Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Obama’s Step Backwards on LGBT Rights
The junior senator from Illinois broke into the national scene after a speech given at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. But for those living in Illinois, and especially for those living in Chicago, he was a man with a political history.
Today, The Windy City Times looked back at some of that history and discovered that, while the rest of the country is fighting for progress, Barack Obama’s views – at least on gay marriage – have only moved backwards.
Obama was a candidate for State Senate in 1996 and, as is the custom, Outlines, the then gay newspaper in Chicago, sent him a questionnaire asking his position on equal rights for same-sex couples. He stated then, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” He also wrote, “I would support and co-sponsor a state civil rights bill for gays and lesbians.”
In 2004, Obama decided to run for U.S. Senate and again, as is custom, he sat down for an interview with The Windy City Times (the new Outlines). There, he began to hedge his bets on marriage: “I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.” He continues,
What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.
Finally, he tells Windy City,
Tracy Baim: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?
Obama: I would oppose that.
The evolution of his views are more tactical than substantive. But the 1996 comparison does illustrate how years in politics have convinced this Senator that gay marriage isn’t a winnable option. Still, for those with a warm spot in their heart for the new President, his views on rights seem consistent, even if he does underestimate the implications of legal inequality in name and the potential consequences of that inequality.
But, as we begin 2009, the resolve of the more powerful, more experienced Obama caves. In 1996 and in 2004, Obama stated that he would oppose state legislation aimed at restricting the rights of same-sex couples. In the 2008 election he had the opportunity to speak out against Proposition 8 in California, Proposition 2 in Florida and Proposition 102 in Arizona.
He did not forcefully oppose those amendments. The opposition he did express was limited to early on in the primary race.
Vocal involvement in those races, even simply to dispel the rumor that he supported a ban on gay marriage, might have made the difference between a win and loss for equal rights in those states.
This was not only a failure on the part of the President-Elect. It was a shameful denial of a political stance he consistently held for the last 12 years.
Obama stated that he supports full equal rights for same-sex couples in the form of civil unions. He also stated that he would co-sponsor such a bill. I encourage him to re-read his questionnaire from 1996, and again, re-read his answers in 2004. I encourage him to remember that having great power does not mean that frivolous debates about equality should be replaced with middle of the road decision making.
The struggle for LGBT rights continues in the United States. Equality will come, and I can only hope that the Obama Chicago grew to love works hard to be on the right side of history.
I don’t need my “expectations” “managed.” I’d rather have a president who is willing to PUBLICLY state his/her own opinion AND THEN acknowledge political reality AND THEN acknowledge that history may find that President to have fallen short when tested. I don’t expect perfection, but neither do I accept being “managed.”
Hawk–”all the benefits without the name.” Uh, no, not with DOMA, and it would still be challenged in court because it approximates marriage. Under US law, there’s that little concept that got thrown out. Separate but equal. If Log Cabin ever had any balls, they would’ve argued that DOMA is a basic violation of contract law and therefore an unreasonable restraint of trade. Trust and believe, Hawk, that if a category is created which is parallel to another one, the second one will be challenged because it duplicates the first one. So no Federal civil unions, because that’s a black-letter constitutional violation. Even Clarence Thomas would have to agree.
Daniel S, I pointed out Obama’s half-blackness to make a point: it doesn’t make him a demigod, but it makes him much more of a hypocrite to think that my “expectations” are any more up for “management” than were those of anybody black in US history. Moreover, “black” in the US has always been a continuum; in the North you could perhaps escape blackness if you were light enough, but in Louisiana in 1980s, you were “black” if you were 1/64th black. South Africa cut to the chase and created the category of Coloureds to accomodate those who were mixed. Like Theresa Heinz Kerry, Obama is African and European. He’s not “black” in the sense of any of the characters in “The Color Purple.” That’s not a racist distinction, it’s a socio-cultural one, and it matters.
I’m an American who wants equality under the law. It doesn’t matter if I don’t get it before I die. It matters that people like Barack Obama are cognitively aware of the ethical and legal disparity of the status quo, but Obama would rather stick with the “possible” and screw me over than tell me flat-out that me and my kind aren’t electorally important enough to stand up for. Time will tell what happens. As for the Lincoln reference, see Lyndon Johnson–sometimes people have done the right thing even though it wasn’t what they personally believed. THAT’s courage.
I’ll offer this parallel. When Pinochet took power in Chile, it was at a time when most South American countries were leaning into some very destructive leftist-populist economic policies. Chile was the only one that didn’t follow that path, and it’s proven a far more stable economy in the post-Pinochet years. Stable economy often allows for the luxury of a democracy with differing opinions and press freedom. So if Chile hadn’t had Pinochet, their economy and social imbalance would probably be like the rest of the continent, but instead Chile has a middle class because of a brutal military dictator. Was it worth it? If Obama manages to steer this country out of this economic mess, is it with the quid pro quo of giving up on gays being equal under US law? If jobs and wealth for the majority justify denying rights to specific groups, who decides which groups are denied?
Alan, you make it sound like we have all only been fighting since he showed up on the political scene. When I started fighting for Gay equality TV was still black and white. When slavery was abolished there were 27 million less people that were of African descent then there are gay people currently and we have way more support than they did.
No, he doesn’t have to get everything done all at once. But he didn’t get in there without our help.
Half measures avail us nothing. Separate but equal wasn’t right for his ancestors, was it? Separate and completely unequal doesn’t have to be okay for me.
I agree that there is only so much that he can do. We have to do the rest. But how dare you tell us that we have to settle for what is okay with you. You can go ahead and settle. The rest of us will carry the message and you can benefit from what we fight for.
It is not day one for me. I have been with my partner for almost 20 years and have very few left before retirement.
I have been with my “partner” longer than he has been with his wife. It is not now, and never will be okay for a politician to use human beings for personal gain even if they do things that benefit us. You can be a good President or you can be a good person. I happen to like him, voted for him, donated money, campaigned, canvassed neighborhoods, had signs in my yard. I have done more for him than he has for me. There were millions of us who did. So if he has to sacrifice a second term in the name of justice he should be willing to. Unless he’s just in it for himself.
I applaud all that he is willing to do but I wonder if only sending half the people to death camps would be okay. Maybe freeing slaves that were taller than 5 foot 9? This is an all or nothing prospect. Yeah, I’ll take what I can get but I won’t settle for it. I’ll keep going until what is RIGHT takes place, not what others are “willing” to give me.
Obama put the same effort into opposing Prop 8 that the Governator did. One statement, one time. That’s not real effort, and we all know it.
The difficulty I have with Obama is that there’s insufficient result to back up his claim of being a “fierce advocate” for equality for gays.
So far, it’s mostly just a bunch of words. Sure, he’s named a couple people to high posts (but no Cabinet post, what a surprise), but let’s see if they get confirmed, and how they’re supported if—hopefully when—they move to make treatment of gays more equal.
It’ll be great if Obama actually does turn out to be a good friend of our community, but he’s already shown his willingness to throw us under the bus for political reasons.
All props to Bishop Robinson, but his won’t be the televised speech that millions, if not billions around the world, will watch in conjunction with the swearing-in. Rick Warren’s will be.
Funny, but I don’t recall Bishop Robinson saying anything about taking away straight people’s rights, or infering straights are incestuous pedophiles. Probably has something to do with that whole ‘do unto others’ thing.
Shame on you all!
Go ahead, bash Obama, the only friend we’ve ever had in the White House. The Blogosphere should be renamed the “HateOSphere” in that it supports all kinds of irrational, and even self-destructive blather.
The other day he announce Bishop Robinson to open the Inauguration ceremonies. Today, he made clear that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Till will be a top and immediate priority.
What a bastard, huh?
So he doesn’t hew exactly to your line, or my line. Well, damn him then, right?
The bottom line is that this man, as President, brings hope for the very first time of first-class citizenship for Gays. He will sign ENDA, he will sign The Matthew Shepard act. He will repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Give me a break. Get off his back. Encourage his education and motivation to help us acquire our rights. And, once and for all, stop acting like spoiled children whining because you can’t have everything you want day one!
People, if he won’t give us Marriage, so what… here is a man wanting to add the 1100+ Federal benefits to Civil Unions. I DON’T CARE if you call it Civil Union, Marriage, Yankee Pot Roast… I just want to be able to have the same BASIC rights as str8’s when it comes to my partners health, and not worry about my house being pulled from me if they die by a small minded family member of theirs because I am not “married” to my partner. I don’t want to have to worry about another states “laws” if I move for my job or my partner.
So he is not for gay marriage, WHO CARES. He IS in favor of putting the benefits onto Civil Unions. In the end does it matter what they call it if we get the same Federal Rights as the rest???
Go to his website and read his LGBT list, he list getting rid of DOMA, DADT, etc. But does that mean he has to be FOR gay marriage if he Opposes DOMA?
Don’t get me wrong I am as pissed as the rest for his “speaker” person. But be real for a moment, so many people are up in arms on the “marriage” word that if he can get the 1100+ put to Civil Unions under the radar… LET HIM!!!
In the end, same result, let it go.
drewski, that’s kind of the point. A half-black, nor indeed any president, does not get to choose who is equal under the law. You’re attaching a level of power to Obama that he does not in fact possess.
Abraham Lincoln did not single-handedly bring down slavery either, and it’s a little-known fact that Lincoln did NOT believe that blacks were equal to whites. He simply didn’t believe that they could be rightfully enslaved.
So it all flows back to political realities. No president has absolute power. Bill Clinton genuinely wanted to end the ban on gays in the military and failed miserably!
So Obama is trying to manage expectations. Because as I said above, if he promised same-sex marriage then we would expect him to deliver it, and would raise a stink when he failed.
Obama cannot give us same-sex marriage without a solid backing of most of the country. The Civil War was North versus South. In our case we’ve got just 2 pro-same-sex marriage states and 48 against. That’s hardly a base for Obama to stand on in leading a crusade on this.
I keep saying he’s not a messiah and people need to stop whining that he’s not promising to solve all their problems because it’s a question of CAN’T, not WON’T.
Strategy is very nice. But it’s a very simple question: I’d like to know how Barack Obama would’ve responded to a white Senator who was against full-on segregation, but who gently explained to the (obviously naive) Obama that “it’s just not the time” or “it’s not winnable.” The point is that Obama seems to think that it’s OK to have incrementalism for one group, but then goes on to decry such attitudes from the past. It’s politics. Was it “just politics” when you had to drink from a different water fountain?
I think it’s fair to say that what I want–equal standing under Federal, state and local law–is the same thing most US gay men and women want. Forget politics–give me a cogent explanation of why a half-black President gets to pick and choose who is equal under the law? Remember that Lyndon Johnson was personally no paradigm of enlightenment, but he did see that making the legal system recognize black equality was both controversial and historically right. Obama would rather have consensus than show some courage. Big surprise.
Obama’s a realist. Sure, coastal liberals were going to back him no matter what. But he also needed to win in states where opposition to same-sex marriage is very strong, and some people are narrow-minded enough to vote on that one issue.
However, marriage equality is not an issue that I saw as very relevant in this case because it is not something that the president has the power to grant regardless. The president cannot grant same-sex marriage via executive order. So there’s no point complaining that Obama is not giving something that he has no power to grant anyway.
Winning nationwide same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court as it is currently stacked is highly unlikely. Getting Congress to try and impose it nationally is even more unlikely, and not clear that they would be able to do so, given that 30+ states are clearly opposed to it.
So in playing on the national political stage Obama is simply opting to pass on a losing battle that would do nothing but send the nation plunging into an epic fistfight. Resistance to civil unions is not as strong in all states and it is a more attainable goal.
After all, he’s not an idiot. If he promised us same-sex marriage and failed we would be screaming blue murder and don’t tell me we wouldn’t be. He’s not going to offer us something he doesn’t really believe he has even a slim chance of delivering on.
Ms. Ruby-Sachs, thanks for your honest assessment of our president-elect. I’m glad to finally see some voices in our community begin to let go of the Obama-fatuation.
We should have gotten behind the libertarians, as I did. I was vocal about it and was ridiculed for not supporting Obama who I was told would be a staunch supporter of my rights. I was confused, having access to the same position points and speeches and not seeing the support, disagreed.
So we get another panderer that wants our votes but refuses to take the tough stance for equality.
And worse, we have way too liberal a government spending my tax dollars, with no checks available in the legislature as we are now a one party system.
It is going to be a long and tough ride. I hope he can fix the economy without giving into the liberal temptation for handouts.
But we, as a community should have known. I did, it was obvious.
Now that he is in office, maybe we can persuade him that he was correct to begin with. Frankly, I doubt that any Democrat who professes to oppose gay marriage but supports civil unions really opposes gay marriage. Its just an issue they don’t want to have to tangle with. Not “Profiles in Courage” material, I’ll admit, but it’s what we have to work with.
Many of us are not particularly happy with, as Ozzy puts it, “Prick” Warren…and I would have LOVED to see Hillary in the top spot. However, in all fairness, this is first time in history that we’ve had so much inclussion for the GLBT community at the national level. Obama has made some strategic moves that yes, appear to be backing off gay rights issues, however, I believe still that it is just a strategic move and that in his heart he does and will support us and move us forward. The gay community needs to continue to put pressue on his administration and WE MUST CONTINUE as a community to be seen and vocal. One protest will not be adequate. The time for passivity (except in bed) is over!
I am unsure Mr. Obama’s stance is malicious, rather he is simply playing politics. I think he knows in his heart that discrimination is WRONG, but also knows a giant leap toward full equality would incite a backlash and give extremist elements (Republicans, religious freaks) the wedge issues they like (and need) to sieze power.
Perhaps, he approach for measured, substantive equality while trying to form some consensus on the issue after a reasoned discussion is the practical way to acheive equality.
I am not saying this is the moral high ground or justice, but this is the imperfect world we live in.
Ozzy,
“Well, this is from 07/01/08 Sac Bee, where Obama opposes prop 8.”
That’s good for the people that read the Sac Bee and months before the actual vote..
The blogger is right, we didn’t REALLY hear anything from Obama. If we had it would have been loud and clear, unmistakable and obvious. And it should have been done when it was most important, like when the pro Prop. 8 people were airing television ads of Obama being against gay marriage.
He should have made statements during the height of the frenzy before the actual voting took place and when people were really starting to focus on him and also on Prop 8 in California.
He didn’t though because he didn’t want to draw that kind of attention to himself and the gay community suffered for it.
It was just all part of Obama’s campaign of “Change we can believe in!” .
Ozzy – point taken, I have amended the article to reflect your contribution. Thanks!!
You said:
“In the 2008 election he had the opportunity to speak out against Proposition 8 in California, Proposition 2 in Florida and Proposition 102 in Arizona. He did not say a word.”
Well, this is from 07/01/08 Sac Bee, where Obama opposes prop 8.
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html
And the title of the article is : “Obama rejects proposed California gay marriage ban”
I’m really pissed at Obama right now for inviting Prick Warren but not recognizing his standing in the whole issue is just dumb. I can see bigots quoting this blog entry to help their nasty causes. Do us a favor and do your homework next time.