Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: So much from so little Previous entry: Celebrate.  Good Times.  Come On.

Which way is Obama’s religion wind blowing?

There are two articles out that discuss Obama’s current spiritual advisors in the evangelical sphere, “Without a Pastor of His Own, Obama Turns to Five” in the NYT, and “Obama and the New Evangelical Movement” at Change.org. Without a home church, he has turned to men who have a less-than-positive view of LGBT rights. This is significant because none represent the liberal, gay-affirming United Church of Christ, a denomination he attended in Chicago. That’s not to say these men (and they are all men) are wholesale religious conservatives, the conundrum is that many are very involved in the otherwise liberal social justice front.

Right: Look at who else Rev. Kirbyjon advises besides our new president. The Rev. officiated at Jenna Bush’s wedding.

The NYT’s Laurie Goodstein:

All are men, two of them white and three black — including the Rev. Otis Moss Jr., a graying lion of the civil rights movement. Two, the entrepreneurial dynamos Bishop T. D. Jakes and the Rev. Kirbyjon H. Caldwell, also served as occasional spiritual advisers to President George W. Bush. Another, the Rev. Jim Wallis, leans left on some issues, like military intervention and poverty programs, but opposes abortion.

None of these pastors are affiliated with the religious right, though several are quite conservative theologically. One of them, the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of a conservative megachurch in Florida, was branded a turncoat by some leaders of the Christian right when he began to speak out on the need to stop global warming.

But as a group they can hardly be characterized as part of the religious left either. Most, like Mr. Wallis, do not take traditionally liberal positions on abortion or homosexuality. What most say they share with the president is the conviction that faith is the foundation in the fight against economic inequality and social injustice.

Goodstein is quick to say that the White House refused to comment on the article.

More below the fold.
Michael A. Jones at Change.org:

So why can’t President Obama, who as recently as 1996 “unequivocally” supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples, keep some religious company that supports full marriage equality for same-sex couples?  From Maine to

California, he’d have plenty of religious leaders to choose from.  Instead, President Obama has embraced a new evangelical wing that instead of bolstering progressive values, believes in a version of centrist social justice that may be great on issues like poverty and the environment, but fails on some of the preeminent civil rights issues of today.

Among the ministers that Obama has been consulting with since his election include Bishop T.D. Jakes, who has called homosexuality a “brokenness” and has said that he wouldn’t hire any LGBT person who was sexually active.  (Editorial note:

Bishops Jakes’s son was arrested in January after allegedly cruising for gay sex in a popular Dallas park.  While I feel for the son, I can’t help but wonder if the turn toward down-low sexual gratification isn’t a byproduct of growing up in a household where your father thinks all LGBT people are spiritually broken.)

Caldwell, in particular deserves closer examination (Check out these stats from Forbes about Caldwell). Does Obama support this view of his?

Another minister with Obama’s ear is Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Houston pastor and head of the Windsor Village United Methodist mega-church.  Caldwell’s church has actively promoted an ex-gay ministry known as “Metanoia,” which seeks to “help homosexuals understand with God’s help that ‘change [is] possible.’

Whoa. OK, so let’s assume a mealy mouthed message like “the President does not believe in ex-gay therapy” or some such nonsense, should he make a statement. If he doesn’t then what is he doing talking to Caldwell when there are plenty of other prominent pastors he could choose to break bread with who don’t subscribe to that view?

So what can we read from this decision on pastors in his inner spiritual circle on Obama’s part? After all, faith can and should be a private matter—but sadly, it never is in American politics. In this case it certainly isn’t since he has selected very high-profile evangelicals to consult with. What does First Lady Michelle Obama feel about this, given her appearances before LGBT audiences?

She embraced the community and passed on the specific kind of support that her husband, as president would give to moving civil equality forward:

Was that a mirage I experienced in Denver? At the very least, all of this calls for a public statement from President Obama to clarify whether this evolution in spiritual guidance does reflect a shift in his thinking on LGBT rights—and the pursuit of the promises he made to the community that helped him cross the election finish line. After all, given the power that religion holds in this country, we’re entitled to an answer. Any answer that throws up “it’s a personal matter” is BS, since he had no problem touting his faith to appeal to religious voters. A clarification is warranted before this blows up in his face…again.

It should also be noted that Obama’s swift actions with the Lilly Ledbetter Act and return to a sane policy on stem cell research have sent clear signals about his stand on equality for women and science-based governing despite the expected hits he knew he’d take from the right wing. He’s done nada for LGBT rights so far, and has been silent in the news of late about whether the feds should extend benefits to same-sex partners of government workers, lest it raise the red flag about DOMA and sent strong signals that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is going on the back burner.

Related:
* Obama’s new pastors (diary by QScribe)

 

------

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 10:42 AM • (43) Comments

My husband seems to think that he’s waiting until he can get exactly what he wants before he moves on the issue.  There’s no room for compromise on something as basic as civil rights, but I suspect he may have no intention of fixing these issues.

Comment #1: Spooky Skeptic  on  03/16  at  10:52 AM

Three words: rubber tree plant.

The cynical part of me wonders if he’s waiting to use it as a grand distraction for the reichwing ... as in “look! Over here! Teh Gehyness!” and then pushes something else past while they whip themselves into a lather.

The legal landscape is, unfortunately, far more complicated for Gay Rights than for gender, disability, and racial discrimination, where the legal framework was laid down years ago.  That alone may delay action, since a setback in the courts would be horrendous.

Comment #2: Ms Kate  on  03/16  at  11:01 AM

I, too, found that article very depressing. People can change over time if they get enough of the wrong advice. I don’t like the idea of my president reaching out for too much “spiritual advice” and “prayer” in the first place. Since I don’t believe in god I think that’s a recipe for disaster. You get precisely the advice you want to get when you turn to any particular person in religious garb, and by definition you are rejecting the advice of the ones you don’t turn to. So if you are choosing to get spiritual advice and comfort *at all* you’d better be damned sure your pastor shares your viewpoints our you are going to get the lecture from hell. To mix my spiritual metaphors wildly.  The pastors Obama is hanging with are mainstream evangelicals, not mainline. Their power in their own communities rests firmly on their retrograde notions of heaven and hell, the ability to damn non believers, and their patriarchal and hierarchical notions of salvation. Those are all extremely undemocratic. I don’t care how “good” they are on global warming, or whatever. That’s some bad company our president is keeping.

aimai

Comment #3: aimai  on  03/16  at  11:07 AM

Meh, five beards.  I suspect he’s a closet atheist who knows that politically he has to have a religion, so any will do.  When I actually hear him say that from his spiritual discussions with any of these guys he’s now going to enact ... then I’ll worry.

And Pam, he’s already been accused of taking on too much at once.  I think the idea is to do that which has the most support first, to get some wins under the belt, then tackle the more controversial stuff.  Yeah, politics sometimes delays justice.

Comment #4: phylosopher  on  03/16  at  11:11 AM

Hmmm ... sounds like working on Michelle Obama about it might be a good strategy. 

She seems to have great BS detectors and function as his moral gyroscope at times.  Particularly at times when Pres. Obama gets confused about wanting to be Black, but getting bad advice about what that means.

Comment #5: Ms Kate  on  03/16  at  11:21 AM

Meh, five beards.  I suspect he’s a closet atheist who knows that politically he has to have a religion, so any will do.  When I actually hear him say that from his spiritual discussions with any of these guys he’s now going to enact ... then I’ll worry.

We just had a president who governed by his alleged faith, and Obama campaigned heavily on his faith. It’s relevant to discuss this topic, given the Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren incidents. His insistence on “outreach” and “compromise” with evangelicals who oppose his on-the-record support for LGBT rights may have some impact or none at all on how he governs as president.  No one is saying he cannot pick his pastor; I’m saying he’s chosen a group of men who have one thing in common—resistance to movement on LGBT rights. No voices on the side of full equality.

We have a right to ask these questions, and he can answer them quite quickly as he has with fair pay for women and stem cell research. A statement on where he stands. All we’ve heard so far on the LGBT front is that it’s being backburnered for “more important” matters. Given the economy is important, no one is saying our rights have to be the top of the agenda, but the signals we’re seeing so far are disturbing—and the fact the White House doesn’t feel a need to respond to the news as reported in the NYT article is also troubling.

Comment #6: Pam Spaulding  on  03/16  at  11:29 AM

Why does he need spiritual advisors at all? As far as I’m concerned, the jesus freaks can fuck right off. They had their chance and blew it by electing the dumbest asshole ever. They can go away now.

Comment #7: Mark  on  03/16  at  11:48 AM

Why does he need spiritual advisors at all?

He doesn’t. But we still live in a country with a lot of religious people (how long did we have to listen to the Jeremiah Wright BS?). The numbers of Americans who are religious are retreating, but the fact is, you won’t see an open atheist elected any time soon. That doesn’t make it right, it makes it a reality until these people shake off this desire to conflate church and state. And as long as our presidents consult with religious clerics, we have a right to ask how this may or may not influence policy. It’s a sad state of affairs.

Comment #8: Pam Spaulding  on  03/16  at  12:01 PM

Why does he need spiritual advisors at all?

Because our politics is polluted with the nonsensical belief in belief.

Comment #9: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  03/16  at  12:01 PM

Pam, you don’t put ammunition into the enemies’ hands.  I see five pastors as a good sign - if there is just one and you jettison him/her it’s news and a rift, if it’s five well, there can be a quietly revolving door.  Watch.  It’s not a one way street either.There is also the possibility that he’s talking to them. 

But, he needs some ReThuglican votes and those of Dems who are not in ultra secure seats on the economic stuff.  Now with embryonic stem cells, he has chosen another issue to cement those votes to him.  LGBT is polarizing as is abortion.  I say these won’t get touched until the economy is on sounder ground.  Real universal health care reform, too. 

Stamping our feet and saying we want it NOW (or I want you to promise NOW) isn’t going to help.  But, it must seem as if that’s a “wait quietly on the back of the bus for your turn.”  Wait yes, quietly, hell no.

Comment #10: phylosopher  on  03/16  at  12:03 PM

1st, it may seem strange today but at the time DADT was considered a liberalization.  What did Clinton get for it?  He got the shit kicked out of him for starting his administration with a ‘trivial’ issue.  That and the assault weapons ban lost him 30 seats in the House.  Politicians have long memories; once bit….

He is bound and determined to not give the righties anything to hang their hat on until after the 2010 elections.  Sorry, but there it is.  If the the Republicans fail for the third cycle <u>the world is ours and all that is in it.</i>  You’ll note that Speaker Pelosi, though an ardent gun control advocate, said, “we need to enforce the gun laws we have.”  That is NRA speak for no new gun laws.

As far as his religion is concerned, he is not an atheist.  Past that, I suspect his beliefs are rather amorphous.  Like our founders he may even be a diest.

If he can introduce splits in evangelicalism it is politically expedient to do so.  Remember Rahm is running this show.  He makes Cardinal Richelieu look like a piker.  There will not be any major LGBT issues until after the mid-terms.  Then DADT, DOMA are going away forever.  Hopefully, there will be national action on marriage rights as well.

My 2¢.

Comment #11: Magis  on  03/16  at  12:05 PM

But, it must seem as if that’s a “wait quietly on the back of the bus for your turn.” Wait yes, quietly, hell no.

Oh, yes. It’s easy to say that, particularly if you’re not at threat of losing your job, not because the economy is tanking, but simply because you’re LGBT.

* or if you’re a bi-national same-sex couple, where the foreign partner is under the threat of deportation.

* or you work for the State Dept abroad in a dangerous country and your partner hasn’t any of the rights and benefits given to heterosexual spouses.

* or you’re beaten up within an inch of your life by a homophobe and the crime isn’t given the same penalties as would be the case if it were over religious beliefs, gender, or disability.

I could go on and on, but I haven’t seen any evidence he’s even moving in that direction, only evidence and statements from White House mouthpieces that nothing is on the table anytime in the near future. And now this. I don’t think discussing the confusing signals out there and asking for clarification is a “demand.” Sorry, I’ll just go back to the bus and wait until it’s the “right time” , or better yet, let it run over me. Thanks.

Comment #12: Pam Spaulding  on  03/16  at  12:32 PM

Yes, Pam is right to point out that Obama has taken a stand in the face of certain right-wing opposition on equality for women and funding for science, so why not LGBT rights? Just as he had political capital to take a stand on equality for women and stem-cell research, Obama also has the political capital to push an aggressive pro-LGBT platform, along with economic reforms, health care reform, reform in energy policy, etc. (notice after eight years of Republican ineptitude there is much to reform). He does not need conservative support on this right now.

But he is not doing so. It is a devastating point. The choice of Warren as inaugural speaker is looking less like a symbolic gesture to appease those who would later be critical of the substance of pro-gay policy, and more like a grounding for a centrist tone and vision Obama wants to set for his presidency.

That a clear majority fails to support a compelling civil right is not a morally firm argument to exclude the civil right from an agenda. The brave and principled thing to do is to stand firm for what is right, and Obama billed himself as that kind of brave and principled person throughout his campaign. I am so disappointed.

And, also as Pam points out, this moral entitlement to equality is a matter of urgency for many who continue to be victimized by discrimination, so “let’s wait for things to get better” is a sad and pathetic excuse for not acting.

Comment #13: Luke  on  03/16  at  01:16 PM

Oh, yes. It’s easy to say that, particularly if you’re not at threat of losing your job, not because the economy is tanking, but simply because you’re LGBT.

You asked people why?  You got several theories in response.

Be careful that you don’t confuse people giving you answers or attempting explainations from within-the-frame of POTUS with those same people believing in any way that a delay in protections is honorable, right, or a good thing.

Comment #14: Ms Kate  on  03/16  at  01:29 PM

Ms. Kate, I don’t mind reading answers that I disagree with, regarding strategy. I don’t assume in this context that anyone personally believes this, but it’s a view held by a LOT of progressives who don’t want Obama taking on what they perceived to be third rail issues. That’s why I framed the post in terms of Ledbetter and stem cell research. Where does the administration and the progressive movement draw the line on what’s “worthy” of tackling in his first term? My fear is that way too many allies do want LGBTs to sit patiently and silently lest we rouse the right wing beast and spoil the party.

The fact is LGBTs have to deal with the realities of bible-based discrimination on a daily basis around the country, and someone has to stand up and challenge those who would purportedly be our allies (or worse, promised they would be). It wasn’t long ago that a huge slice of the progressive community blamed gays for Kerry losing (in the wake of MA legalizing marriage), as opposed to the candidate sucking.

An aside: The WaPo just called for passage of Uniting American Families Act, which addresses the discrimination against bi-national couples. Is it safe for Obama to come out yet on this issue?

It’s not about being “uppity.” Trust me, this isn’t restricted to a tension between progressives and the LGBT community about strategy. There’s lots of discussion and dissent in the LGBT community about the federal DOMA challenge filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders that targets the discriminatory provisions in section three of DOMA (preventing equal treatment of gay and lesbian married couples in the area of taxation, federal employee spousal and survivor benefits, and Social Security and name changes). Those of us in states with no protections fear blowback from the right by moving so quickly.

Comment #15: Pam Spaulding  on  03/16  at  01:46 PM

There’s lots of discussion and dissent in the LGBT community about the federal DOMA challenge filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders that targets the discriminatory provisions in section three of DOMA (preventing equal treatment of gay and lesbian married couples in the area of taxation, federal employee spousal and survivor benefits, and Social Security and name changes). Those of us in states with no protections fear blowback from the right by moving so quickly.

I’m honestly afraid of a Bowers v. Hardwick-style loss.

Comment #16: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  03/16  at  01:51 PM

I’m honestly afraid of a Bowers v. Hardwick-style loss.

Fellow North Carolinian Matt Hill Comer raises strong objections to the timing of the lawsuit in Bay Windows. Sara Whitman, an activist in New England, holds the GLAD point of view.

It illustrates how where you live, and the patchwork of rights we have (or don’t have), colors our perception of the impact of civil rights progress and the strategy of accomplishing it differ.

Comment #17: Pam Spaulding  on  03/16  at  01:59 PM

You asked people why?  You got several theories in response.

Rather more than that, I thought. Phylosopher said:

Stamping our feet and saying we want it NOW (or I want you to promise NOW) isn’t going to help.

That’s not “what’s Obama doing” but “what should we do.” To which Pam’s response makes sense.

Can’t say I understand the advice, anyway. No reason was suggested why asking for plans now isn’t going to help. I can see why it would help. Open discussion itself has a liberalizing effect upon future policy, see the Overton window.

Comment #18: asdf  on  03/16  at  02:07 PM

I think GLAD doesn’t quite grasp how hostile the federal courts are going to be to these claims.

Overall, it seems to me that the marriage issue got forced earlier than any of the legal orgs were ready for due to local folks in Hawaii. Then, the New England folks went for broke. It was Hawaii that set all of this off. Even Bonauto (GLAD) has noted that part of the reason for pursuing Goodridge was because of an anti-gay marriage crusade going on at the time of filing. As D’Emilio notes, there’s an entirely new set of anti-gay legislation that resulted from all of this, and it keeps on coming.

Comment #19: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  03/16  at  02:10 PM

I think there is a real issue with underlying legal framework here, too.

Obama could handle the stem cell bullshit with a stroke of a pen.

Ledbetter clarified laws already in effect.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is pretty patchy law behind protections for gay rights.  The law has not kept up with scientific understanding about how orientation isn’t something you choose, and the fundies have been workign double time to keep that scientific consensus off the books.

Comment #20: Ms Kate  on  03/16  at  02:57 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is pretty patchy law behind protections for gay rights.  The law has not kept up with scientific understanding about how orientation isn’t something you choose, and the fundies have been workign double time to keep that scientific consensus off the books.

The law is patchy on these issues, but as I said above, we have active legal federal challenges to DOMA just launched by Massachusetts couples, and his administration has been silent on the matter. He has federal workers in same-sex relationships actively challenging for benefits, and state department employees doing the same. He won’t have the luxury of silence much longer, so he better come up with a public strategy to respond, whether people (or his spiritual advisors) like it or not.

What, in your opinion, is the path the president should take on the matter, given the current signals he’s sent so far about LGBT rights and its priority in his administration? He (and Michelle) were quite passionate about righting the wrongs while on the campaign trail, but have done nothing since but coddle those who aren’t just neutral on the matter, but completely against LGBT rights.  If this is a man who is all about messaging and context, he’s sending a really negative message by the company he keeps in lieu of any leadership in this area.

Comment #21: Pam Spaulding  on  03/16  at  03:48 PM

Five advisors or five <strike>meat shields</strike> PR flacks?

None of us really know what President Obama’s spirituality *really* is.
Is this cover for the “ZOMG HE’S TEH MUSLIN”?
Is this him working in The Villiage power structure?
Is this surrounding himself with Useful Idiots?
Is this him caving to The Powers That Be?

We can’t tell.

I hope people continue to push Obama for equal rights *now*.
Because enemy of my enemy isn’t my fiend, they may not even be my ally, but they can be a useful distraction at an opportune time.

Comment #22: cynickal  on  03/16  at  03:52 PM

Magis post puts it most succinctly.  Political strategy is paramount.  I’d love to see FOCA signed tomorrow and if you’re anunwillingly pregnant teen in a rural area or state with restrictions…same argument, for I’d liek to hear the plan….

But, just as we chortle with glee if we see separations in the GOP, guaranteed, they will do the same and use it to further divide support.  A public PLAN would give them the wedge they need, IMO. 

Personally, I see this blog as an intelligent voice.  I would hate any influence it has on public opinion to erode Obama’s support and scuttle his timely plans.  I, for one, have confidence that he will follow up on campaign promises in a way that will be more than just grandstanding.  Like Magis said, you’ve got Axelrod and Rahmbo directing in there.  I trust that justice is in very good hands.

He is after all a single human being - with a lot of power yes, but there is an economic crisis and plans for a war withdrawal going on.  It has, after all been not even two full months since he was sworn in.  Quite simply, I think we’re expectign too much.  Revisit this issue in July perhaps.

Comment #23: phylosopher  on  03/16  at  04:17 PM

People have said here before that Obama seems to not quite “get” gay rights and homophobia - like, on on intellectual level, he knows where he should be, and on a political level, he knows where he should be (a different place than where he is on the intellectual level), but on a gut level, he just doesn’t get it or doesn’t feel it. This seems to me to be yet more evidence for that claim.

I think people need to keep up the pressure and keep speaking up. Obama may never quite get it on a gut level, but applying that pressure is the only way you shift the center of the debate to the left and change the political calculus.

Comment #24: chingona  on  03/16  at  04:20 PM

Like clockwork, as if to make my point, look at this news:

Team Obama rolls out the welcome mat for Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America

This are two groups monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center for their anti-gay, womb-controlling activities.

Comment #25: Pam Spaulding  on  03/16  at  04:38 PM

Pam, I’m actually encouraged by this.  It’s a community organizer m. o.  and he sees the nation as the community writ large.  So he’s being consistent.  Once the input’s there, he’ll forge a plan that has soemthing for everybody.  And since everybody has an interest in getting their part, they’re less likely to put up a stink.  My guess is he’s got a good idea of what the LGBT community wants/needs/concerns are.  He’s not really that familiar with the Bible-thumping set. 

There’s also that strategy of keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.  Watch.

Comment #26: phylosopher  on  03/16  at  06:16 PM

leans left on some issues, like military intervention and poverty programs, but opposes abortion

OMG this makes me want to scream. You can’t “oppose abortion” any more than you can “oppose terror”.

He opposes WOMEN’S RIGHTS TO OBTAIN ABORTIONS. He opposes ALLOWING WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS. He opposes PROVIDING WOMEN WITH ACCESS TO ABORTIONS.

Gosh, isn’t it funny how much more nasty and less theoretical it sounds when it’s honestly phrased?

Comment #27: kristin  on  03/16  at  06:18 PM

he’ll forge a plan that has soemthing for everybody.

And what, exactly, is an acceptable bone Obama can toss to FRC or CWfA that won’t infringe on someone’s privacy or civil rights? Unless those folks like being played, they do expect to walk away with something, and progressives won’t like it.

Comment #28: Pam Spaulding  on  03/16  at  08:23 PM

Like Magis said, you’ve got Axelrod and Rahmbo directing in there.  I trust that justice is in very good hands.

Rahmbo the Triangulator?

Yay.

Comment #29: asdf  on  03/16  at  08:36 PM

Put it this way:  is it better to push early, when you can’t focus, when the legal research isn’t complete, etc. and fail ... or wait until it becomes a more solid priority with a higher chance of enduring success?

Not that these are the only choices, not that anybody should have to wait ... but that there is a bitter reality that some rather pressing issues need more attention and this could really go sour quickly for everybody if it isn’t pushed firmly with great attention from an established and solid legal foundation.

Comment #30: Ms Kate  on  03/16  at  09:52 PM

Rahmbo the Triangulator?

The guy responsible for Heath Schuler. Yeah, we’re in great hands.

Comment #31: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  03/16  at  10:21 PM

What, in your opinion, is the path the president should take on the matter, given the current signals he’s sent so far about LGBT rights and its priority in his administration?

Well, Pam, I’m personally a radical, and my impulse is that Obama should be more openly progressive. But politically I have about as much influence as a tree frog (less; people think tree frogs are cute and worry about their going extinct) and I often suspect there is a reason for this.

Obama, on the other hand, has accomplished amazing things from a position of little apparent advantage. My impression is, he knows what he is doing, and that his heart is in the right place, and I’d rather hold my fire than criticize him.

I agree that we need to be alert and that the public needs to provide pressure from the left to counter the entrenched pressure from the right on these issues.

What I hope Obama is doing is waiting for a concrete situation to arise to catalyze public opinion—not all public opinion, but a sufficient mandate—for genuinely progressive changes in Federal policy regarding LGBTQ issues. You listed several possible concrete instances at 7:32 (note I have my timestamps set to Pacific Time); when a case like these arises, I hope he will intervene within the executive system to order a humane, decent outcome, and cite the case as precedent to reform policy. The point is, to make it clear that it is not a matter of “special rights” but the fair and universal application of general rights.

As it happens, just today while waiting for the mail, I was reading the local paper, which had a full-page article on the immigration-detainee gulag (as I would call it; the paper didn’t). It highlighted the story of a young woman who had lived 15 years in the USA, her parents having arrived with her as a young child as refugees from the regime in Bangladesh, seeking asylum. It seems her application for financial aid as a prospective college student triggered La Migra; her parents were thrown into detention and then deported; she herself was held over a year and a half until she accepted deportation as the alternative to continued incarceration.

The court order that denied her appeals to be released was issued January 18th, while Bush was still President, but she wasn’t actually expelled from the country until February.

My point is, there are quite a few issues where the President ought, in my view, to be much more proactive and where his failure to do so has dire consequences. And it may be that on these issues as well as LGBTQ ones, he fails and will continue to fail because he doesn’t think they are important, or as obviously wrongly handled as I do, or because he judges he doesn’t have the political leverage in these matters he has in others. It may be that he is not very enlightened on these issues.

In recent posts, you often challenge us to weigh in on the question of homophobia within the African-American community; and many of us demur because we don’t feel qualified to speak. Well, you have at any rate challenged me to wonder why outspoken, unapologetic homophobia is so visible and apparently OK with so many AA people—I know full well not all, but I have also been shocked at it from people I thought were otherwise basically progressive-minded as well. I can only speculate with the help of theory why that should happen to be.

Are you suggesting that is in fact an issue with Obama? I hope it isn’t, and I also hope that if it is, he will listen to wiser people than himself on these matters, and not more foolish ones. I also hope that political expediency, as defined by solid and large majorities and not the loud demands of a few, will guide him toward progressive decency.

(I also don’t recall that any of the white candidates, with the possible exception of Clinton, who has her own history of throwing-under-the-bus actions to counter any thoughtful, sensible words she had to say in 2007-8, distinguished themselves by being less ambiguous than Obama was—certainly not Edwards for instance…)

But you and others—me too—have observed gay rights thrown under the bus in the name of that same expediency in the past. What I am hoping for is that progress is happening and tipping points will be reached—or actually already were under Bush et al who tried to suppress these changes.

When Obama is good he is very very good. When he is not so good—it is up to us to be his conscience and to advocate for the right. At least I don’t think that would be the kind of wasted effort it was in 2001-8, and that is real progress.

Comment #32: Mark Foxwell  on  03/16  at  10:23 PM

And what, exactly, is an acceptable bone Obama can toss to FRC or CWfA that won’t infringe on someone’s privacy or civil rights? Unless those folks like being played, they do expect to walk away with something, and progressives won’t like it.

Pam Spaulding on 03/16 at 06:23 PM

Pam,
Here’s my guess.  He’ll promise them that no church will be forced to perform SSMarriages.  If he’s as good at this as I think, then he gets them to propose it, so they can’t back out.  There are some using that fear as a talking point, as you know.  Once he does that, then he’s paved the way for civil unions which he may even suggest can’t be performed by a church.  My hope, and in fairness, is that he gets Congress to make civil unions an option for either het or gay couples.  Marriages are left to the churches themselves to perform or not - just as we have baptism/birth certificates, funerals/death certificates. 

I mean, no atheist is hurt because a Churrch won’t baptize their kid, right?  No Jew is missing out on a funeral mass, and no Christan screams to have a bar mitzvah as long as they can get the secular right of passage, a driver’s license. 

Tell me what progressives will have to object to in this?

Comment #33: phylosopher  on  03/17  at  12:25 AM

I want to address the main thrust of your post, as indicated by the title—does President Obama’s recent choices of ministers to hang out with worry me?

I find it very, very hard to believe that he is liable to be seduced into Christian fundamentalism, or even to pretend to be for political purposes. These kinds of people have been his enemies all his life, on many levels. I don’t think that’s who he is. And as for political calculation—they are down at the moment, and while they represent a solid demographic that is not going away, neither are they plausibly the wave of the future any time soon. If such people come back into power, it will be despite and not because of the Democratic Party and the people it represents. Any calculations they have to building a comeback must be based on taking people like Obama down, and I think he is shrewd enough to realize that he can’t negotiate a deal to gain their favor at the expense of his real constituency.

What I have hoped to see in Obama, and think we have already seen to some extent, is a Lincolnesque kind of politics.

That is not always a pretty, or even good, sort of thing. I believe Lincoln was our greatest President, but that is not the same as saying he was always right or always even decent. To the contrary, check out his famous debate with Stephen Douglas—which, judging by the immediate results, he lost, because it was Douglas and not Lincoln who was chosen to become Illinois’s next Senator in 1858. In the debate, Lincoln claimed, quite believably and probably with perfect honesty, to be a racist; to be profoundly convinced (as, he slyly alluded, lots of big-shot Democrats of the day were not) that African-Americans were inferior and unfit for full _social_ equality. I doubt he would have supported the rights of free African-Americans to vote, even. He was arguing for _legal_ equality, at least in the sense of abolishing slavery, and his pitch to the Illini public was that that would _not_ entail social equality.

In the course of the Civil War the South started upon his election to the Presidency, he continued for quite some time to deny the full equality and worthiness of African-Americans, to the point of ordering slaves who had escaped their “masters” and offered their services to the Union Army returned to their “owners.” He delayed issuing the Emancipation Proclamation until it was expedient—waiting, among other things, for an unambiguous Union victory on the battlefield so it wouldn’t look like a _desperate_ expedient—and then when he did issue it it freed only slaves in territory not already under Union control. He was interested in colonization schemes to exile African-Americans to other territories.

And yet, I think it is clear in retrospect that his hesitant, compromising, often apparently mean-spirited approach had the merit that he _thoroughly_ exhausted all other options but the full recognition of the equal humanity of his fellow citizens who happened to be of African ancestry. He exploded lesser accommodations of our national conscience by trying them and demonstrating their fallacy. By the time the war ended, African-Americans of all ages had visibly served the Union cause and they were appreciated for it—not nearly enough, but I think one person who understood their importance and full worthiness was President Lincoln. I think he had integrity, which means he meant the mean racist stuff he was saying in 1858 and even 1863, but by the time he died, I think that same integrity meant that his thinking had evolved.

What I think Obama is doing is offering to treat with people who we have good reason to think are bad people on the best terms possible, and leaving it up to them to rise to the occasion, or demonstrate their commitment to moral failure themselves. They can save or damn themselves in front of the nation, by making the best or worst of their own convictions.

I just hope Obama doesn’t have to pay the price Lincoln did, and if that means he accomplishes less and evolves less himself, we can all live with that.

Anyway, I don’t think it is the ministers and wingnut groups who are taking the President for a ride here. I imagine he is offering them something; I doubt they are going to want to take it on his terms—and he is not offering on theirs.

Comment #34: Mark Foxwell  on  03/17  at  12:30 AM

Rahmbo the Triangulator?

Yay.

asdf on 03/16 at 06:36 PM

Rahmbo the enforcer.  Rotten fish, anyone?

Comment #35: phylosopher  on  03/17  at  12:33 AM

Pam, here’s my look what’s going on:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/64086.html

With this kind of bs, of course he’s looking to keep the enemy close.

Comment #36: phylosopher  on  03/17  at  02:43 AM

Here’s my guess.  He’ll promise them that no church will be forced to perform SSMarriages. 

They may be bigots, but they aren’t stupid. They already know that they don’t have to do this. Their fundamental concern is that gay couples do not obtain equal legal status or any rights approximating marriage.

My hope, and in fairness, is that he gets Congress to make civil unions an option for either het or gay couples.  Marriages are left to the churches themselves to perform or not - just as we have baptism/birth certificates, funerals/death certificates.

Fail. Unless all existing civil marriages are converted to civil unions (leaving the religious designation intact), then it’s not equal for everyone. Separate is not equal. NJ formed a commission to study how CUs were treated and surprise—all sorts of problems with lack of recognition occurred.

Incidentally, a ballot initiative has been launched to abolish ‘marriage’ and establish domestic partnerships by two straight college students (with support of AG Jerry Brown).

Date: March 9, 2009
Initiative No.: 09-0003
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:

SUBSTITUTES DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP FOR MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA LAW. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Replaces the term “marriage” with the term “domestic partnership” throughout California law, but preserves the rights provided in marriage. Applies equally to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. Repeals the provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: This measure would have an unknown fiscal effect on state and local governments. (09-0003.)

Comment #37: Pam Spaulding  on  03/17  at  07:15 AM

“They may be bigots, but they aren’t stupid. They already know that they don’t have to do this. Their fundamental concern is that gay couples do not obtain equal legal status or any rights approximating marriage.”

Of course those in the upper ranks know, but yes, some/a lot of their followers are that stupid and they’ve been feeding this posturing means they can go back thump their chests and bibles and declare a win - let them have that false win if it means we get a real one. 


“Fail. Unless all existing civil marriages are converted to civil unions (leaving the religious designation intact), then it’s not equal for everyone. Separate is not equal. NJ formed a commission to study how CUs were treated and surprise—all sorts of problems with lack of recognition occurred. “

Huh?  You want to insist on retroactive legislation?  You really don’t want to win this, do you?  If all new unions after say 2010 are CUs, marriage optional through church, then big deal, having a civil marriage dies out within @ 60-70 years anyway, becoming less and less important as those who have it age, divorce and die off. (Or divorce so that they can re unite under a civil union to show solidarity.)

Am I to take it that you don’t support this initiative?

Comment #38: phylosopher  on  03/17  at  10:09 AM

Huh?  You want to insist on retroactive legislation?  You really don’t want to win this, do you?  If all new unions after say 2010 are CUs, marriage optional through church, then big deal, having a civil marriage dies out within @ 60-70 years anyway, becoming less and less important as those who have it age, divorce and die off. (Or divorce so that they can re unite under a civil union to show solidarity.)

Pam said that “marriage for straights, civil unions for gays” was not acceptable. She didn’t say that “civil unions for all” was the only acceptable alternative. “Marriage for all” is fine by her.

Comment #39: asdf  on  03/17  at  06:03 PM

asdf is correct; I don’t support the initiative. Marriage for all is the goal. If we go down the CU path and leave marriage a religious institution, then states have no business offering marriage licenses because functionally speaking, it’s the same as a CU and thus redundant.

The reason for that initiative’s retroactivity is so that all previously married couples would have to be issued a civil union certificate to ensure their relationship is recognized by the state. Given the premise of the whole thing, it makes sense from that POV.

Comment #40: Pam Spaulding  on  03/17  at  06:25 PM

Sorry Pam, I must conclude then that you don’t really want protections, that you want to win an ideological battle, if you insist on this retroactivity clause.  The minute you do that, it’s over, because then there is that direct link, “see same sex marriage destroys het marriages.”

While I agree that the state should no longer issue marriage licenses, existing “old form” marriages could simply be “grandfathered in” i.e. the state recognizes any lawful marriage performed before x date to also be a civil union. or some such legalese.

Comment #41: phylosopher  on  03/17  at  07:25 PM

Sorry Pam, I must conclude then that you don’t really want protections, that you want to win an ideological battle, if you insist on this retroactivity clause.  The minute you do that, it’s over, because then there is that direct link, “see same sex marriage destroys het marriages.”

The exact same argument applies to any scheme where civil unions become the only thing available. Whether or not existing marriages are grandfathered in, “same sex unions destroyed the institution of marriage.”

Pam is saying “marriage for all is the goal” and you are responding as though she said “ending civil marriage and invalidating all current marriages would be the best possible outcome.” Sorry, I must conclude then that you aren’t capable of discussing this meaningfully.

Comment #42: asdf  on  03/18  at  01:17 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-obama-gay-rights,0,6624124.story

Is this one of those indications you were looking for,Pam?  Not saying thisis anywhere near ‘nough.  But a clear stp.

Comment #43: phylosopher  on  03/18  at  09:26 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.