I can’t say that I think Greg Sargent is totally wrong about the President’s decision to sandbag on an executive order on preventing federal contractors from discriminating against people based on gender or sexual orientation. He’s right when he says the White House is being too cute by half here.
There’s no denying that Obama and his advisers have a very good overall record on gay rights. But on this issue, and on gay marriage — two hugely important topics to the gay community — there’s too little clarity and too much of a whiff of excuse-making and political calculation.
Obama is trapped in a difficult dynamic that is in some ways the product of having done the right thing in other areas involving gay rights. Because of his real accomplishments in those areas, gay advocates are fully convinced he really believes in full equality for gay and lesbian Americans — and only grow angrier and more impatient when he hedges or equivocates on key issues. I can see why White House advisers would find this dynamic frustrating, but the simple truth is that it isn’t going away until he stops doing it.
The problem is the President’s slow and cautious (if not downright pragmatic) approach is A) it’s slow and frustrating, B) it works in the end. People recognize A and forget B completely, it seems. To his credit, Sargent does admit the whole B thing does exist. But that’s the way it has to go with the political dynamic, and it’s not like the LGBT community in Washington hasn’t played politics to its own advantage, either.
There’s also the very real problem with executive orders: they can get rescinded by future presidents. The next time a Teapublican gets into power, a lot of stuff is going away. This close to an election, that’s a factor. I don’t like it. I admit it exists. Going bugnuts over it won’t change much, either. President Obama will get attacked by the right on LGBT stuff regardless of what he does. He’ll also get attacked by a certain section of the left for the same reason. That’s politics.
The long arc does bend but it’s a pain in the ass to move some times.
Punchy
Maybe all the gays with such butthurt will now vote Republican instead.
david mizner
@Punchy:
Gays with butthurt? Really?
Sure, executive orders can get rescinded, but Clinton issued an similar order to cover federal employees, and it’s a still in place, surviving 8 years of W.
This move also runs counters to the President’s Why We Can’t Wait message.
Not need to freak out, but there’s also no need not to say this is chickenshit move.
Litlebritdifrnt
This was discussed during the whole DADT debate. “Well he could do it with his signature” argle bargle. As the administration pointed out there is no point in doing that when the next POTUS could reverse it just as easily. The only way to make it stick is to do it through legislation, just as he did with DADT.
kdaug
Second-term issue.
Culture of Truth
I don’t see activists growing “angrier,” I suspect it’s just something to say, but maybe he has more than anecdotal evidence. But people do know political calculation when they see it, and that is frustrating.
Satanicpanic
This is probably not the fight we want to have before the election, but I’m not a Democratic strategist or anything so what do I know
Marc
As the Sun rises and sets this would be cast as a religious liberty issue.
amk
@kdaug: Yup. Obama is not stupid to walk into that buzz saw willingly. And he has seen how the lgbt community “thanked” him for DADT.
Mary
This touches on what I think is the heart of the matter. Pragmatism aside, there’s a certain element of “either we are all equal, or we’re not,” and with that comes an attitude that equality is sort of an all or nothing prospect. Ergo, if the President believes in equality and has the power and opportunity to do something to advance equal rights, he has the moral obligation to act.
I’m not saying that the pragmatic approach doesn’t have many advantages, nor am I saying that one approach is better or worse than the other. It’s just that if you view the issue as a cut-and-dried question of equality, then the nuanced gamesmanship can be frustrating and potentially insulting.
General Stuck
Here we go again
This may be a good day to start sniffing glue
Yutsano
@Culture of Truth: It is political calculation, and dammit I know it’s just cause it’s election time, but dammit Mr President just do something now. This will cause a lot of folks great hardship otherwise, and he needs to do better.
kdaug
@Culture of Truth:
Whites of their eyes, boys. Whites of their eyes.
Mike Goetz
This is pretty much all about church groups that do the faith-based initiatives. I think he learned from the contraception thing that he needs to prepare the ground first before he makes the move. He wants to get the full buy-in first. I don’t see much wrong with that.
Comrade Dread
Sorry, my outrage meter is officially burned out from the last 3 years where every damn thing is something to go to 11 over. I blame Republicans.
I honestly don’t know if I can handle another 6 and a half months of this damn election cycle that feels like it’s been going on since the fucking Hoover administration, where every errant comment by some third tier staffer or every action is going to be blown up into ScandalGate.
You’d think the greatest nation on Earth could do better than the 3 year long wank fest that is our Presidential elections.
gbear
It’s OK to have some inequality for GLBT people if the politics play well.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I don’t think Obama can do much on gay marriage, but at the government contractor I work for, in Texas no less, they can’t discriminate on the basis of gender and I don’t think they can do it on sexual orientation either. Now, they have stated that they will not cover health insurance for gay partners, so I hope that changes in the future. I think he could issue the executive order, because I don’t think the people who would disagree with it were going to vote for him anyway, and it’s not going to make that much difference with the public.
As for Greg’s statement “until he stops doing it” until he stops what, getting things right on gay issues? Obama’s “evolution” is faster than the rest of the country’s. If Obama were really trying to play this politically, he wouldn’t be doing all that much for LGBT rights at all.
burnspbesq
What am I missing here? Isn’t the better answer to amend Title VII? Or litigate this as an Equal Protection problem? Surely no sentient judge will buy an argument that there is a rational basis for discrimination based on sexual orientation.
burnspbesq
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
There’s case law to the contrary. This seems to be a pretty good outline of the current state of Title VII.
http://users.aristotle.net/~hantley/hiedlegl/statutes/title7/protclas.htm
FWIW, I thought what you think before I looked it up. It does seem transcendently stupid for GLBT people to not be a protected class under Title VII.
Bondo
I’d be more inclined to look favorably upon Obama’s decision as craven political calculation if I felt it was a good craven political calculation. I’m just not convinced that playing to anti-LGBT bigotry is that great of politics anymore.
However, I would say there is need for extra caution when it comes to something like DADT or similar anti-discrimination. If you prohibit discrimination, making it safe for people to be out, and then a couple years later someone comes along and undoes that, making discrimination legal again, that because open season to discriminate against all these people who came out in the temporary period where they could do so without fear. Better for their sake to make sure it is more permanent.
noodler
Interesting points here. Nike said “just do it” but I think they were trying to sell sneakers and not win an election. Here’s an interesting story: I belong to a Country Club in DC, with plenty of military members. Some dinosaur member posted something about DADT and a gay person on one of our message boards and immediately and wholeheartedly received a message board smackdown, the tone and wide participation of the comments was refreshing. I think we’ve come pretty far here. Still a ways to go, but the military community is moving along smartly here.
Zifnab
Well, I think there’s always more than one way to skin a cat. One of the virtues of an executive order like this would be to normalize corporate rules (since I’d be hard pressed to name a Fortune 500 company that doesn’t do some business with the government) and thereby normalize cultural bias.
Gay rights is one of those issues that is so terribly benign in implementation that its hard to see a serious backlash coming from people actually working under the policy.
But once those rights are established – even just partially – it becomes politically difficult to resend them. Corporate policy makers don’t like getting jerked around. Individuals don’t like a policy that makes them feel robbed in some way. The status quo is a very powerful force for establishing long term change.
At this stage of the gay policy game, there’s a serious question as to whether an executive order wouldn’t be a positive step forward.
And it’s not like Obama’s policies haven’t had their failings. We’re still holding our breath on the PPACA SCOTUS decision results. Gitmo remains open. We’re still not out from under those Bush Tax Cuts. Slow and steady works sometimes, but Bush seemed to prove hitting policy with a sledge-hammer works pretty well, too.
Yevgraf
Count me as bored to shit about the hysterical squealing on all issues LGBT by the G part of that community, whose issues seem to drown out economics, gender and racial equality at every single fucking turn.
I might give more of a shit when the well-heeled G activists and their fellow traveler closeted G staffers of glibertarian and right wing think tanks start giving a fuck about economic, gender and racial justice.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@burnspbesq: Given that, how would an Executive Order by Obama help? When Truman integrated the military, we already weren’t supposed to be discriminating against blacks, it was in the constitution.
I’ll admit I don’t have time to go read what you linked to. I’ll have to do that this evening.
General Stuck
As with DADT, the issuance of an EO would have been the easiest way for Obama to cover his political arse. And not go any further to address the issue with permanent changing of public code. The same would be true, giving cover and an excuse to ignore this discrimination for congressional democrats. Out of sight and mind for the election, until OBama leaves office, and a wingnut cancels the EO. Sometimes half measures do damage to fixing the problem with some finality.
And I’m fairly certain that the boat of Obama doing this for pol election purpose, done sailed with his canning DADT, coming out against states trying to ban gay marriage, and refusing to defend DOMA.
edit – though he has yet to self immolate for the cause of gay rights. Why? Oh Why?
gbear
@Yevgraf: Nice use of the words bored and hysterical so close together while heading off on your own hysterical rant about how all of us richy-rich gay men don’t give a shit about other people’s problems. You win the pretzel logic award for this thead.
rea
@Litlebritdifrnt:
The reason the president couldn’t get rid of DADT by executive order is that it was put in place by statute.
I’d feel a bit more comfortable slagging Obama for failing to promulgate an antidiscrimination order for federal contractors if someone would point me to statutory or constitutional authority for the president to do that.
Gangis Khan
Legislative action is impossible while Rs control the House. So you are saying that, in the interest of pragmatism, it would be better to have no bill or EO than just an EO.
The White House could issue an order, and we could put it into law once we have the numbers in Congress. That things worked out in the end with DADT doesn’t mean we couldn’t do better.
Marc
@gbear:
There is the relevant question of how to define such a rule and what to include. The actual wording of regulations matters; small changes can have large consequences.
gex
So long as we don’t forget that there wouldn’t be any movement on this issue if gay people didn’t make an issue out of it. So while I understand where Obama is at, I get irritated as fuck when people take a STFU attitude towards gay people on the issue. (Not saying that is the attitude here. But it’s out there.)
gex
@david mizner: Hey you might as well make the “butthurt” joke when you belittle people who have been and still are discriminated against by their own government.
Let me guess. We’re ramming something down Punchy’s throat and he doesn’t like it one bit.
Egg Berry
can anyone give me a justification FOR discrimination in hiring based on sex or gender here?
Libby's person
I read some history in the NY Times Opinionator blog that struck me as very relevant to how Obama operates in cases like this. The post, by Richard Striner, is talking about Lincoln’s path to the Emancipation Proclamation.
In reference to legislation passed on April 10 1862 that offered financial assistance to any slave state that would embark upon the course of phasing out slavery, Striner notes:
This plan didn’t end up working, but it did get Lincoln to the point where he could “use the pretext of saving the Union as a ploy to force complete emancipation in the rebel states — and for no compensation whatsoever.” In other words, he set things up so that he could win the ‘long game’.
This sounds to me very much the way that Obama operates on the big social change issues like LBGT rights. Set things up for long-term success rather than harm long-term prospects by aiming for short-term ‘brownie points’. He’s followed this strategy before; I see no reason to believe that he’s doing anything else now.
gex
@amk: Yup. We are ALL responsible for what a few outspoken people said.
Yevgraf
@gbear:
Facts have tended to demonstrate that as an organic whole, your activists have been self-absorbed. When the rubber hits the road, all that appears to matter is your emotional turmoil and hurt over the meanness of your family and associates and churches when you came out, blah, blah, whimper whimper, and how you are going to show ALL OF THEM!
It’s the demonstration of the maturity level of the average 15 year old.
david mizner
@gex:
You’re not saying that attitude is here? Apparently you haven’t read the comments above yours.
“Maybe all the gays with such butthurt will now vote Republican instead.”
“Count me as bored to shit about the hysterical squealing on all issues LGBT by the G part of that community.”
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Punchy: It’s a function of the crowd I run with, I guess, but all the gays I know vote Republican. Always have.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Zifnab:
__
This.
Hell Hath No Fury like a large corporate HR department forced to redo the same set of rules 3 times in 4 years such that by just about the time that they finally get everybody trained up on them, publish all the revised documentation, etc., then they have to tear it all down and start all over again in the opposite direction.
Libby's person
@Libby’s person:
(P.S. The block quote in this post should have included the second paragraph starting “But many abolitionists…”. it shows up within the block quote code in the edit box. A minor glitch in the new site design, apparently.)
Corner Stone
@Yevgraf:
You continue to astound with your astute observations and reportage of same.
PWL
I think there’s another thing here–which I think the gay rights crowd should consider. Remember that in 2004, the Repubs used the gay marriage issue to crush Kerry & put W. back in office for a second term.
I think Obama sees the Repubs using the gay marriage issue as a club to beat him with in this election cycle, and it just might work as it did in 2004. Sorry, but a large part of the American public has retrograde views on this issue, and it tends to cause hysterical reactions among a large number of voters when it’s raised (like “flag burning” in the 1988 election. Remember?).
This is just the kind of “morals” issue the Repubs love to bring up at election time–it elicits an emotional “knee-jerk” response from the electorate, distracts from other issues of great weight at the moment(i.e., the wreck the Repubs made of the economy) and is used to put the Dems on the defensive.
So gay marriage advocates, I suggest you wait till after the election to push this issue on Obama. Otherwise, if you push on it now, you just might be shooting yourselves in the foot. I can’t see a President Romney having enlightened views in this issue.
Corner Stone
I’m always a little amazed at the blase attitude people display with regards to equal rights issues. I guess I shouldn’t be anymore, but it’s still a little depressing to see the umbrella defense of pragmatism unfurled at every step.
amk
@gex: Well, it’s the loudest mealy mouthed that got all the attention and hence the public view. If you are not “all”, then you should have spoken loud and clear. Name calling the one person who really cared to something what you care for- yeah that’s the ticket to win.
Splitting Image
Obama’s problem with supporting gay rights is that in a lot of the states where the struggle is the hardest, Obama is personally less popular than gay rights. What to do is sometimes relative to whether Obama is likely to get a popularity boost for supporting something people want or whether the issue will get tied to him and its popularity will drop.
Just as an example, North Carolina is voting to ban marriages and civil unions by constitutional amendment in May. It is extremely important that that amendment goes down. The Republicans scheduled it on the day of the primary to boost GOP turnout relative to the Dems. With the primary over and Mittens the presumptive nominee, the amendment is that much more likely to go down. If Obama makes a stand on gay rights prior to the vote, and the GOP is able to use it to rally the Santorum voters, it will be more likely to pass.
As galling as it is to see the political calculation involved (and part of the problem with Obama is that when he makes a concerted effort to seem cautious, it’s almost impossible not to see him as calculating as well), it’s not always possible to avoid it.
staci
@Yevgraf: <—– This x1000.
Corner Stone
@PWL:
On this issue, the country is nowhere close to where it was in 2004. Poll after poll indicate the public is way ahead of the politicians on accepting equal rights for “different” communities.
General Stuck
@Corner Stone:
If it’s any comfort to ya, I’m pretty sure near nobody on this blog gives a shit what you think.
Yevgraf
@PWL:
However, in a Romney administration not only will well-heeled gay couples do great economically, their fellow travelers in glibertarian and conservative think tanks (and their compatriots working on conservatard congressional staffs) will do FABULOUSLY with regard to career and economic placement.
Always follow the Benjamins.
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
Would this make any difference in the real world? I don’t know any companies, especially those that want to retain the best employess, that discriminate on any basis.
Culture of Truth
That seems a bit extreme.
Tim I
This whole thing is a tempest in a tea pot. Why not ask the President to issue such executive order in December? Maybe folks are already assuming he’s going to win. I don’t and I can appreciate him avoiding controversy that fits into the Republican meme that he is a dictator at heart.
Culture of Truth
Getting reelected is his first priority. Obama knows controlling the discourse is the key to winning the election. He consistently got Romney on the defensive and he means to keep his boot on Mitt’s neck and not let up until Never comes.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@amk: Bragging that you forced someone to do your bidding is a really bad post-negotiation tactic – even if true, and in this case it isn’t – especially if you might need a favor from that person in the future.
What’s weird is that historically the LGBT community has in general been really on top of that kind of shit; in my lifetime we’ve gone from queers being killed for sport to people being ashamed to say that they don’t like gays in public. That is some kind of progress in only 40 years, and it has been made by a community that knew how to do public messaging. This makes their behavior with Obama even more confusing. Odds are pretty good he’s going to be around for the next four years – why spit in his face?
And yet that’s what the community has been doing since the day he got into office. I really do not understand.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@General Stuck: “If it’s any comfort to ya, I’m pretty sure near nobody on this blog gives a shit what you think.”
Or say.
Sly
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Plessy was still binding when Truman integrated the military, so a segregated military was constitutional.
@Egg Berry:
Does it have to not make me want to vomit? If so, that’s kinda hard.
At issue is the stupid distinction made in the law between discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex stereotyping. The latter has been illegal since the 1989 Price Waterhouse decision; you can’t fire someone for acting counter to how you presume someone of their gender should act. Sane people know that various forms of sexual orientation discrimination are rooted in sex stereotyping and, thankfully, a number of Circuit Courts have been embracing sanity over the last decade or so.
ruemara
On the one hand, I think this is a no-brainer of an executive order, however, I wonder why anyone would be satisfied with an EO when I’d rather change the law. Longer fight, requires actually dealing with Congress, rather than going to the President but it is more stable. On the other hand, I don’t see this as time to mourn on the failures of Obama with regard to the LGBT community. And, yes, I thought the silence on DADT repeal was… odd. Like some of the loudest detractors couldn’t work up the energy to be happy that it finally happened. Same with the Iraq withdrawal. I’m not surprised at playing turtle during an election. I’m surprised at political advocates not understanding that there’s an election and calculus will be happening whether you will or no.
gbear
@Corner Stone:
Well it’s easier to be blase when the group in question can be factually proven to be a bunch of self-centered louts.
Zandar
For the record, the major defense of pragmatism is “If it was that easy, he would have done it by now.”
burnspbesq
@gex::
You hold me responsible for every stupid and outlandish pronouncement by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Why shouldn’t the same rule apply to you?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@PWL:
__
I strongly suspect you didn’t mean it this way, so I’m not trying to slam you, but I wish we would avoid using this sort of terminology. Gay rights are human rights, and as such belong to all of us. I’m not gay, but I still feel that discrimination based on sexual orientation diminishes my life, both indirectly via the effects it has on our society and directly via the impact it has on friends and family of mine who either are or might in the future turn out to be gay. I realize that there is a small base of activists who are pushing re: these issues and it requires some verbal dexterity to talk about the political role these activists play without sounding like we are compartmentalizing and ghetto-izing their favorite issues, but let’s make the effort, please.
Corner Stone
@gbear:
And decadently clustered in their hysterical enclaves on the coasts – and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Zandar:
You just had to come along and say something logical and reasonable, spoiling the poutrage party.
Bummer man, bummer.
Sly
@Corner Stone:
Were transgendered persons included under the proposed ENDA legislation? No. Did gay rights activists raise a stink about protections for transgendered persons being stripped from the bill so it could pass? No. Did the gambit actually get the bill passed? No.
Coffee is for closers.
Bago
@rea: Promogulate
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+promulgate&qpvt=promogulate&FORM=DTPDIA
Corner Stone
@Zandar: Which record? Zandar’s Greatest Hits ?
Corner Stone
@Sly: I guess this is the “but what about Billy? He does it tooooo!” defense.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Sly:
They are fighting for GAY rights. What happens to the T’s isn’t important, they can fight their own battle.
@Corner Stone:
Getting your daily blogging reacharound out of the way early today?
General Stuck
I think it would be fair game for the gay activist community to get together during the campaign and agitate with abandon for congress and Obama to amend the law, to add sexual preference to title V11 CRA. But not to fixate on a bandaid solution, whining that Obama and blog commenters don’t care.
TK-421
I never understand this logic. “Someone might reverse my right action later, therefore I should refuse to do the right action now.”
I think it’s a false either/or dynamic that people buy into that drives this thinking. “I can issue an executive order OR I can build support for ENDA.” But President Obama cannot do both because…?
I mean, is the Obama Admin really saying that some legislators will OPPOSE passing ENDA because of an Executive Order, and that declining to issue this Executive Order increases the chance of passing ENDA? Really? Whose votes are in play here because of this?
My own explanation is much simpler and fits the data: President Obama, while eventually reliable on gay rights, is instinctively uncomfortable with gay rights and really makes him want to take NO position. This makes him drag his feet when these issues pop up. No that doesn’t mean he’s “anti-gay” or that he’s opposed to gay equality. I think it just means that he deals with gay rights reluctantly, or not at all.
Sly
@Corner Stone:
No, it’s the “polishing your halo may make you feel better, but it doesn’t make your life better” defense.
Jay C
@Culture of Truth:
North Carolina is voting to ban marriages and civil unions by constitutional amendment in May.
That seems a bit extreme.
Not really: they’re not calling for making it a capital offense as well, so there’s some progress…
@Marc:
And as much as I, also, would love to see as many anti-gay-discrimination laws and regulations on the books as possible, unfortunately, at this time (i.e. in the middle of an election year), the last thing President Obama needs to do is to hand the Opposition even the least bit of ammunition on the “religious freedom” [overhyped, overblown bullshit non-] issue.
The frustration of equal-rights activists with President Obama’s manner of dealing with “gay” issues is certainly understandable, but, AFAICT, there’s not much of a choice as far as Presidential politicking is concerned: a “choice” between a Chief Executive at least sympathetic to your goals: or one violently opposed to them (or willing to be the foil for the violently-opposed).
amk
@TK-421:
Yeah, DADT repeal happened by magic. That lazy bummer not working the slimy congress critters and the reluctant and recalcitrant army brass.
General Stuck
@TK-421:
For months and months, Obama patiently and persistently cajoled and ultimately convinced the military brass as in Joint Chiefs, and others, to support his effort to repeal DADT.
And THAT support from the mil itself, was what won the day for the repeal. You simply don’t know what you are talking about, and discharge the usual whiny retort of emo progism.
General Stuck
@amk:
mind meld
Satanicpanic
@Forum Transmitted Disease: That’s probably the crowd you run with, BUT, I also have the sneaking suspicion that there are a good number of gay men who would love to go full on Peter Thiel style glibertarian but want to get their rights secured first.
amk
@General Stuck: LOL. tk-421-What an dishonest asshat.
Phil Perspective
@TK-421: So he’s basically no better than John Edwards on the issue? You remember how Edwards described how he thought about it, right? He basically admitted that gay people made him feel icky but that if he didn’t support LBGT rights, his wife would kick his ass because they deserved equality like everyone else. That’s not verbatim, but it’s close enough to what he actually said.
Thomas F
Surprise, surprise. Zandar feints left in the direction of human decency…and inevitably ratchets back into the cozy embrace of obsequious pro-Obama cheerleading. Drone blogger acts like drone and what not. Guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
General Stuck
@Phil Perspective:
You and Tk ought to get together with your awesome mind reading powers, and find out why Little Kim Jong-un’s missile won’t stay up
Make yourselves useful, the world is waiting.
eemom
That was done here in Virginia in 2006, and nobody on the national scene so much as batted an eyelash — a fact which has never ceased to amaze me.
TK-421
@amk:
I never said any such thing. Repeal of DADT happened eventually, with the help of President Obama. I never said otherwise.
We disagree if you believe that President Obama was a loud and upfront champion on repealing DADT. I saw him have to be pressured into it. The Obama Admin did not immediately tackle repealing DADT by itself, via executive order. They were pressured into doing that, but they refused to do so, using the logic that the legislative route is more effective (sound familiar?). And I have no problem with how DADT repeal went down: as I said, President Obama can eventually be relied on to support gay rights, but needs to be pressured into doing so.
I find it weird that everyone is willing to point to DADT repeal as evidence of Obama’s success & support, while also overlooking the pressure and disapproval that led up to that success & support. I suppose we could claim that it was all a coincidence, but if so then why are some people bent out of shape about the criticism of the Obama Admin now? It’s just like the last time, so what’s the problem?
I don’t see an election/electoral problem here, and there’s nothing wrong with a popular movement agitating for popular policy. So again, what’s the problem people have with the pressure being brought to bear on the Obama Admin? It worked last time, so why not do it again?
Sly
@TK-421:
King warned that the mushy moderate who proclaimed that equality will come eventually was fundamentally an untrustworthy ally, but King was also a hypocrite. He was the guy who had Bayard Rustin smuggled out of Montgomery in the trunk of a car because he didn’t want the white folks to have the kind of ammunition that a gay man helping to organize the bus boycott would afford them. He was someone who agreed that it might look bad to give an atheist like A. Phillip Randolph top billing at any demonstration, preferring him to work behind the scenes. And he was the one who personally told John Lewis to tone down the Kennedy bashing during the march on Washington, because he was afraid it would push the President away from the movement and into the arms of the Dixiecrats.
Read Obama’s writing on civil rights. He’s a guy who styles himself as favoring the long haul as being more effective in dislodging counter-productive beliefs from the public consciousness. Which is a position well-suited for criticism, by the way. Even if you want to examine it purely from the vantage of self-interest, it doesn’t mitigate any real risks. Bigots will believe he wants to destroy Western civilization no matter what he does and will simply invent excuses if he does nothing.
But do yourself a big favor and disabuse yourself of the notion that political costs aren’t real costs, and remember that people don’t become saints until after they’re dead.
Mary
@ruemara: I think the silence on both DADT and the Iraq withdrawal had a lot to do with the extended process for actually instituting the policies. Both involved a lengthy study period and multi-step approval/implementation, which doesn’t really lend itself to a single loud celebratory moment.
Mary
@ruemara: I think the silence on both DADT and the Iraq withdrawal had a lot to do with the extended process for actually instituting the policies. Both involved a lengthy study period and multi-step approval/implementation, which doesn’t really lend itself to a single loud celebratory moment.
Mike E
@Splitting Image:
We can haz, plz? I’m kinda certain it will win here, so this would be a welcome surprise.
I’m wondering at what point systemic discrimination gets hauled before the supremes and gets rendered unconstitutional. Really, I wanna know.
Randy P
@Libby’s person:
Even the Emancipation Proclamation that ended up freeing the slaves read as the opposite.
Randy P
@Libby’s person:
Even the Emancipation Proclamation that ended up freeing the slaves read as the opposite. It was an offer to keep slavery if they’d rejoin the Union by Jan 1. Nobody took Lincoln up on his over.
So was he really accepting slavery or playing 10 dimensional chess? I have no idea.
eemom
@General Stuck:
There is also the infinite irony of someone who consistently treats actual people with contempt and assholery masquerading as a champion of human rights. It is quite hilarious actually.
Sly
@TK-421:
“Last time” he gave up tax policy to pass part of the gay rights agenda. He relented on the Bush Tax Cuts and, miracle of miracles, the obstructionism in the Senate during the 2010 lame duck session ended.
A trade for which he has received no end of criticism from his left flank, by the way.
General Stuck
@TK-421:
Cut the smarmy.
No we don’t disagree. One of us is lying, and that be you, and using the inferior OBama being led by his white progressive masters to do what’s right card. It is an old meme, and we been dealing with that horseshit for near 4 years now.
Sly
@Randy P:
LINCOLN IS WORSE THAN DAVIS HE SOLD US OUT!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Not being gay, or a woman, or a minority, I have to ask this: At what point do people ask themselves “Hey, Obama’s done some good things during his first term that have actually affected me. Doing some political calculation leads me to believe that he’ll do some more stuff his second term and what I am asking for may not get him reelected.”
That might sound like I don’t know what I am talking about, but it seems very similar to trying to work with all of the different people in my group at my company.
ETA: I know this has played badly before: Clinton gave us DOMA and DADT, and other presidents have done nothing. But there have been changes. And the repeal of DADT was done so that it could not be undone by a president.
amk
@TK-421:
No, he is not a yeller unlike some in lgbt movement. If you think those yellers “made him do it”, then you didn’t clearly see the process by which he did this. Your obsession with EO’s then and now shows you don’t get it.
And your dissing him on lgbt issues without providing any proof and your reluctance to give him credit for DADT smacks of typical firebaggerism.
Randy P
@Randy P:
“Offer” not “over” dammit. Hate typing on this tiny screen. Which also caused me to post prematurely.
Satanicpanic
Of course it’s better to judge a man based on what we can only speculate to be his motivations rather than what he has actually accomplished.
amk
@Satanicpanic: It would be irresponsible not to do so.
Keith G
@Punchy: You seem very ignorant.
Omnes Omnibus
It seems to me that the Administration is moving forward slowly and steadily on gay rights. It also seems to me that I am not in a position to tell people how long they should patiently wait for their rights to match mine.
ruemara
@Omnes Omnibus: Agreed. But I would also caution said people to not focus on each setback as if it was the end of the line. I think a lot of this does more to disenchant people with the process of political movement than it does to engage them. MHO and all that.
NCSteve
Left or right, there are only two kinds of activists: there are the kind who think the main function of policymakers is to implement substantive policy changes that they want, even if it means delaying, or even thwarting the need of some for emotional gratification, and there are the kind who think the main function of policymakers is to tend to their emotional needs, even if doing so would involve the making of purely symbolic gestures or taking actions that are counterproductive in the long term.
These two kinds of people tend to spend a lot of time arguing with each other in the comment sections of blogs.
Allan
@TK-421: Actually, the problem is that an executive order gives craven Congresscritters an excuse not to do their jobs and pass legislation.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@ruemara: I would add that you don’t have to give the WHite House a pass, but it’s at least as important to fight the real enemy, which is the intensity gap and voter turn-out.
Monkey Business
For the first time in the history of the gay marriage debate, a majority of Americans actually approve of gay marriage.
In 1996, 68% of Americans said gay marriage should be illegal; 27% said they should be legal. Today, that number is 45% against, and 53% for. That’s an 18 point swing in 15 years.
I don’t think there will be a plank in the Democratic party platform calling for Federal recognition of gay marriage in this election cycle; the demographics are still too close to help the President, rather than hurt him.
I think the President will finish “evolving” after he gets elected and come out in favor of gay marriage.
I would not be surprised at all to see a Cuomo/Booker 2016 (or whoever your candidates of choice are) ticket with gay marriage as a plank in the Democratic party platform.
Lojasmo
@burnspbesq:
You are being held accountable for your OWN stupid and Outlandish statements here.
Suffern ACE
I’m patient enough. There was a time not that long ago where the Democratic president signed DOMA and ran on that as an achievement to help him win reelection. I guess being over 40 with a memory counts for something. Also, I wasn’t that old when the government stopped overtly looking for “security risks” to fire, but its not like I fear a return to the dark ages if nothing is signed. At least not from this administration. I don’t see a reason to jump out of the boat over this.
Suffern ACE
@amk: What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Seriously. Obama probabably saw how environmentalists thanked him for the temporary moratorium on new gulf offshore drilling permits so the temporary suspension of the Keystone pipeline is one big “fuck you?”
vitaminC
Spoken like someone who will never be fired due to sexuality.
It’s easy to take the long view from a distance, eh?
NobodySpecial
The problem I have with the defense of Obama never issuing an EO for anything is “Well, he doesn’t have the votes.”
Truman didn’t have the votes for integration, either, and there was a hell of a lot more resistance to that than there is to gay rights today. He still did it and then worked the Congress to make a law. To pretend Obama couldn’t do the same is a weak justification.
LongHairedWeirdo
Well, here’s something to chew on.
Yes, slow but steady wins the race. But if you’re *satisfied* with slow and steady, your politicians are going to slow down even more. Whereas if you’re furious at slow but steady, they won’t forget that the operative word is *steady*.
So, on the one hand, the Obama administration might be doing the right thing. On the other, they should still keep getting scorned and having their feet held to the fire. And while you should trumpet the accomplishments so far, and warn people that even these small gains could be rolled back, you don’t exactly want to discourage the complaints, either.
Justice delayed is justice denied. It always has been; it always will be. We need people to demand justice, because without demands, it just won’t happen.
Paula
Did the EO include or exclude Trans people?
Chuck Butcher
One Party is making gay (etc) a political issue so paint me surprise that the other side is treating it as politics. It would seem that in itself is a good reason for proponents to keep pushing. Pushing does not require being dishonest or hysterical and that is something to keep in mind. It is long past time for this community to be treated as other citizens are and it is also unlikely that a politcal solution in that regard is happening soon.
I think politicians are playing politics and people are going to be unhappy and that doesn’t mean STFU.
Ronzoni Rigatoni
@NobodySpecial: “Truman didn’t have the votes for integration, either, and there was a hell of a lot more resistance to that than there is to gay rights today. He still did it….”
And where did it get the Democrats in 1952, huh?
Knock it off. We’ll gittit done in four more years. Geeze.
beergoggles
I’m with the Dan Savage view on marriage equality. As a gay guy who wants DOMA repealed and my marriage recognized federally, I can cut Obama some slack on it since he isn’t defending DOMA in court anymore and he needs to get re-elected. I am not cutting him as much slack for the delay in DADT repeal due to the necessity of half a year of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Give campaign against Democrats to even prompt any action.
Unlike DOMA, ENDA does not fall into a politically unpopular category. There’s a super-majority of support for non-discrimination among the electorate, so I feel like not signing a EO on this is a poor move on his part that will disappoint a lot of LGBTs that are further left of me or who have been fired from their jobs due to orientation.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Culture of Truth:
I’ve seen a total of one pro-One yard sign so far. About a dozen anti-Ones.
Even the House Speaker thinks it will be repealed in 20 years if it passes.
I suspect the R-controlled legislature scheduled the amendment vote for the primary thinking that the clown car would draw in more R voters than D. Then the Governor decided not to run for reelection, and we suddenly have a contested state D primary while the R primary is pretty much over. And the friend who has been the most driven on the subject is a longtime R voter. I’m hoping the idiots pushing this will be surprised.
Joe Buck
Sorry, no. Obama’s ultra-cautious approach to gay equality does not “work in the end”. In California, the Prop 8 vote was very close, and the pro-prop-hate folks used Obama’s opposition to gay marriage to help their cause. This might well have swung enough votes to make the difference. The appeals courts have tossed Prop 8, but I find it hard to believe that Scalia and friends will overturn anything conservatives like.
What will “work in the end” is that the opponents of gay rights are dying off, and as the political winds shift, Obama will follow them, and find that he’s OK with gay marriage after all. But he will follow, he certainly will not lead.