The Unambiguously Gay Problem Of Barack Obama

Longtime readers know that I've tried to maintain a certain level of balance in writing about the Presidential campaign; while I've been, and remain a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, I have tried to respect that there's an argument to be made for Barack Obama, one that I may have to accept come the fall. I have also tried not to be a single issue voter about this (I'm Every Voter, It's All In Meeee....); but as I've said before, when it comes to Barack Obama and gay issues, it seems impossible for me not to become single issue, and rabidly partisan.

Let's be clear: Obama's interview with The Advocate was a virtual necessity: after snubbing The Philadelphia Gay News as the umpteenth local gay paper he's ignored in state after state, and PGN embarrassing him with a blank page where an interview would have been, his silence on gay issues was becoming deafening. Even his most ardent gay supporters had gotten to the point of imploring him to realize that his silence was damaging what has been, at best, a challenging appeal to gay voters.

Still, what low expectations I have in these things (you start your gay life at the height of the AIDS epidemic, as a rad fag, and you learn not to have high hopes, even with your political heroes), were almost completely dashed with this interview.  My mind, still, reels at the things Obama says, and the cavalier way he assumes that gay people have to take him as he is, and not expect better. And frankly, if that's going to be his stance... I know I have to wonder just what I'm waiting around for, anyway.

The first indication of trouble was when PortlyDyke over at Shakesville cited this answer as deeply troubling:

       Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental -- now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name -- Lawrence Golden, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

As PD says, at length (the entire post is worth a careful read), "proselytize" is an incredibly terrible word choice; what it says about Obama's notions about what it is to be positive and upbeat about one's orientation is really amazing coming from someone who claims to have serious cred as a progressive thinker.

Then there's the quote Sean Hannity found (I know. I know. What can I say? I find myself catching Hannity in the car some afternoons, where I can yell back in relative peace. Hannity's attempt to fill that role of Annoying Blowhard a Couple Of Tables Away Or Two Rows Ahead Of You seems pretty completely a success. Still, I wouldn't have noticed this without him):

            Back to “don’t ask, don’t tell” real quick --  you’ve said before you don’t think that’s a heavy lift. Of course, it would be if you had Joint Chiefs who were against repeal. Is that  something you’ll look at?

       I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe. But I think there’s increasing recognition  within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy -- ya know, we’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe, and what I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.

This was nearly mind-boggling. Apparently, the notion of "Commander In Chief" should not include having those who report you support the policies you plan to pursue. Of course, what a great image it will be to promote people to senior positions of authority who see gays as inferior and unfit for service... because it's not "ideology" to want equality.  Yes, that's the ticket.

But what really did it for me was this extended discussion:

            Both you and your wife speak eloquently about being told to wait your turn and how if you had done that, you might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or even president. To some extent, isn’t that what you’re asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage -- to wait their turn?

       I don’t ask them that. Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn." I’m very mindful of Dr. King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” where he says to the white clergy, "Don’t tell me to wait for my freedom." 

       So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating. And I’ve said this before -- I’m the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn’t mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.

       That’s a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That’s not a decision for me to make. 

            Is it fair for the LGBT community to ask for leadership? In 1963, President Kennedy made civil rights a moral issue for the country.    

       But he didn’t overturn antimiscegenation. Right? 

            True enough.  

       As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country  on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

Okay... Last things first - this "be grateful for me, I'm better than most" is like the lousiest standard imaginable; either Obama thinks Gay Marriage matters, or he doesn't.  If he thinks "Civil Unions" is enough (which he seems to) then that's an answer. The fact that many LGBT people won't find it good enough does not, well, make it good enough. Second, anti-miscegenation only takes us so far; Kennedy started where one might expect one to start when dealing with Civil Rights issues in 1963 - the system of discrimination and segregation still in place across the South, which affected a far larger segment of the population than the small numbers of couples who wanted to marry across race (that number, by the way, is still small). (And also by the way, it's not that his parents marriage "would have been illegal in 12 states" it's that it was illegal in 12 states 21 states [Kate Harding said 18, but Wikipedia says more], as my parents fear of arrest at the time I was born attests). The point is that one can see a progression of legal decisions leading to Loving vs. Virginia in a logical way; the fact that we start with gay marriage has everything to do with the fact that being gay is about who we love, first and foremost. And antigay marriage law is a good place to start.

But finally it comes down to this for me; it's the fact that Obama still has no idea what's so troubling about Donnie McClurkin:

            Do you have any regrets about the South Carolina tour? People there are still sort of mystified that you gave Donnie McClurkin the chance to get up onstage  and do this, and he did go on sort of an antigay rant there.    

       I tell you what -- my campaign is premised on trying to reach as many constituencies as possible and to go into as many places as possible, and sometimes that creates discomfort or       turbulence. This goes back to your first question. If you’re segmenting your base into neat categories and constituency groups and you never try to bring them together and you just       speak to them individually -- so I keep the African-Americans neatly over here and the church    folks neatly over there and the LGBT community neatly over there -- then these kinds of issues don’t arise.   

       The flip side of it is, you never create the opportunity for people to have a conversation and to lift some of these issues up and to talk about them and to struggle with them, and our    campaign is built around the idea that we should all be talking. And that creates some discomfort because people discover, gosh, within the Democratic Party or within Barack       Obama’s campaign or within whatever sets of constituencies there are going to be some different points of view that might even be offensive to some folks. That’s not unique to this issue. I mean, ironically, my biggest … the biggest political news surrounding me over the last three weeks has been   Reverend Wright, who offended a whole huge constituency with some of his statements but has been very good on gay and lesbian issues. I mean he’s one of the leaders in the African-American community of embracing, speaking out against homophobia, and talking about the importance of AIDS.

       And so nobody is going to be perfectly aligned with my views. So what I hope is that people take me for who I am, for what ’ve said, and for what I’ve displayed in terms of my commitment to these issues, but understanding that there’s going to be a range of constituencies that I’m reaching out to and working on issues that we have in common, even though I may differ with them on other issues. And that’s  true, also, by the way  … well, I think that’s going to be true so long as I’m eaching out beyond the traditional Democratic base.

I've written enough about McClurkin already; suffice to say, this doesn't begin to address the pandering involved in hiring an "ex-gay" to give the invocation at a series of fundraising rallies for the black community. Nowhere doe Obama take on the issue of the notion that you can "pray away" being gay; that this concept is damaging to gay people and those who love them; or that this notion needs to be challenged head-on.  I have simply had it, HAD IT, with the notion that gay people can be treated so cavalierly and have it considered acceptable. And frankly, at this moment, I've had it with Barack Obama. Just had it.

Comments

[jinbaltimore]

Well done!

What has bothered me all along is this specific idea of his:

"….I’m reaching out beyond the traditional Democratic base."

My candidate needs to secure the Democratic base BEFORE going after the others, the ones pretty much responsible for where we are now.

I've had it too. I feel like if Obama gets the nomination and wins, his presidency will walk the path of least resistence. He'll be the American Idol president, and we can set up phone lines for opposing policy positions.
(For just $2 a call, you too can vote against campaign finance reform.)

Some people talk about Clinton destroying the Democratic party by remaining in the race. Obama will do it more thoroughly simply by making the party more Republican.

Already has in fact.

We don't need to be reaching across that aisle just yet. And when he does, he'll just get accused of proselytizing (new $100 word - woohoo!) anyway.

Now, excuse me while I go train some toddlers in the fine arts of fan dancing and brunch. Don't worry; I give them helmets.

[boredatwork]

I think this is enormously unfair. First of all, there isn't as far as I can tell a smidgen of difference betwee Obama's and HRC's positions on LGBT issues. She doesn't support marriage equality either.

Secondly, it seemed obvious to me that he was trying to find a delicate way of saying 'I would support gay marriage but it isn't politically feasible.' I think this is a fair enough position given the political circumstances, and it is also fairly obvious why he can't explicitly say that.

(I'm referring to: "I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating.")

I think you're being uncharitable (to say the least) to construe this the way you do. Moreover, you're holding him to a much higher standard than HRC as I don't see any criticism of her tortured position on civil marriage either.

Thirdly, you completely ignore the fact that Obama is the only presidential candidate in US history who routinely talks about gay issues in front of non-gay audiences. Does Hillary ever get in front of white, blue collar audiences (her base) and decry their homophobia like Obama does to black congregations (his base)? I think not. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Now I'm not going to defend the odious McClurkin, but this again is a double standard; care to discuss Bill Clinton utilizing his signing of DOMA as part of his 1996 reelection campaign? Pandering to homophobia, much?

I understand that individuals interpret what they see based on who they're already supporting, but this is really over the top.

PS: I followed you here from Ezra Klein's site as I want to read more Hillary supporters.

[jinbaltimore]

Sorry, bored.

I don't have to listen to anyone else tell me when or not to be offended; I can tell on my own.

In the interview, Obama admits to being pleasantly surprised by this non-"proselytizing" gay man; the implication being the rest of us are constantly recruiting.

I would add that I find it a little disturbing, in a post defending Obama's homophobia, to see your sexist argument there at the end (Clinton is an extension of her husband, and should be blamed for his presidential failings, and assumed to continue with his weak stances on gay rights).

For me, the gay marriage thing was never important until people started talking about how we couldn't have it. Now, with the cat out of the bag, I doubt lesbians and gays will give up until all non-religious benefits are made equal for all.

But I'm ferociously single, so the McLurkin and the "proselytizing" problems have a sharper sting, because, in lieu of some imagined spouse, these insult me.

[Pizza Diavola]

I just threw up in my mouth. A lot.

I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them.

Translation: yeah, let them go ahead with that same-sex marriage equality if they want.

I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating.

But don't expect me to lead you on it. I have bigger concerns than that.

That’s a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That’s not a decision for me to make.

If you want leadership from your president...well, look over there! Toodles!

As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

I've let anti-gay bigots rant on my tours, I've routinely avoided interviewing with GLBTQ media, and I think that in heterosexual marriages, there's something special that "happens before God," but hey, I'm better than McCain. That's leadership, right?

[Pizza Diavola]

Thirdly, you completely ignore the fact that Obama is the only presidential candidate in US history who routinely talks about gay issues in front of non-gay audiences. Does Hillary ever get in front of white, blue collar audiences (her base) and decry their homophobia like Obama does to black congregations (his base)?

boredatwork, how many times did Obama make that speech? What exactly did he say? So far, I've only seen reports that he spoke about GLBTQ rights once at one church, and he said

“If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community ... We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.”

That's hardly the ringing denouncement and courageous GLBTQ advocacy you portray it as.

Now I'm not going to defend the odious McClurkin, but this again is a double standard; care to discuss Bill Clinton utilizing his signing of DOMA as part of his 1996 reelection campaign? Pandering to homophobia, much?

jinbaltimore has already touched on the fallacy of treating HRC as an automatic extension of WJC, ignoring her own policies, speeches, and positions. You might want to consider that it's possible to write posts about Obama and his flaws without mentioning Clinton and it's possible to write posts about Clinton and her flaws without mentioning Obama. Newsflash: both candidates have flaws that are problems. "But HRC is worse!" does not excuse Obama's flaws.

[Ken]

When Hillary talks about gay issues, I feel like it's from the heart, or a least, she has a smidgeon of compassion about the issues. With Obama, gay issues seem like an uncomfortable minefield he's navigating through, just like the racial tightrope he walks everytime Wright's name comes up. He is the "Great Equivocater" when "great" only means he does it a lot.

[pocochina]

I have a lot of trouble with the assertion that the McClurkin debacle was somehow equivalent with "opening a dialogue." That wasn't opening a discussion. It was explicitly granting a platform for hate speech.

Just....ugh.

[gary]

This action, or inaction, as the case may be is the primary reason I am in support of Hillary.

If "actions speak louder than words" then Obama doesn't give two shits about the gay community or our rights.

Hillary does, and she gets this Pa Gay's vote!

[FitnessNerd]

Thank you for this. Since you read my blog, you know I'm hosting an Out for Hillary event on Wednesday. So, this put things down in a well thought out manner for me to talk about if the question comes up.

Awesome as usual :)

[dalea]

What bothers me is that Obama apparently has no known gay people around him. Hillary does. And has had gay staffers all the way back to Arkansas. And she has a public record of supporting them against the right wing.

An openly gay person would have mitigated the McClurkin scandle, or at least done damage control. But he has no one who has credibility with our community working for him. It is as if Obama has read about gay people, heard about gay people, but knows nothing first hand about us.