No "Respect" in Obama's Gay Rights Record

The New Republic: Although the President Granted Some Rights to Same-Sex Partners of Fed Employees, It's Not Enough

(The New Republic)  This magazine has made no secret of its high regard for Barack Obama. Which makes it all the more distressing for us to observe the approach that his administration is taking on gay rights. During the campaign, Obama said all the right things (well, almost all--like most national politicians, he wouldn't endorse same-sex marriage). He invoked the importance of winning "equality" and "dignity" and "respect" for gays and lesbians. Now he is president. And one of the perks of being president is that you get to lead. But, when it comes to gay issues, leading does not seem to interest this White House.

There was, during the first few months of the administration, an understandable reluctance among liberals to believe that gay rights were being systematically sidelined--and a genuine willingness to be patient on the issue. Yes, the prominence of Rick Warren at the inauguration was irksome. But Obama had to reach out to religious conservatives somehow, to show them that he intended to be the president of Red America, too. And, yes, Obama seemed to evince little initial interest in fulfilling either of his principal campaign pledges to the gay community: finally permitting gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and repealing the noxious Defense of Marriage of Act signed by Bill Clinton back in 1996. But let's be realistic: He had two wars to fight, an economy to mend, and an environment to save. And no one expected gay rights to be his top priority. Give him time, the thinking went.

But then hints began to trickle out that this optimism might be misplaced. First, there were the comments of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who told Fox News in March that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell "has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration"--then added, "The president and I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now and let's push that one down the road a little bit." Two months later came the revelation that the Justice Department had submitted a rather energetic brief in federal court backing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act--the very same act Obama had pledged to repeal. Assailed by liberals, the administration protested that it was merely standard practice for the government to submit briefs in defense of existing law. That was true, as far as it went. But defending existing law, while the norm, is not a requirement; and administrations have declined to do so in the past over far less significant matters.

So last week, perhaps stung by growing outrage within the gay community, Obama signed a memorandum giving same-sex partners of federal employees some, but not all, of the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual spouses. (Notably missing: health care.) At the signing ceremony, Obama explained that he was prevented from going further by existing law. Then he pledged to try to get the law changed. This is all well and good. But if Obama thinks that these scraps can make up for the otherwise dismal record he is accumulating on gay issues, then he is quite mistaken.

In all of this, nothing is more infuriating than Obama's refusal to act on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It is true that the issue affects a relatively small number of gays and lesbians. But discrimination in our armed forces carries a potent symbolism: It tells an entire class of people that the country is not interested in their service. And it would be an easy problem to fix. As Nathaniel Frank argued at tnr Online last month, Obama may need Congress's approval to officially repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but he has the legal authority to tell the Pentagon to stop enforcing the policy via executive order. He could do it tomorrow. As for the political risks: Obama should look at some polls. Unlike same-sex marriage, the question of whether gays should serve openly in the military is no longer a particularly controversial issue. According to Gallup, 69 percent of Americans believe gays should be able to serve openly. To put that number in perspective, it is 25 points higher than the percentage of Americans who endorse Obama's handling of health care, 19 points higher than the percentage who currently support the war in Afghanistan, and 18 points higher than the percentage who approve of the administration's economic policies. Obama is not afraid to push health care reform, send more troops to Afghanistan, or stand by his stimulus program--nor should he be. But why, when it comes to the far less controversial cause of gays serving in the military, is he apparently willing to punt?

And so, the Pentagon continues to expel gay troops. The Defense of Marriage Act continues to wreak havoc on the lives of gay families. And we fail to perceive "equality" or "dignity" or "respect" in any of this.

[usnjake]

I would have to say that in 2012 it will depend on what my options are.

But I realize there are a lot of issues on the President's plate, the economy, for example. My thought is even a bad dsay with President Obama is head and shoulders above anything the Republican Party have to offer. I am not one of those people who seem to want everything right now.

So as I said in my original posting, I will be patient.

[armyoftwelve]

Again, a marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. This has been established in US law since colonial times.

There is no benefit to the whole of society to redefine marriage and alter it to include alternative lifestyles.

It might be helpful to discuss civil unions and the determine what benefits we can afford to extend to people that choose to be in those unions. I believe that we should extend as many benefits as possible as long as the cost of those benefits is negligible. For example, it really doesn't cost society anything to let one woman transfer her assets to another woman when she dies...it doesn't cost society anything to allow one man to make end of life decisions for another man.

To put same-sex couples (regardless of their sexuality) on the same
plane is just stupid. The next generation of citizens aren't coming from same-sex couples.

[polisigh]

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is the law. I would argue that it is an unwise and unneeded law, but it is the law. I think Obama will select a politically expedient time to try to change it. I think Obama will leave it to the states to change same- s e x marriage law, whether by the courts or by legislation.

[armyoftwelve]

Don't Ask-Don't Tell was devised by President Clinton. A man that most Americans have fond memories of. People like you don't understand things like unit cohesion and discipline.

President Obama spoke out AGAINST same-sex marriage repeatedly in the 2008 presidential campaign. Are you saying you want him to break his promises??

[icjunior97]

Okay lets do a a honest review. Marriage is a civil contract between two adults. The religious part is not legal until you sign the civil paperwork and it goes on file. You want to know what the biggest threat to marriage is? Divorce! Which is by the way right around 52% in America right now. Why are you not concern about that fact?
As a veteran of our armed forces, when someone is dying on another country soil while fighting for this country. Does it really matter who they are writing home to? They are dying as Americans.
Yes once again the gay community has given their vote to the Dems, and once again they have been forgotten. It is not the first time, will not be the last. So why people are surprised is amazing to me.
Another shocking thing to me is this
I follow the laws of this country, I pay my taxes, and have served for my country. Yet I have less rights then someone who is prison.

[sj44]

Hey CBSNEWS webmaster, you need to be careful not to completely delete my other emails that don't satisfy your personal agenda and trample my right to free speech on an open forum. Let see how many comments make it to the screen slicing religious people and their positions.

[sj44]

By the way homosexuality is not genetic. Just check out Discover magazine June 2007. This is proof positive that there is no homosexual gene.

[sj44]

Wow, CBSNEWS will permit a comment from a pro homosexual blogger deriding a religious group and thus creating a double standard based on their own rules of engagement! Yet I cannot say anything concerning the homosexual agenda wow real freedom of speech.

[speakinup22]

Sad but true - I've seen it happen.

But, that is what happens when you get a liberal bias media.

[armyoftwelve]

A marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Anyone can marry anyone else...as long as it is to a member of the opposite gender.

The president was nice to offer a olive branch to the sodomy crowd but he is going to find that it won't be enough. He shouldn't have bothered. It may have been nice but it was not the right thing to do when this country is faced with SO many serious problems that affect ALL AMERICANS.

Frankly the new republic isn't what it used to be sine the Phillip Glass episode. Does anyone really care what ink is wasted there??

[Yeah-Me]

A marriage can also be between two consenting adults who are of the same sex. Once people can let go of their religiously biased conceptions about the matter, and seperate those from their belief that these definitions should color how our laws should be interpreted, only then can we really start seeing some civil rights equalities being shared amongst ALL americans.

Until then, my own perceptions of our great nation will pretty much equate to being a third world nation when it comes to equality for all of its people.

[staycalm]

Nothing will ever be enough for the gay community. They think that in one generation the world is supposed to throw out centuries of conventional wisdom regarding their "orientation". What they do and the way they live is not the norm and it is not healthy. In my many years in Broadway musicals I have witnessed numerous seductions of teenage boys by gay chorus members, choreographers, directors and music directors. They usually use alcohol and/or pot and many protestations of how talented the boy is an what a great future they see for him on Broadway, etc. We have just been through 15 years of scandal in the Catholic Church due to the molestations of pre-teen boys by gay priests...and NO they are not pedophiles...they are GAY! The majority of the boys they molested were in the same age range as the ones in the musicals. Everyone in the church knows that the seminaries are full of gay neophytes and these are the sames ones who go on to molest. No, you do not have my respect nor do I percieve any dignity among your members. By and large, you are a bunch of flambouyant men behaving like teenagers yourselves who are simply unable to get enough $ex. $ex is really what your movement is all about as other posters have commented above...you do not seem to care about anything else that is going on in this country. Like spoiled teenagers, you want what you want and you want it now. You cannot "win" respect and dignity nor can you force us to believe that you have "pride" just because you march in a parade wearing ridiculous costumes and behave badly. Pride, dignity, respect...these are honors bestowed on those who have earned them through personal sacrifice to a cause higher than themselves. Your movement is about nothing other than yourselves.

[caeric]

We are doctors and teachers, service members and law enforcement personnel, paramedics, firefighters, counselors, coaches... the list goes on. Many of us are less visible than our more flamboyant brothers and sisters. You don't notice us as often because we live our lives the same way most Americans do - working, spending time with friends and family, and trying to make our lives and those of the people around us better.

We, too, are affected by this inequality. We fight this fight in our own way, often much more quietly, in the same way that most Americans quest for positive change. We are no less compassionate, no less determined, but we have chosen a different path towards equality. We hope for a better and more just tomorrow.

Generalization is treacherous ground. As with the generalization about who we are, the generalization about ?centuries of conventional wisdom? is also incorrect. Customs and cultures from around the world are so diverse, historically and currently. There is no validity in a general assumption about homosexuality because we have been everything from reviled to holy. What we have been, in every culture, is IN every culture. There has been no time and no place that we did not exist.

In times of a limited worldview, there may have been little option but to believe what one?s society taught. Now, in what should be a more enlightened and knowledgeable age, we have many cultures and many beliefs to draw upon. We should no longer be limited to a single worldview. As such, we have the ability to gauge more accurately our own beliefs against the greater truth. In this case, that truth is that ALL people should be treated equally and fairly under the law. Freedom and equality should not be subject to a vote, for no group, who expect and take for granted certain civil rights, should dictate, define and constrain those same civil rights in relation to another group.

That concept is central to the founding of this nation. It is unfortunate that we have missed understanding this so often in our nation?s history, that we have so often gotten it wrong. It seems so simple in concept, but it is so hard in practice. People cling to what they know, and fear what they do not. And they blame, scapegoat, magnify the negative of those they do not understand simply because they do not understand, while forgetting that the same negatives happen amongst all peoples.

Yes, I want equality now, as I want equality for all people. I do understand, however, that it will take time and patience. I am still human though. I can be disappointed, upset, and yes, even angry at times, but so can we all.

I demand equality, because it is only right, only fair, and guaranteed by the Constitution of these United States. It should be a given, not a question. So should all people demand, who truly believe in the ideals set forth in the founding of this nation. But I demand quietly more often than not, by living my life day to day, knowing the people I know, loving the people I love, and trying to change people?s minds for the more hopeful future, one person at a time.

[Yeah-Me]

Beautifully stated caeric.

[pw08-2009]

The gay marriage movement has become an issue that continues to lose support because there is nothing else in world or national politics as important to the gay community, apparently...All of your tactics and spokespeople have been wrong because the issue is wrong.

[usnjake]

As a gay servicemember currently serving in our armed forces, I am anxiously awaiting his promise to do away with DADT. Marriage rights, to me, are a no-brainer, but it just seems that being told to "be patient" is becoming a way of life.

President Obama had my vote in 2008. He will again if he delivers on what he promised. He has roughly three and a half years to do so... so I am patiently waiting for him to prove he is a man of his word.

[Yeah-Me]

And I would like to say Thank You for your sacrifice and service.

*bow*

[jon2012-2009]

I would still vote for Obama anytime as long as I continue to believe that he offers the best choice of competing candidates. I don't think the Republicans have really anything better to offer on gays, global warming, separation of church and state, the economy, energy, health care--just about any issue on my radar. I could vote for Clinton, I guess, but this won't happen until after 2012.

What you have to focus on is the real enemy here.

[speakinup22]

And, if he doesn't ?

[speakinup22]

Once again, the Democrats have made a promise to a set of voters, and then broken that promise.


Are you REALLY surprised ?



How many times are you going to allow this to happen ?




How's that change and hope workin out for ya'll ?

[jon2012-2009]

Once again? I didn't know that anything has changed in politics. The important measure of success in an administration is whether at the end of the day the people of this country were served or not and if so, how well.

[jon2012-2009]

I would say that Obama is more conservative on social issues than he would like to admit to liberals. He is a politician and all successful politicans have the natural impulse to project an image that can win votes in a tough primary. For the ecnomic problems that GWB and his Republican allies have left us--the huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the two wars, have led to these massigve deficits so they get the blame--Obama is the better man (than McCain) for the job. On gays and abortion, forget him.

[speakinup22]

You still worried about McCain, or still justifying your position ?

[fmg334]

ffoulkes - Equal rights are not "extra rights." And in a country that denies equal rights to some, the rights of all are constantly in danger.

And yes, gay votes for Obama were wasted. He's a politician like all the rest, and now that he's sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office, f*gs like us are expendable.

[ffoulkes-2009]

Equal rights means I won't stop a gay man from marrying any woman he chooses and who chooses him too...same with gay woman marrying a man...anything beyond that is extra.

Girls and boys - he doesn't care. He doesn't give care a whit about f*gs like us. Get used to it. You wasted your vote. So did I. But I won't again.

[dartplayer501]

So you'll vote republican next time? HAH!

[speakinup22]

Nope dartplayer501, gays won't be voting for the Dems again - that's all.

[Yeah-Me]

"Someday"... Someday is such a great word for the procrastinating foot draggers.

"Someday, I'll get to LGBT equal rights issues... Someday... But first I have to do something else."

Somtimes, you just have to ask when will that proverbial "Someday" come along?

[ffoulkes-2009]

Extra rights for a small percentage of Americans vs. an Economy that affects ALL Americans, and the World...hrm...Let me see which should be the focus of a President...

[jon2012-2009]

Same-sex marriage is not "extra" because as a civil contract (not religious), it is available to all adults, just as straight marriage is. It is a right in that one may choose to exercise it or not depending on the indidivual.

The basic principle here is fairness and the constitutional equality under the law. The law goes after gays when they cheat on their taxes, commit homicide, park illegally just as much as straights. Do they get a break because they're gay? Of course, not and no one would argue that they should. So why don't they get to enjoy all of the same rights without restrictions as anyone else?

Their day will come, I really hope. Again, Republicans are on the wrong side here.