Obama and The Gays: A Non-Love Story Getting Less Lovely By The Minute

Nick Gillespie | June 18, 2009

Yesterday, in what SF Chronicle reporter (and Reason contributing editor) Carolyn Lochhead called his first "official overture to the gay and lesbian community," President Barack Obama signed a memo that says "domestic partners of civil servants will be eligible for long-term care insurance, and employees may use their sick leave to take care of ailing partners or non-biological, non-adopted children.... The memorandum aims at the fringes of anti-gay discrimination by the federal government, leaving open the question of if or when the White House will move against the underlying federal laws."

Gay and lesbian activists, who supported Obama with the understanding that he actually saw things the way they did, are angry.

What has riled the gay and lesbian community is the wording of the brief [in a pending case about the anti-gay marriage Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA]. It found the statute "entirely rational," said it was a savings to taxpayers and cited as precedents states rejecting marriages from other states that involved under-age females or close relatives.

Rep. Barney Frank, the gay Massachusetts Democrat, told the Boston Herald in a story published Wednesday that Obama made a "big mistake" with the brief. Several activists have pulled out of a gay Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Washington next week.

Obama's action Wednesday "doesn't mollify anyone for the horrendous brief that was filed about DOMA or the failure to act on the issues the president promised to act upon when he was running," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a San Francisco group pushing for legal same-sex marriage in the state.

Whole Chron story, titled "Gay activists not impressed with Obama's move," here.

So under Obama, a law signed enthusiastically by Bill Clinton over a decade ago remains on the books and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (another Clinton artifact) remains the discriminatory and "counterproductive" (in Obama's own words!) line in the military.

As someone who thinks that gays and straights should be treated exactly the same by government (especially the federal government), I find this appalling. As someone who actually listened to what Obama and his representatives said on the campaign trail, I don't find it surprising. In his debate with Sarah Palin, Vice President Joe Biden was emphatic regarding gay marriage:

[Moderator Gwen] Ifill: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

Biden: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it....

Ostensibly liberal Democrats have long gotten a free ride with the gay and lesbian community (in the way that ostensibly conservative Republicans have with groups on the religious right).

I can appreciate the anger and disappointment among gay and lesbian supporters of Obama, but in their frustration may well be the seed of a deeper understanding that politics and politicians are disappointing at best and malevolent at worst. Which is precisely the reason to squeeze their power and influence over citizens and human activity to the bare minimum, whether we're talking about the bedroom or the boardroom.

Reason's Katherine Mangu-Ward exposed Obama as a gay heart-breaker here.

Comments

|6.18.09 @ 8:58AM|#

I'd say despite Obama's reluctance, Democrats have earned the gay vote considering how far we've come in twenty years. Republicans somewhat earn the religious vote with their defense of freedom to worship. Not your best, Nick.

PR|6.18.09 @ 9:01AM|#

As someone who thinks that gays and straights should be treated exactly the same by government (especially the federal government), I find this appalling.


I think everyone should be treated the same, married, partnered, or single.

Ben Kenobi|6.18.09 @ 9:03AM|#

The idiots get what they deserve for supporting Obama and thinking he would change anything.

Kyle Jordan|6.18.09 @ 9:11AM|#

I don't think Nick's article is about earning the vote of a particular faction. It's about the simple fact that there are those within factions that blindly follow the tripe spewed by their chosen party or candidate regardless of past statements and actions. Voters project their views and ideas upon candidates and parties to the point of detachment from reality.

Mad Max|6.18.09 @ 9:24AM|#

The countours of acceptable political debate:

OBAMA: Gay couples should have most of the benefits of marriage except the name.

GAY LIB ACTIVISTS: You bigot! How dare you deny us the name of marriage!

OBAMA: I'm not going to attack Don't Ask, Don't Tell, because it would be politically imprudent. I remember what happened to Bill Clinton in 1993.

GAY LIB ACTIVISTS: How dare you! You should fall on your sword if necessary in order to attack Don't Ask, Don't tell!

OBAMA: In accordance with by broad views of Congressional power, I will ask the courts not to overrule the decision of Congress on DOMA. And I *did* tell the voters that I believed marriage was one man plus one woman, and I think the voters need to be soothed, as much as I dislike the need to cater to their whims.

GAY LIB ACTIVISTS: How dare you! You should file a brief demanding that the federal courts decree gay marriage immediately!

Chad|6.18.09 @ 9:24AM|#

My feeling is that the Obama administration simply puts a low priority on gay-rights issues because they know the battle is already over. It is just a matter of time.

Obama sees no reason to pick a fight that is going to go decisively his way in the next 10-20 years anyway.

|6.18.09 @ 9:29AM|#

Nick, nice work on the last paragraph. I think that is really sound.

Kevin|6.18.09 @ 9:30AM|#

When I read about this, and about the protests against the DC scholarship program, I'm given hope that maybe this is the time for the rise of libertarianism.

But in the heat of an election, the two big parties show how skilled they are at making people forget what they've done, and convincing people that the other party is out to do horrible things to them. So in four years, this whole thing will be swept under the rug.

The real challenge we have is to get people to realize they are constantly being taken advantage of by their political party.

Tricky Prickears|6.18.09 @ 9:37AM|#

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. Marriage, straight or gay, is an antiquated institution.

|6.18.09 @ 9:50AM|#

Marriage, straight or gay, is an antiquated institution.

Man, a lot of institutions are antiquated.

|6.18.09 @ 9:56AM|#

Why are there not more libertarian gay and lesbians?

I would hazard their number to certainly be no more of a percentage of the gay community than straight libertarians are of the wider citizenry.

In fact in many cities (San Francisco and New York among them) I would surmise that the libertarian gay populations are lower than the US average [admittedly with a much larger Left-Libertarian contingent than elsewhere]

As someone who would know, there is nothing inherent in performing fellatio that would cause one to support larger state power.

Yet the gay community by decently large margins are to the left of center on purely economic matters.

Is it simply that "we" support those who support us, and it just so happens that they believe in a stronger government in this mixed economy of ours, so we must support larger government role in the economy too?

|6.18.09 @ 10:55AM|#

The Libertarian Party.

We welcome and support queers and dykes.

OK, the slogan needs some work.

Shannon Love|6.18.09 @ 10:55AM|#

Obama comes from the very narrow and insular political subculture of Chicago, far-left, African-Americans. His priorities are the priorities of that subculture. The primary goal of the subculture is the socialization of as much of American day-to-day life as possible. Everything else is sacrificed towards that goal.

He cares next to nothing about foreign policy and seeks to ignore it as much as possible. The last thing he wants is a major foreign policy crisis that would distract support from his domestic economic agenda. Likewise, he cares little for gay-rights because the issue can not help him but can only hurt him.

Obama has never taken a political risk in his entire career. He always choses the safest course for himself. He won't stick his neck out for gay-rights or any other issues that threatens his central agenda or his power. He's like Clinton. He will do what is best for himself and to hell with his supporters.

|6.18.09 @ 11:04AM|#

Why are there not more libertarian gay and lesbians?

Gay marriage.

Nick supports it, I think, as do a lot of the Reason editors, but plenty of libertarians don't. Or they're coy about the issue.

Yet the gay community by decently large margins are to the left of center on purely economic matters.

Yeah, you clearly don't know many gay people. The gay people I know (and hang out with on a pretty much regular basis) mostly either don't think about the economic issues or don't care about the economic issues. There are plenty of left-leaners, but they're there because of the gay rights issue. As a teenager, I turned to the Democrats for the same reason. As a young person, it was easy to respond to the hate of the religious right by turning to what seemed the only moral alternative (back when my brain was still all foggy, and I saw the government as a moral institution). The thought went something like this: They think I'm evil; I'm definitely not evil; they must be evil; the Democrats must be good!

If libertarians reached out to the gays, they'd take a solid chunk. I'm sure of it.

|6.18.09 @ 11:07AM|#

It's true that Obama has not been a leader on gay rights. By that I mean he has chosen not to advance the issue using his bully pulpit but instead, it seems, chosen to let it play out in the states and evolve toward inevitability without any potential backlashes that come with going to fast on a cultural issue.

Of course it was heartening that a threat of boycotting a Dem fundraiser caused him to throw us a few crumbs. As a disadvantaged minority we do have a leg up in that we actually have enough money to represent an interest group to Dem politicians.

|6.18.09 @ 11:08AM|#

Oh, my bad. You're gay, aren't you? Haha, oh well.

|6.18.09 @ 11:10AM|#

Of course it was heartening that a threat of boycotting a Dem fundraiser caused him to throw us a few crumbs.

This is a joke, right?

Fags aren\'t libertarian becau|6.18.09 @ 11:18AM|#

Fag "rights" are all about power, not equality: power to force kids into their brainwashing centers, i.e. "public" (government) schools, power to impose government-mandated employee benefits for their fake "marriages" on churches and private businesses, and power to suppress all dissent in academia and the scientific community with their APA lapdog lobby and control of government funding. They screech about not getting their way now, but you'll notice there wasn't any huge rush to the marriage office or the military in Canada when they got their way up there.

Of course they're not into libertarianism! Why would they want to put a stop to power grabs when they've been so successful at it already? For that matter, you "Libertarians" are just as much in favor of their power-grabbing as they are: when's the last time any of you spineless jellyfish had any debate with these totalitarian fags where you actually advocated strongly for privatization of marriage against their militant advocacy for more government thought control? (Hey, let'em have their fraudulent piece of paper if they like, just not on my community's good name. Get it from one of those Hell-bound Satan-worshiping churches like the one that had Tiller the Killer as one of its members; they're not that hard to find.)

When's the last time you advocated for solving all the arguments we've all been having for years and years about who should be teaching what in the schools by advocating for the abolition of government schooling? Why aren't you screaming bloody murder over that "hate crimes" legislation they're slipping through Congress right now? Do you realize how much the pedophiles are licking their chops over that one on their forums? Boy, you're really in good company, aren't you, fags? Yeah, you're all for power grabbing when it's power for your fellow perverts! Get your tongues out of their bungs, you child molesting thought-crime-legislation-loving hypocrites!

Hey! Screechers! Leave those kids alone! See you in Hell, fags!

Shannon Love|6.18.09 @ 11:23AM|#

Did anyone else hear a screeching rant just now? Weird, maybe this thread is haunted.

|6.18.09 @ 11:46AM|#

I guess the secret's out... might as well not hide it anymore. We won't stop our reign of oppression until all children are gay married and Details magazine is required reading in schools! Oh and bung tonguing will be the only acceptable sexual activity under the Gayliban.

Alan Vanneman|6.18.09 @ 11:54AM|#

Obama sees health care and the environment, probably where his ideas are worst, as his legacy issues. He will compromise anything else to win on those two.

One can hope that he will fail on both, which might somehow encourage him to go back to liberal/libertarian positions on civil liberties, government secrecy, governement surveillance, gay rights, etc. Or one can simply start hitting the absinthe before noon. Either will be equally effective.

|6.18.09 @ 12:19PM|#

Alan, Obama may be compromising on gay rights, but he isn't compromising on privacy; he's straight up shitting on it. I really don't see him as a civil libertarian. I see him as a means-to-the-end sort.

Rhywun|6.18.09 @ 12:39PM|#

Is it simply that "we" support those who support us, and it just so happens that they believe in a stronger government in this mixed economy of ours, so we must support larger government role in the economy too?

Yes, if by "support" you mean "lip service". Nick is right--both parties play this game. Which is pretty much the only way to go when there are only two parties that matter.

|6.18.09 @ 2:57PM|#

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. Marriage, straight or gay, is an antiquated institution.

It's not nearly as antiquated an institution as the state. While neither is going to go away in the near future, I would much rather efforts be spent minimizing the state rather than minimizing marriage.

Robert|6.18.09 @ 5:14PM|#

30 years ago a libertarian discussion group in Chicago had a speaker on gays, lesbians, and liberty; I forgot who he was, but he said at the time that gays (not sure about lesbians) actually tended to be more politically conservative than the general population. That may have been true only temporarily and/or locally.

Right now I think the "screeching rant" is more or less correct. Gays and lesbians have in the Western world gotten pretty much all there is in terms of liberty, and most who were politically interested up to that point quit there, and the remainder who are still political have turned to grabbing for privilege. There's a limit to the appeal of libertarianism to self-interest; most libertarian activists are interested more in the liberty of others.

|6.18.09 @ 6:47PM|#

Why the shock? Does anyone think this guy is going to do anything he promised? If you did..you need a shrink or sleep meds. He only wants power. He hungers for it. Don't get in his way. He will eat you. Get it now?

|6.18.09 @ 6:55PM|#

Please forgive my innocence, but I'm having trouble with "gay". What defines gay beyond a sexual preference. It is a preference, yes? While I have no objection to anyone's [legal] preferences, what is it about a sexual preference that entitles one to anything?

|6.18.09 @ 7:11PM|#

Obama has the gay vote locked up, and needs the votes of people who are ambivalent or in opposition to gay marriage.

So the only logical choice for him is to officially oppose it, with a nudge and a wink, and do nothing about it.

24AheadDotCom|6.18.09 @ 7:21PM|#

The "libertarian" answer to EdAnger writes: Which is precisely the reason to squeeze their power and influence over citizens and human activity to the bare minimum, whether we're talking about the bedroom or the boardroom.

Of course, in Reason's universe, some forms of the power of the elites over the rest of us is OK. Such as when they're using their bully pulpit to play the Nazi card against those who support our laws. Reason has written several articles about CA's financial problems, completely avoiding any mention that a good part of those problems are due to things Reason supports.

P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs delivered through sockpuppets, thereby conceding my points and showing the cowardly, childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians. Remember: you're never anonymous on the internet. Write everything like it's going to be the #1 search result for your real name in Google.

|6.18.09 @ 7:34PM|#

James wrote:
"I'd say despite Obama's reluctance, Democrats have earned the gay vote considering how far we've come in twenty years."

Huh? We've had Bush I and Bush II for 12 out of those 20 years. For that matter, the entire era since Stonewall has been dominated by Republicans and conservatives. We've come light years during this period. Either the changes have little to do with politics, or somehow conservative eras are good for gays.

In either case, how can you possibly give Dems credit for what happened in the Republican era?

|6.18.09 @ 7:51PM|#

If you are a homosexual, and want equality, you have a party -- The Democratic Party. True, it may let you down, it may not fight hard for you, but it is much more sympathetic on that issue, than the GOP.

If you are a homosexual, and value liberty, you have a party -- The Republican Party. True, it will let you down in many arenas (bedroom, abortion, gov't spending), but it is much more sympathetic to that system of values, than the Democratic Party.

If you're not so concerned about party labels, and view both major parties as systemically flawed and seek to quash liberty by separate means, well, you have a lot of sympathy from this blogging community. You're a Libetarian.

As a matter of pure common sense, it would be better for gays (and blacks) to send 30% of their members to the GOP, just to make headway within that party on some of these important issues.

|6.18.09 @ 8:15PM|#

As a matter of pure common sense, it would be better for gays (and blacks) to send 30% of their members to the GOP, just to make headway within that party on some of these important issues.

ABSOFRICKENLOUTELY!!! I will never understand why the minority special interest groups have never figured this out. The GOP won't give any real thought to the black/gay vote because they know they won't get any real support there anyway and the Dems know they don't have to give them much because they'll get the vote no matter what.

|6.18.09 @ 9:03PM|#

"Brandybuck | June 18, 2009, 2:57pm | #

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. Marriage, straight or gay, is an antiquated institution.
It's not nearly as antiquated an institution as the state. While neither is going to go away in the near future, I would much rather efforts be spent minimizing the state rather than minimizing marriage."

Are you freakin' kidding me?!?!? The state is the entire platform of our Federalist Constitution. Criminy! Move to Canada.

|6.18.09 @ 9:10PM|#

I find this puzzling:

1. What made gays that they were members of the Obamist cabal in the first place?

2. Alternatively, what made gays think that the cabal could be induced to grant them a place at the table out of gratitude and/or embarassment?

3. If the cabal tosses their cardboard cut-out away in 2012 and promotes, say, Lisa Madigan as the New Obama, what will cause gays to not run after her like they did Obama?

|6.18.09 @ 11:09PM|#

Too many people believe that government can be good if the right people are elected. Hopefully, having Obama in office will wake these people up to the fact that no one can make government good and, therefore, it should be as limited as possible.

|6.30.09 @ 3:46PM|#

I could understand the need for punishing the Republican Party by choosing the opposition. I see that Obama's campaign gave Hope to people but when they clearly state that they don't support equality or when gay democrats consciously overlook that Biden has a past of having anti-gay views, thinking that he changed his opinion when the Obama-Biden campaign started.... Is just WISHFUL THINKING...
"Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy." -Rudy Giuliani .

GREAT ARTICLE!!!!