A couple of really good pieces are out this week which capture a lot of my own thoughts on the issue of why, precisely, Barack Obama hasn’t come out in support of marriage equality. At the same time, they discuss the tendency among some to take Obama’s “evolving support” to then suggest that he is secretly homophobic or something, that he isn’t any kind of ally to the LGBT, that we should withhold support, and several other variations on that theme. The original piece comes from Alex Pareene at Salon, and he talks about how some liberals out there seem to perceive Obama, the president:
Liberals have a tendency (much more pronounced in 2007 and 2008 but still evident) to imagine that Barack Obama is just as liberal as them. Because he’s obviously smart, because he dabbled with genuine leftism in his youth, and because he opposed Iraq, liberals think he’s actually Paul Krugman, forced by electoral circumstance (or cowardice) to talk and govern like George H.W. Bush. Coincidentally, this is also Newt Gingrich and Stanley Kurtz’s thesis. It’s silly when they say he’s hiding his socialism behind a veneer of centrism and it’s silly when liberals say he’s doing the same.
This has always been confusing to me when I talk with certain other liberals. Obviously Fox News has been peddling the line since 2007 that Obama is a secret socialist [Kenyan usurper, etc...], that he’s somehow the most radically leftist president we’ve ever had, but that’s a Fox News line. Liberals shouldn’t be parroting it.
But on one issue it’s pretty obvious that Barack Obama is simply hiding his dangerous radicalism: same-sex marriage. He famously signed a questionnaire affirming his support for same-sex marriage in 1996. But he apparently thought that he couldn’t remain so liberal if he wanted to be a national political figure. By 2008 he opposed gay marriage, favoring the more reasonable-sounding civil unions instead. He did still oppose DOMA, though, and he plainly understood why gay couples need legal recognition.
Indeed. And Pareene goes on to explain why it’s really sort of stupid at this point for Obama to keep trying to straddle the line. The ones who are going to be bothered by his support for marriage equality ALREADY think he is some kind of Libislamofascistosexual, and they’re not persuadable voters. Screw them. Meanwhile, the country now supports marriage equality in every credible poll, and it would be a boon to a lot of the liberal base if he just got it over with already, stated his support and moved on.
Whatever their calculations — and this is why I don’t really get worked up on this issue — it’s all ridiculous politics, and we are closer than ever, due to moves made by the administration as well as myriad court cases now working their way through the system, as well as the legal precedent being established, to full equality. The administration may not be moving as quickly as public opinion on the matter, or as quickly as we all would like, but, unlike any GOP presidential candidate on offer, he’s certainly not hindering the process.
Commenting on Pareene’s piece, Amanda Marcotte picks up the ball and addresses the other thing that some excitable liberals have been doing in response to Obama’s “evolving” inaction on marriage equality:
The only thing that Alex is missing is that there’s another liberal tendency that is probably just as irritating: being addicted to feeling betrayed to the point of concocting conspiracy theories that posit that all Democratic leaders are secretly Republicans. It’s black-and-white thinking, for sure, but it’s widespread. These liberals will seek any evidence they can find that Democrat X is exactly like the most far right nutter out there, even though the evidence tends to suggest that said Democrat is a fence-straddling centrist who is too afraid of his shadow to ever commit to a point of view, which is completely unlike far right Republican assholes. While the vast majority of people I spoke to at Netroots had a nuanced view of Obama, I did run across in the past few days, online and offline, people who were pushing the “Obama is a member of the religous right” line. [...] And, to my dismay and surprise, a Facebook friend insisted that there was no difference between Michele Bachmann’s point of view on gay marriage and Obama’s view. The method used to determine this was to find the most reasonable-sounding thing Bachmann has said (her garbled and clearly facetious claim during the GOP debate that she wants to leave it to the states—which also requires ignoring that she wants a constitutional ban at the same time) and then to round up Obama’s weaseling statements while ignoring his actual opposition to DOMA and his appointment of Supreme Court judges who are likely to vote against it.
I’m reminded of certain people who, when things simply weren’t moving quickly enough for them, actually took to calling Obama the “bigot-in-chief.” It fell flat among sane people then, and it falls flat now. Liberals, in theory, are much, much better at recognizing nuance than conservatives are. The best among us are, to be sure. But there’s another kind of liberal, which Amanda sums up one sentence later:
I can’t actually believe that people believe this stuff when they say it. I think there’s an emotional reward to claiming that Obama hates the gays just as much as Bachmann, because it makes things nice and simple.
Uh huh, and you know what that is? Wingnut-quality analysis of current events.
To be clear, I see absolutely no reason for Obama to drag his feet on this issue anymore. Neither do Amanda and Pareene. But at the same time, sheesh.
Yeah, he supports marriage equality, regardless of whether he states it before the election or after the election. And New York may finally take the plunge into equality, which, as Pareene says, would make a fine time for Obama to go ahead and say so. Regardless of what happens between now and the election, though, no, Obama is not a secret homophobe, yes, his administration has done more for the LGBT community than any president before, and yes, full, real equality is just around the bend and the current president isn’t going to do a damn thing to stop it.
The current slate of Republican candidates, as well as the leadership of the Republican party in Congress, though, have signaled that they’re going to be dead-enders until their dying breaths on this issue, and that if you give them power, they’ll do everything they can to stop the march of equality. Oh, and they’ll destroy a bunch of other things along the way, just for good measure.
You have left out a very important issue that hurts us while he remains silent. That it makes it much easier for our enemies to use it against us. How many times have we heard from NOM during our battles including the current one that they share the same view as the president on marriage and they would be correct. You can speculate all you want but the only official statement we have from the president is he believes marriage is between a man and a woman and God is in the mix. It makes our oppositions job much much easier.
If Obama doesn’t mean what he says on this issue, how can we know that he means what he says on anything? Are we supposed to be telepathic?
The other thing is the way this administration has bungled this so bad. In regards to the 1996 survey he filled out first his spokesman says he didn’t fill it out. Then the WH relaeases a wishy washy statement saying the spokesman didn’t know what he was talking about. They then released a third statement that Obama was talking about civil unions in 1996 a concept that hadn’t been proposed until Vermont in 1999. He and the WH just look foolish.
@Jack, it doesn’t involve telepathy, it involves watching every centrist Democrat on this issue for the past ten years.
Jack, he’s a typical politician.
off topic–good article on Huffpo about DADT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/michael-barrett-dadt-gay-rights_n_881109.html
Talk about waiting to exhale. I’m so glad I came across this post. For the longest I was thinking maybe I’m the only one in the world who see’s what’s been highlighted here.
It’s too much. One day Obama’s a homophobic, the next he didn’t keep his promises, the next he’s a closet republican and blah blah.
All I know is the man signed Hate Crime Legislation into law, in middle or repealing DADT and won’t defend DOMA. The left quiet frankly have me a bit weirded out by the accusations and just plain over the top drama.
And as for the first comment here about being “hurt” that Obama hasn’t said anything, that’s exaggerating immensely. You’re not hurt. You just don’t have that piece of ammunition that you’d like to have.
One thing I notice about liberals and this speaks especially to gays in the equality movement is that they have no awareness whatsoever that there’s actually a nation of people out there that despite what these dubious polls say don’t like gay people or gay marriage.
Somehow they got it wired that the president faces not one iota in opposition on such matters and he’s simply dragging his feet for s***s ‘n’ giggles.
It’s beyond a little immature I think. Kennedy didn’t start addressing black civil rights until after his second year in office. The other thing that weirds me out is that many gay folks are under the impression—–they actually believe this, that all of their demands should be met within the last two years.
That’s not even four years worth of one administration.
So yea, the more they accuse Obama of being blah blah the less credibility they hold with me in their accusations. It’s just not politically savvy or grounded in reality what some of these people are expecting time-frame wise.
And they want it done without leaving their own comfort zones to boot. Yea, I think we have some problems on the left that may serve to do us in if this keeps up.
[...] Truth Wins Out: On Obama and Marriage Equality < [...]
Derrick,
Really?? Let’s address your points one by one. First let’s talk about the Matthew Shepherd Act. This was passed in October 2009. Do you know how many people have been charged since it was enacted. Zero none. The law is pretty useless if the DOJ refuses to bring federal charges.
Let’s talk about DADT. Obama has not been a leader through out this. In fact he and the administration wanted to kick it to this year when it would have surely failed. The only reason it came about is because the House refused to back down and brought forth the bill. The WH then lobbied and suceeded in stripping the non-discrimination language from the bill. They also came up with this artifically long time line and DADT is still not repealed. Finally he refused to suspend discharges while this long process is still taking place.
Lastly there’s DOMA. Actually the DOJ has only said that Section 3 is unconstitutional. They still consider Section 2 constitutional which is still a kick in the teeth for any married couples forced to relocate to a state where marriage equality doesn’t exist.
As for the president and marriage equality there is no doubt in my mind if he had come out and endorsed it it would have passed here in MD. It had passed our Senate which was considered the biggest hurdle and only failed because a few African American delegates who initially supported it back off from pressure from the AA churches. The president being for it would have given them political cover.
Derrick, there is an element out there which treats Obama not as a centrist president, but more as a jilted lover. It is very strange.
Evan,
You say a centrist president like it’s a good thing. This is why he will lose in 2012. He is so quick to tact to the left he loses the enthusiam from his base. It’s the reason he ran in 2008 because he energized his base. It’s something Democrats need to learn from the Republicans. You don’t want by tacking to the center.
Tact to the right I meant.
No, Tim, I say “centrist president” like I’m acknowledging reality. Refer to Pareene’s comments quoted above. He ran as a centrist, and he has governed as a centrist.
Actually most people did not feel he ran as a centrist. Let’s see get out of Irag and Afganistan, close Gitmo among others. He ran as a liberal then proceeded to throw all of it under the bus once he was there. Hence why he will lose in 2012.
It doesn’t matter what most people “feel.” All one had to do was look at his actual policy positions during the election, which, sadly, doesn’t happen often enough in elections.
That was why the wingnut screeching about his terrorist sympathizing and whatever else was such a joke — he was clearly running as a center-left politician squarely in the mainstream of the party.
And I’m not sure who you think actually has a good chance of not only winning the Republican nomination and then beating Obama.
I think it is going to be Romney. Again it will come down to a few states and you need your base energized to win a close election and he has done nothing to energize it. In fact many are demotivated.
I think Romney MAY win the nomination, though I actually think that long-run, Pawlenty has a better chance, but I really don’t see a scenario where Romney actually wins, because HE doesn’t excite the Republican base. Pawlenty excites no one, but he doesn’t have the “social conservative” problems that Romney has. Moreover, there is more than one “base” to the Democratic party, and it’s not just extremely progressive people. Growing minority populations are going to make it extremely hard for any GOP candidate this year.
Thing is, though? There is a segment of the progressive world that would still be unsatisfied, even if Obama tacked through everything on their wish lists in order. So, ya know. I would hope that, come the general election, most progressives are intelligent enough to look at the choice between Obama and whatever apeshit wingnut the GOP ends up with and will suck it up and get their asses to the polls to cast a real vote.
Sorry Evan I hate that false dichtomony that we have to vote for the least offensive of the two. I am more than willing to vote 3rd party in a heartbeat. The reason people like Obama keep on giving us what we are getting is because of attitudes like yours. He has no reason to do the right thing because he counts on us holding our noses and voting for him. The whole nod nod wink wink this is what he really feels is b******t plain and simple.
Great, because that worked out so well in the midterms.
I’m also thrilled to know that many gay activists are so willing to throw every other issue and every other group under the bus in service of idealism.
If only to stay on “culture war” issues for a moment, if a Republican wins in 2012, Roe is seriously in danger. SERIOUSLY in danger. It already is with the composition of the current court. As much as I’d love to vote based on one issue and one issue alone, my conscience simply won’t let me do that.
Well maybe the Democrats will get their heads out of their asses and realize when you throw a good part of your base under the bus you lose elections. They obviously didn’t learn that from the midterms now did they.
And what have the Democrats done in respect to reproductive rights. Oh yeah right they have undermined at every change they could. They passed the Stupak amendment. They accepted an amendment that restricted the District of Columbia from using funds for abortion services.
How is all those wars that candidate Obama said we were going to get out of? How about Gitmo? What he has done for organized labor?
It’s the same Democratic party it’s always been. Meanwhile, more has been done for LGBT issues during this administration than under any previous administration.
But, you know, blame the midterms on the Obama administration and don’t lay any of the blame with liberal activists who bitched their way through the entire process that things simply weren’t moving fast enough for them. It’s heartening that their “activism” gave us a House of Representatives which, when the Obama Justice Dept. decided to stop defending DOMA, was immediately willing to step in and fill the void!
The two party system in the USA is not a false dichotomy because political reality is those are the only parties with the support and resources to win.
The fact that extremists are so willing to defect may be why nobody pays them too much mind except as a possible jumping board into the larger pool. Note how Bachman seemed to be toning down her rhetoric ever so slightly in the recent debate. And, oh, how the kids love Glee!
If you need your base energized then how is Romney going to win? The far right, which calls itself the “base” just as the far left calls itself the “base,” doesn’t like Romney.
So again, let’s throw all the women under the bus because the Democrats haven’t done EVERYTHING THEY POSSIBLY COULD for reproductive rights, and leave the door open for people who are actually actively working to kill Roe. ‘Cause f**k it, we should be concerned about idealism tied up in a bow with frosting and puppies, rather than the actual real world implications of politics.
By the way, during the election, if you were paying attention, Obama talked about reducing our forces in Iraq, moving more to Afghanistan, and that is, strangely enough, exactly what he did. And tonight, he’s announcing the draw-down of that surge.
I’m not happy with the fact that he hasn’t closed Gitmo. That’s a genuine sticking point with me. But yet again, let’s stick with idealism and leave the door open for a leader who will DEFINITELY be awful on every one of these issues.
“The two party system in the USA is not a false dichotomy because political reality is those are the only parties with the support and resources to win.
The fact that extremists are so willing to defect may be why nobody pays them too much mind except as a possible jumping board into the larger pool.”
Exactly.
It’s only that why because of attitudes of people like you. By your logic the only way a 3rd party would ever work is if everyone woke up yesterday and voted for it all at once. That isn’t how a movement is built. The only way I viable third party is going to happen is if naysayers like you stop with the it will never happen and start to support these parties. It’s much easier to hold your nose than to take the courageous stance and build a movement.
As for Romney he is already tacking to the right over the last few months. As he gets closer to the nomination watch the movement and see the right get on board.
No, I’m just saying that it’s not realistic under the political system we have. Simple. As. That.
As I said, I’m simply not so selfish as to go scorched earth for some minor party that has no chance of being viable in my lifetime, if ever, while simultaneously letting my lack of a grown-up vote destroy the country by handing power to the GOP.
You want to start a movement? Start a campaign to move the United States into a more parliamentary system where minor parties have a voice, even when they lose. Otherwise it’s just idealistic grandstanding and butthurtness.
Wow back handed name calling. My vote is a grown up vote. It is grown up to take responsibility for your beliefs and advocate for them. Simply holding my nose and voting for someone isn’t something I do. And as I said in the other thread if a progressive third party siphons off 5-10% of the vote it forces the Democrats to reevaluate their policies and beliefs.
This is the same exact argument I’ve had with Nader voters for ten years, and they’ve still accomplished exactly nothing. Well, except contributing to the 2000 debacle. THX FOR THAT!
All this whining about Obama is pretty much a case of angry and frustrated people saying “BUT I WANTED IT ALL NOW!”. Well…we do deserve full equality, and Obama is not perfect, but the other options are FAR, FAR worse, and Obama has been the most GLBT affirming President in history. You should read about what the right wingers say about him! “The Rainbow President” (NOT meant as a compliment).
“Well, I did not get all I wanted, so I just not gonna’ supoort him again” = “I want a right wing Christocrat in charge instead, THAT will teach Obama not to ignore every political reality and ive me everything I deserve all at once!”
Yeah…thats realistic and mature.
It is Obama, or a member of a cult with a long anti gay history, a dingbat married to a fey ‘therapist’ who does anti gay “reparative” therapy to gay people, a black bigot 9always say to see one minoroty bigoted towards another) nut job from Georgia (dont laugh…the guy is more popular than I dreamed he would be with the nuts), a man whose name is now equated with “frothy mix”, Newt (lol…not gonna happen) or, God forbid, ANOTHER Gov. from Texas, or (if she does declare) Palin (eeek!)
But faced with THESE options, some of us are not going to work HARD for Obama because he has not been perfect?
You may feel good about yourself in such a situation, but, well…ya’ aint to damn good at winning the battle for our rights (or any one elses except oil barrons, big pharma, and the radical anti choice activists).
Bitching and whining and demanding everything all at once! ALWAYS a GREAT way to win our rights!
(God, the universe, gaia, flying spaghetti monster, fate, whatever, help us…with THAT kind of attitude, we will need it)
Evan,
When obviously if the Democrats didn’t learn from 2000 then they are idiots. No wonder we have had a Republican president 20 of the last 30 years the Democrats are real slow learners.
Uh huh, sure. Nobody’s saying the Democratic party isn’t full of idiots and slow learners. What’s funny is that this scorched earth Naderism isn’t new either. It’s two groups of people talking past each other, and the fact of the matter is that more progressive Democrats tend to roll their eyes at the Naderites precisely BECAUSE the Naderites don’t seem to grasp how our system actually works.
Whenever I see someone like Tim jumping from post to post feverishly trying to implant his agenda I reach for my ACME Troll Be Gone!
Republicans come in arm and arm with Big Business to a conference room, followed by the Tea Party and then Democrats.
Big Business notices their are twelve cookies on the table and immediately grabs 11 of them, then whispers in Republicans ears. The Republicans stand up and Shout to the Tea Party:
“The Democrats are trying to steal YOUR COOKIE!”
Evan,
Yet the Democrats don’t seem to grasp how the system works because the votes they are losing to Nader are the ones losing them the elections. It seems to be if you truly understand the system and don’t want to lose you try to go after those votes.
And John you seem to be the troll. I have been posting here for the last few years and I don’t recognize your name.
I will vote for Obama if he is nominated next year, but ONLY because the alternative is so much worse.
I hear a lot about Obama and DADT. Well, DADT was repealed by CONGRESS…Obama merely signed it, and anyhow, it has yet to be repealed. The last I heard it is still in force.
As I said, I will vote for Obama is he is nominated in 2012, but only because the alternatives would be so much worse.
[...] On Obama and Marriage Equality (37) [...]