to tell you, the low expectations I had regarding LGBT policy were unfortunately met on that account. If you’re an activist or citizen looking for timelines, actions, use of the bully pulpit, ANYTHING that would indicate to the community that our President was serious about moving on the laundry list of LGBT issues any time soon, you would call it a fail.

However, I have to agree with Sean Bugg, my fellow commentator during the coverage, who made a great point that if you aren’t a wonk or activist clued in to the messy politics going on behind the scenes, this speech is a huge home run of support from the President of the United States to a kid out in the sticks who watches it can now feel he is part of the American fabric. In our cynical view of the political system, jaded by the hypocrisy and spinning we see each day, as well as outright lying by pols and advocates, you have to remember how this speech can resonate with non-political LGBTs and straight America. The President actually engaged with a segment of our community in his first term to affirm support for the LGBT community. I doubt you’ll see him endure sane, rational criticism from the right on this other than the usual whines from the fringes who already think he’s Satan/Hitler/Muslim terrorist, etc. That’s progress on its own and it should not be minimized.

So that’s my praise. As far as criticism, I don’t even know where to begin.  But I’ll first share the news that HRC is happy with the speech.

“Tonight, President Obama told LGBT Americans that his commitment to ending discrimination in the military, in the workplace and for loving couples and their families is ‘unwavering.’  He made it crystal clear that he is our strongest ally in this fight, that he understands and, in fact, encourages our activism and our voice even when we’re impatient with the pace of change.  But these remarks weren’t just for us, they were directed to all Americans who share his dream and ours of a country where “no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.”

“And we heard unequivocally about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: ‘I am working with the Pentagon, its leadership and members of the House and Senate to end this policy. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  That is my commitment to you.’

“Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President:  ‘You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.’

“This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It’s simply unprecedented.”

OK. What he said about DADT is no different than the message we’ve heard every time the admin is asked about this. Robert Gibbs winds the key in his back and belches that out regularly during press briefings. No news. DADT repeal is the big “gimme” that he could most easily accomplish—all the polling support is there, there’s bipartisan support on the Hill, and the face of the opposition is Elaine Donnelly, for god’s sake? Many service members are already serving openly with their COs looking the other way. How many homophobic retired generals need to go to the hereafter before Nancy, Harry and Barry open the locked chest to find their dusty spines? I wasn’t surprised that the response of Aubrey Sarvis, executive director, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network was diplomaticly muted.

“We were heartened to hear the President say, ‘I will end don’t ask, don’t tell.’ But an opportunity was missed tonight. SLDN was disappointed the President did not lay out a timeline and specifics for repeal.The 65,000 gay and lesbian service members—who put their lives on the line and who remain impatient with the pace of progress—deserve to know when their commander in chief and Congress plan on getting rid of this law.”

The President mentioned our relationships, but gave no timeline other than “You will see a time.” Well crap, I can say that and be as precise as the President. Honestly marriage equality won’t happen any time soon and isn’t a priority - what about ENDA, which would free LGBTs from the shackles of silence of fear of losing employment. Does the President say he will use the bully pulpit to pressure Congress to act with deliberate speed. Nope.

This was a well-crafted, oddly familiar address if you’re a political junkie, because it felt like a stump speech, a post-election speech and a WH LGBT photo op address patched together. I understand his support for equality; what I didn’t hear is that civil rights of human beings are any more important than any other political issue he faces. That correcting a grievous wrong affecting the lives of American taxpayers he wants support from on other issues is ok to shuffle down in the pile of issues. Honestly, it’s good to know where you stand—statements of support without any timelines at this stage in the game is frustrating

and

very informative. But it doesn’t mean we won’t continue to press for them, no matter what Barney says.

And, did you notice the “T” invisibility in this address?  No shock there either; I think this may be another education issue. I have to say the money quote from the speech that made me laugh out loud was the President running down a string of accomplishments and one he referred to was how he invited the homos to the Easter Egg Roll. Yep I can take that to the bank here in NC and do something with that bit of equality.  BTW, the Bushes had gay families participate in those festivities as well, the first time they just didn’t want them photographed with Laura. The second time seemed to be pretty irrelevant.  Oy. Funny and sad, but it’s progress, right.

Ironically, I give President Obama points for having the cojones to state that we are impatient—and should be. He’s man enough to say to continue the pressure, whereas the messages delivered by Joe Solmonese and Barney Frank in the past few days have been protective of the President and scolding of the grassroots and the LGBT Netroots. It’s quite a stark disconnect that says more about our professional advocates than it does about the President. 

An aside—I think the major schism between our orgs and the grassroots and Netroots has reached a perfect storm with this weekend. The juxtaposition of this dinner, where we see a different view of progress, as ovation after ovation for the President suggested full support of the Patience Agenda, versus the people attending the march. Many of those marching on Sunday don’t have the access to power or fat wallets to be considered for courtship by the Obama’s 2012 team and the Dem party.
The divide is even more stark when you consider the traditional political infrastructure and the blogosphere, which Twitters, Facebooks and blogs the inconsistencies, spinning and attempts to close ranks around, for example, HRC and the White House. The fallout over the last few days is more evidence that the rules have changed, the game has changed, and the flailing shows the man behind the rainbow curtain. As I said, it’s a perfect storm that no one could have predicted on any side of the matter. What does it mean? I don’t know, but we cannot ignore the fact that these shifts in power, communication and messaging is muddier than ever. That’s not advocating anything one way or another, just an acknowledgment that smart minds need to reassess how we as a movement really put our best foot forward and think less about preserving power, position and influence into silos.

There are two realities, the Beltway reality, a myopic view that is so disconnected from the lives of everyday LGBTs (particularly Ts) that has us setting such low expectations. The reality outside the Beltway doesn’t exist, the focus is on cultivating the relationships with power brokers with the secondary focus on obtaining “what’s possible” politically, which of course is pretty subjective and dependent on whether there is professional peril in rocking any boats.

The reality outside the Beltway is often too impatient about the logistics of moving legislation in many respects, but the impatience is borne of the peril of losing a job, losing custody of children, or myriad other problems that will not be solved in their Red state any time soon. To see such inaction and promises and action delayed or deferred is disheartening—and very personal. For activists in this sphere, a speech like this is a reality check of its own—beautiful, empty prose telling us we are on our own for who knows how long.

***

Activists react, debate

They really got into it last night, with DADT-discharged Lt. Dan Choi serving as the diplomatic optimist, CNN commentator Hilary Rosen as the pragmatic defender of The Patience Agenda, and SiriusOutQ host Michelangelo Signorile and author/blogger Dan Savage as the critical activists. It’s a must-see.

[No transcript yet; the link to watch is here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2009.10.10.html .]

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 06:00 AM • (33) Comments

unfortunately, pres. obama isn’t man enough to use the power of the executive order, nullifying DADT with a pen stroke.

THAT would be a manly man thing to do.

Comment #1: cpinva  on  10/11  at  07:26 AM

Miss Spaulding hit on what was really said:

This was a well-crafted, oddly familiar address if you’re a political junkie, because it felt like a stump speech, a post-election speech and a WH LGBT photo op address patched together. I understand his support for equality; what I didn’t hear is that civil rights of human beings are any more important than any other political issue he faces.

And there it is: President Obama is a politician, just like any other.  As for his timeline for action, that, too, is clear: sometime after the 2012 election!  Maybe.

Pandagon doesn’t have a trackback feature; my article is here.

Comment #2: Dana  on  10/11  at  09:44 AM

cpinva wrote:

unfortunately, pres. obama isn’t man enough to use the power of the executive order, nullifying DADT with a pen stroke.

“Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” began as an executive order by President Clinton, but was written into federal law as part of the UCMJ.  The only action the President could take by executive order is to order military commanders not to enforce federal law and the UCMJ.  If there were any real action being taken toward repeal, an executive order suspending proceedings until the legal change was resolved would make sense, but ordering non-enforcement without any action toward changing the UCMJ wouldn’t be wise.

Comment #3: Dana  on  10/11  at  09:51 AM

That’s my Barry.

Seriously.  How did he ever get the rep as the most liberalest person evah?  Oh yeah, Republican liars.

He’s a centrist.  He’s a politician.  I actually only slightly preferred him over HRC, and I REALLY did not want HRC.

Comment #4: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  10/11  at  11:06 AM

And yet no timeline, just another promise.  Talk noble, act Lieberman.  Guantanamo’s still there, the public option is being thrown overboard, two wars are still going strong and gays are still the fags that can get lost.

It’s time for the left to look the President in the eye and adopt a very necessary phrase from the vulgarian’s guide to dating:

“Put out, or fuck off.”

Comment #5: seeker6079  on  10/11  at  11:47 AM

Dana, why is that conservatives always believe in instant action when it comes to fucking people over but slow, infinite delay and caution when it can actually help people, when it’s the right thing?  If Truman had listened to the service chiefs in the 40s the services would still be tentatively thinking about planning to study the possibilities of examining the concept of integration.  Colin Powell wouldn’t have been JCS Chairman; he would have been the driver.

Comment #6: seeker6079  on  10/11  at  11:49 AM

Talk noble, act Lieberman is still miles better than the last guy:  Talk belligerently, fiddle like Nero.

Comment #7: libdevil  on  10/11  at  11:52 AM

I suspect Obama will wait until after the 2010 elections before moving on this.  It’s enough of a hot button issue that it could sway a few of the closer races.

Comment #8: togolosh  on  10/11  at  11:55 AM

Yes. Well. As a gay American, I am of course firmly committed to the Democratic Party and its ideals and beliefs, and I am unwavering in my support, and there will come a day when the Democrats will see me donate my money, votes, and/or time to the party to help elect its members to political office.

The Democrats should know that I am working very hard behind the scenes toward a future in which I can donate to their party, and should have confidence that they will be able to look back in the year 2017 and say that I have donated. But such donation will not happen overnight! I currently have a lot on my plate, and so they will have to be patient. This Sunday morning, though, I pledge my unwavering support to the Democrats, for whom I will fiercely advocate among my friends and acquaintances, and in the future this may take tangible form. Also.

Comment #9: mr_subjunctive  on  10/11  at  11:57 AM

sorry, libdevil, call me crazy but I think we can have a higher bar for Obama than “isn’t as evil or greedy as George W Bush”.

Comment #10: seeker6079  on  10/11  at  12:01 PM

brilliant, mr_subjunctive.  Every single gay and s-b-n-n American should send that in an email to the White House and to the DNC.  Every.  One.

Comment #11: seeker6079  on  10/11  at  12:03 PM

Yeah, Togolosh.  I personally am all squicky thrilled at the notion of retaining a few more blue dogs.  Yay.

Comment #12: seeker6079  on  10/11  at  12:03 PM

sorry, libdevil, call me crazy but I think we can have a higher bar for Obama than “isn’t as evil or greedy as George W Bush”.


Ok, then who’s your candidate?

Comment #13: typist  on  10/11  at  12:11 PM

As a wonk and activist for the repeal of DADT, I see last night’s speech as a huge deal.  The phrase “the bully pulpit” just means his ability to generate news coverage and to move the national debate by giving a speech.

Where he speaks matters.  The President has a very busy schedule, and choosing this event over the other 500 invitations he had sends a signal.  Isn’t this the first time a sitting President has addressed a gay rights group?  That’s a big deal right there.  All the DC mandarins, executive and legislative, are now on notice that gay rights are on the President’s agenda.

And what did he say?  For the first time, he said that his administration will repeal DADT.  This is not a campaign promise, not a message relayed through a press secretary, this is a policy announcement made directly by the President of the United States.  I know it may not sound like much of a distinction, but in the Washington DC language of politics and diplomacy, fine distinctions matter.  The Pentagon is already working on repeal - this makes them move faster.  Harry Reid was asking for Presidential pressure on the issue - now he has it.  And I predict a flood of media attention - front page articles, editorials, op-eds, and TV talking heads - motivating constituents to contact their Congresscritter, and hastening repeal.

As activists, it’s our job to say “not enough!” and to keep pressing onward toward full equality.  This doesn’t mean we have to be negative.  I see this speech as an opportunity to make headlines, and as a weapon to use in lobbying.  Do I wish he’d said more?  Yes.  Will I continue to force the issue?  Yes, and in doing so I’m grateful for the help Obama gave us last night.

Comment #14: BABH  on  10/11  at  12:38 PM

It’s not who’s the candidate, typist, it’s what you can make this President to be.  Lean on him every bit as hard as the religious right leans on GOP presidents, take over the Dems at a precinct level and make it clear to Obama that he must - not should, must - bring forward more progressive policies or he is toast next time around.

Comment #15: seeker6079  on  10/11  at  12:56 PM

typist, it’s a matter of merging what BABH said and what mr_subjunctive said.  It’s constant pressure, spread out and maintained over years and endlessly fine-tuned.  Watch the Christianist Right, and learn from them.

Comment #16: seeker6079  on  10/11  at  01:00 PM

I have a lot of friends on the left.  My anti-war friends are hysterical over Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize - they turned against him long before he got it though. They wanted him out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, and believe this or not - to have solved the Palestinian problem by now. Frankly, when they talk, I can no longer tell the diff between them and the right.  I was telling another friend of mine on the left today that I watched Obama’s gay right’s speech and that he said he was going to overturn DADT and that I believed him.  My friend said “yeah well, I just hope he gets through a strong public option first”

In other words? Everybody’s got a cause.  And everybody wants their cause taken care of today, not tomorrow.  My anti-war friends have a better case than you do because they can honestly say, hey, every day that goes by people die.  In fact, my health care friends have that same case.

Me?  I support all these causes.  I totally believe him, DADT will not stand for much longer.  He’s going to end it.  But give the guy some fucking breathing room people.  I am so sick and tired of hearing leftists scream, whine, and bitch.  Shut the fuck up.  He can’t undo 30 years of damage, and 8 years of a horror show in 6 months. 

Jesus Christ, I don’t know how he puts up with I really don’t.

Comment #17: JennyLI  on  10/11  at  01:13 PM

“unfortunately, pres. obama isn’t man enough to use the power of the executive order, nullifying DADT with a pen stroke.

THAT would be a manly man thing to do. “

Yeah, and when whiners like you get the next repuke elected, that repuke brings back DADT with one stroke too.

Or you know, you plan a little.  This is going to happen before the midterms, not after it.  Can we fucking get health care done first?  Nope.  I WANT I WANT I WANT NOW NOW NOW MY CAUSE MY CAUSE MY CAUSE ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

Sorry, a lot of this is built up from months of listening to the every more hysterical anti-war left.  Frankly, I’m sick of all of you.

Comment #18: JennyLI  on  10/11  at  01:19 PM

Would like to point out that when the Republicans are in charge, they seem to get shit done in a big fucking hurry.

Comment #19: mr_subjunctive  on  10/11  at  01:54 PM

Seeker wrote:

Dana, why is that conservatives always believe in instant action when it comes to fucking people over but slow, infinite delay and caution when it can actually help people, when it’s the right thing?  If Truman had listened to the service chiefs in the 40s the services would still be tentatively thinking about planning to study the possibilities of examining the concept of integration.  Colin Powell wouldn’t have been JCS Chairman; he would have been the driver.

On this issue, I’m on your side: DA/DT is a stupid policy.  But that doesn’t mean that President Obama can simply change the law by executive order.

However, I’d also like to point out here that the notion that presidents can’t get everything done at once assumes that they must do everything themselves; last time I looked, they has rather large staffs.  If President Obama is concentrating most on health care right now, that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have directed the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to find a way to get a repeal of DA/DT written and ready for submittal to Congress.

A repeal or modification of DA/DT to the UCMJ would be going through the Armed Services Committees, precisely the committees least busy with health care reform.  If President Obama was really committed to this, it could be in the process of getting done, even though there are better known issues still on the table.

Yeah, I know: on military matters, the President and the DoD and JCS are more concerned about what changes, if any, are going to be made in our policy in Afghanistan.  But the Pentagon is full of both civilian and military staff people, and some of them could be working on this—if the President really wanted it to happen.  Is multi-tasking something expected only outside of government?

Comment #20: Dana  on  10/11  at  02:33 PM

Ouch: they has rather large staffs?

Comment #21: Dana  on  10/11  at  02:35 PM

@20: The Pentagon is working on DADT (c.f. this article in the Joint Forces Quarterly, cleared for publication by the Joint Chiefs).  Congress is working on it too, with the Senate Armed Services Committee due to hold a hearing on repeal before the end of the year.

Short of unilaterally suspending enforcement (which is within his power legally, but would be a mistake politically), the only thing Obama can do is make speeches giving full-throated support to repeal.  He just did that last night.

Comment #22: BABH  on  10/11  at  02:47 PM

Thanks for your comments. You’re one of the few in Greater Blogistan remarking on this mendacious charade

My two cents

Comment #23: David Ehrenstein  on  10/11  at  03:29 PM

Miss Spaulding

“Miss” is an honorific used by sexist toolbags to call attention to the marital status of unmarried woman. Pam Spaulding is married, not a Miss, as you know full well, you toolbag squared.

Comment #24: sophonisba  on  10/11  at  04:21 PM

AnglScarlett, how the fuck is wanting the same rights as the rest of the people in this country selfish?  We’ve been waiting long enough for our fair shake.  No one wants anything special.  We want the same shit straight people have always taken for granted.  Fuck you.

Comment #25: Spooky Skeptic  on  10/11  at  04:30 PM

Can we fucking get health care done first?  Nope.  I WANT I WANT I WANT NOW NOW NOW MY CAUSE MY CAUSE MY CAUSE ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

What a compelling argument, let me try it out: All you sick and uninsured people are always whining HEALTH CARE HEALTH CARE NOW NOW NOW MY CAUSE ME ME ME ME. Take a fucking number, sit down and shut up, we’ll get to your bawwwwing little personal pet causes once everybody in this country has full civil rights. Oh boo hoo, I want health care, I want, I want, I want, precious precious me and my needs.

—yeah, it sounds exactly as douchey and sociopathic that way as it did your way. How funny.

Comment #26: sophonisba  on  10/11  at  04:36 PM

T was in the hate crimes bill which passed, so I’m satisfied with crumbs.

Remember, we still have 40+ senators willing to stall on everything and anything put before them instead of actually doing anything.

Until we get DOMA repealed, I’m counting the dollars the feds are costing us.  This year alone it looks like it may come to over $17,000.00.

Comment #27: Crissa  on  10/11  at  05:34 PM

I can’t stand the HRC.  For all the talk about the need for patience, the need to exclude transfolk, etc. in order to achieve their goals, they haven’t actually accomplished anything of note.

Lambda Legal, on the other hand, repeatedly goes to the mat for trans issues and brought in Lawrence v. Texas, to say nothing of the continuing efforts on state and local levels.

Comment #28: Thom  on  10/11  at  06:34 PM

Selfish? Selfish?!??

My VT Civil Union Spouse/CA Domestic Partner/CA Wife/NV Domestic Partner have been together for 17 years this month and we are complete 100% legal strangers under federal law, neither of us had the option to choose a career in the military, we are like Blanche DuBois - dependent on the kindness of strangers.

You fucking bet I’m selfish.

Comment #29: teac  on  10/11  at  07:57 PM

Crissa wrote:

Until we get DOMA repealed, I’m counting the dollars the feds are costing us.  This year alone it looks like it may come to over $17,000.00.

That’s the kind of statement which needs explanation.  I can picture the possibility regarding two unmarried people, of vastly different incomes, who would save money by being married and filing jointly.  Your statement might have more impact if you were willing to release general tax information concerning what you were required to pay and what you could have paid; I can see it as a significant article with proper documentation.

Actually, in such a circumstance, the higher-earning partner might be able to file as “unmarried head of household.”  Under Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1 (B) V, § 152 (d)(2)(h) defines as a qualifying relationship:

An individual (other than an individual who at any time during the taxable year was the spouse, determined without regard to section 7703, of the taxpayer) who, for the taxable year of the taxpayer, has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer and is a member of the taxpayer’s household.

I’m not sure if anyone has ever attempted to use this paragraph in such a manner—whether for same-sex or unmarried opposite sex couples—but on cursory glance, it seems like it would cover them.

Comment #30: Dana  on  10/11  at  08:11 PM

Dana, I’m not working right now and haven’t for a few years.

I have to report money my spouse/partner/wife/partner pays for my health insurance on my federal taxes (her employer is gracious enough to offer coverage for same-sex partners).

Comment #31: teac  on  10/11  at  08:25 PM

Also, any amount she contributes annually to support me over the allowable annual gift amount has to be reported.

And is taxed.

Mortgage. Vehicle insurance. Food. Travel. Entertainment. Etc.

If we transfer real or personal property between us, the value of the transfer is taxed.

Stay-at-home folks in opposite marriage face no such burden.

Comment #32: teac  on  10/11  at  08:30 PM

stay-at-home folks who are not married at all face that burden…

i only bring this up because (elsewhere, not here) i am so fuckig sick of people telling me “*YOU* should not be angry over [prop8/DOMA/DADT/hate-crime bills failing/whatever] because you are straight”
it never, ever matters that i have loved ones who *aren’t* straight, or that it hits my “injustice meter”, or i’m worried that if legislation falls off on LGBTQ issues it’s going to slide on other issues - nope, *I*, personally, am not part of the LGBTQ and i have no “right” to be angry that people who are LGBTQ are being fucked over - i, personally, have offended dozens (maybe hundreds) of random intratubes strangers by being openly straight and ranting about the fucking bullshit.
so, i looked for a rationalization, and gods above, there was one - i got harrassed because i’m not allowed to work, and therefor my boyfriend “must” be contributing to support me. i had to PROVE that i recieve grants, scholarships and loans, and PROVE that i recieved enough to cover my living expenses. not just food, gas, etc - some jackass was trying to tell me Pete paying *his half* of the bills was “supporting” me. apparantly, if you are unmarried but living with someone, if they pay ANYTHING, they are supporting you. so now i can say “it pisses me off because the lack of legislation on LGBTQ rights also impacts non-married people living together”. which is funny, cause no one had a problem when i lived with a friend, or with family. only when i lived with my boyfriend…


all that said - the lack of, for want of a better term, “leadership” on LGBTQ issues from Obama and Co is incredibly annoying and does nothing except embolden the right. jackasses.

Comment #33: denelian  on  10/12  at  03:57 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.