Obama and LGBT rights

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't plan on voting for Obama again, but this is just one among many reasons. (I'm gay, of course, so I'm biased on that topic anyway.)

How much of that is due to the LGBT rights?  Was that the straw that broke the camel's back, or were you already not planning on voting for him?

Perhaps about a quarter of it, I wouldn't say it's the only or one of the only issues that make me inclined to not support his re-election, but I am incredibly disappointed in what I've seen so far, and even moreso in the sweet-nothings he occasionally tosses our way.

My main reason for not supporting Obama is that he is spineless, like most other Democrats, and suffers from the serious problem of never being able to draw a line in the sand or taking and never moving from a serious and controversial position, and fighting for it. Which I suppose ties a bit into everything.

Edit: Health care is a major example of this. He says if he was building a plan from the ground-up, he would support single payer. Then he says he thinks a public option is the best choice right now. Later he compliments minor health care reform and co-op and says a public option is "negotiable". Where does he stand? Nobody fucking knows, because he's taken every position from Left, Center Left, Center, and Center Right on this.

If, however, health care including a public plan is passed, I will support him. No issue is more important to me than that.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It doesn't help that the rump GOP is more southern-conservative-oriented than ever. (Mr. Moderate, where is the progress you're seeing?)

Nothing official, certainly.  But the fact that you're seeing a lot of prominent (public and private) GOPers coming out in favor of gay rights—Meghan McCain; Dick Cheney; Steve Schmidt. Not a heck of a lot, but it's more than you're seeing four or ten years ago.

Had McCain been elected president, you'd have probably seen four years of complete inaction on gay issues from the executive. This really isn't much different from what we'll see from four years of Obama.

As bad as you want to believe the GOP is, there's no denying that Republicans keep increasing their support in the gay community year after year.  "Republicans suck" is not an effective means at keeping gays in the Democratic camp long term—Democrats actually need to take action and leadership on gay issues. I try to go out of my way to support Republicans who moderate themselves on gay issues (people like Charlie Dent, for instance), and I'm looking forward to a crop of gay-friendly Republican Senate candidates in 2010.

I know there's a lot of disagreement on this, but if you keep voting for the half loaf, you'll never get anything more than a half loaf.

[Holmes]

Harkin, Schumer, Dodd, among others, have all come out in support this year as well. And they're more powerful than a campaign manager, an unpopular ex-VP and a failed candidate's daughter.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Harkin, Schumer, Dodd, among others, have all come out in support this year as well. And they're more powerful than a campaign manager, an unpopular ex-VP and a failed candidate's daughter.

"We support it but the public isn't ready" doesn't get you much further than "we don't support it." Democrats have the numbers and votes to make all sorts of advances on gay rights, but it's not politically expedient to do so, so they're dragging their feet.

Good for Harkin, Dodd, et al., but the bar is naturally set higher for Democrats.  We expect more out of them.  We don't expect anything out of Republicans, so when we get it, it's reason to take notice.

In any case, the argument isn't that Republicans are gay friendly.  It's that they're becoming more gay friendly, and for once there actually seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel.

[Holmes]

I'm reminded of, in New Hampshire, when Senator Reynold voted against the marriage bill in committee because she said she didn't think New Hampshire was ready. Then she got flooded with constituents telling her that she should vote in favor of it. Reynolds represents a more rural part of the state(I'm sure you know), so I don't think it's a Democratic/Republican divide(in some regions of the country), but the fact that Republican lawmakers represent more rural districts, whereas most rallies and marches are in big cities, which Democrats represent.

[Verily]

I'm reminded of, in New Hampshire, when Senator Reynold voted against the marriage bill in committee because she said she didn't think New Hampshire was ready. Then she got flooded with constituents telling her that she should vote in favor of it. Reynolds represents a more rural part of the state(I'm sure you know), so I don't think it's a Democratic/Republican divide(in some regions of the country), but the fact that Republican lawmakers represent more rural districts, whereas most rallies and marches are in big cities, which Democrats represent.

Reynolds was just being dumb. Her district is probably the most in favor of gay marriage of every district in NH. It's Vermont-lite.

Anyway, I tend to agree with Moderate that strategically the Democrats are making a mistake by not pursuing gay rights more strongly. But I think he's also way overinflating the degree to which that's actually hurting the Democrats in the gay community--at least compared to the Republicans (maybe not in comparison to apathy). It's still the Democrats who are defending gay marriage from the legislature in Iowa (and Republicans who are making it central to their 2010 state campaign strategy), it's still Democrats who voted for gay marriage in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, it's still Democrats who campaigned against Prop 8... and not Republicans, in significant numbers, in any of those cases.

[Brittain33]

Nothing official, certainly.  But the fact that you're seeing a lot of prominent (public and private) GOPers coming out in favor of gay rights—Meghan McCain; Dick Cheney; Steve Schmidt. Not a heck of a lot, but it's more than you're seeing four or ten years ago.

I did think Steve Schmidt's statement was striking. I suppose my response is that I'm not seeing the Republicans move any faster on this than the Democrats, who have been embracing marriage equality in larger numbers whereas only a few years ago it was considered toxic by pretty much every senator, including those who voted against DOMA. I also don't know how long it would take for Republican debates about tactics to have an impact on actual party policy. 20 years ago, Barbara Bush was playing the same role as Meghan McCain on abortion, and it had no lasting effect.

I think that as long as there is a sizable minority of the country opposing gay rights, that minority will have a home in the Republican Party. I don't see what changes that. What matters is what the Republicans do with that, and outside of a few state parties in the northeast I am not seeing change. Or, I should put it, not seeing change relative to the Democrats, who are moving left.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have to disagree with this. I have never felt that Obama was going to deliver big on gay issues. I don't believe they are important to him or that he empathizes with gays. I have also been critical of his record, which has demonstrated tremendous risk aversion. That said, I think it is far too early to pass judgment. I think we may well see progress, and more importantly, our discourse will be anchored further to the left than it would have been under President McCain (who arguably has less empathy for gays than George W. Bush does, IMO.)

We will see ENDA pass if Congress maneuvers it. I don't know if McCain would have signed it or if Democrats in Congress would have bothered if a veto were coming. We will see federal policies interpreted to favor gays whereas before they were interpreted harshly. Having Obama appointees include thousands of people who are comfortable with gays as opposed to Monica Goodling types who will go above and beyond to hurt us in their appointed positions is a plus. So is the old standby, judges. I'm glad that if and when DOMA comes before the Supreme Court, not now, Sotomayor will be one of the judges ruling on it. We will say gay appointees to higher offices including, eventually, a Cabinet secretaryship.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's plenty of denying that, no? There seems to be a hardcore base of gays who will vote Republican no matter what, approximately 25%, with a larger number who are persuadable but won't vote for Republican candidates who declare jihad on gays. I've been having this debate since I was a sophomore in college and dating a gay Republican in the early days of the Republican Congress. Don't you remember when Bill Weld and Christie Whitman were held up as the future of the GOP in part on issues like this? I can tell you that prospects for gay Republicanism looked better than they do now.

Don't get me wrong, I respect what you're doing and your beliefs, and believe there is a future for gays in the Republican Party because the trends in our society are clear. However, I simply can't share your optimism about the Party becoming responsive to this in any way until I see some action. People criticize Obama for not acting on gay rights since inauguration, but we've seen even less from Republican legislators to stop pandering on this issue and start rebuilding. Perhaps because, as I've argued and others agree, Republicans must keep a social conservative base. The only way out for Republicans on federal issues is for society to make such progress on gay rights that the new center of this issue makes it feasible for Republicans to move left without losing too much of their base. I don't know when that will happen, but with 2004 in living memory, it isn't soon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On a federal level, it's enough to impose a ceiling on gay votes for Republicans. Fear matters. Whether having a cap on gay votes is a problem for Republicans, I don't know. Numerically we just don't matter much. It's about straight people who are turned off by vivid intolerance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I support you and think that's a good thing. But what will you be able to do if those reps are whipped on gay issues? What have they done in the past? I think there's a chance for moderates to carve out space, but I haven't yet seen signs from leadership this will be permitted. This is largely because the leadership is weak, period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I think that less than one half of a term after one election is way too early to say "keep voting."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Most Blacks oppose Gay Marriage, thats all I'm saying. Polls showed 70% opposed it. Do I like that? Nope. But All I'm saying is that if this was put to a vote, it would have a really hard time.

Prop. 8 won about 30% in some heavily black areas of Oakland, so whatever.

[MODU]

So, I'm a big supporter of equal rights for the whole LGBT crew, and as far as I can tell, Obama signed that one little piece of legislation marginally increasing nominal recognition for some nonsense that didn't matter. Besides that, nothing has changed with 60 Democratic Senators and the most popular Democratic President since Kennedy.

Are any LGBT rights supports/actual LGBT people thinking of jumping ship if Obama doesn't deliver on anything by '12, even voting for a third party/independent candidate?

LGBT's already have the same rights as any other single person out there.  If you are talking about legal recognition for things like marriage, adoption, health care, etc, then you need to use the proper terms.  None of those latter items are "rights," but rather privileges and access to services.

As far as your question, you're barking up the wrong tree.  You've got to get the states involved and change their laws.  It will be really heard to push something like this from the top-down, especially when it impacts just a small portion of the population.  National debate on the legal recognition of gay unions only grew following a handful of states challenging the status quo, not from action in Washington.

[Phony Moderate]

I'm disapointed by him so far on the issue of gay rights, i'm gay myself so obviously it matters to me. That said, FDR could have done more about the black civil rights issue too, and Bill Clinton was basically a DINO when it came to gay rights.

Despite my username, i would rather Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel were the President now.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

As far as your question, you're barking up the wrong tree.  You've got to get the states involved and change their laws.  It will be really heard to push something like this from the top-down, especially when it impacts just a small portion of the population.  National debate on the legal recognition of gay unions only grew following a handful of states challenging the status quo, not from action in Washington.

Unfortunately, no, this will never result in the equality that is being sought. I've said this for a long time and I truly believe it: Gay rights (and I make no apologies for using the word "rights"), including that to marry, will have to come from a federal court.

The south wanted to own and keep slaves.  The south wanted to prevent black people from voting.  Sometimes, hands need to be forced in the effort of what's right.  Politicians are too scared to do that.  Courts often aren't.

If we as a nation were content with waiting for action on a state level, there would still be places where it would be impossible for a black person to cast a ballot or even use the same water fountains as everyone else.

[Ogre Mage]

Are any LGBT rights supports/actual LGBT people thinking of jumping ship if Obama doesn't deliver on anything by '12, even voting for a third party/independent candidate?

I would not vote for another candidate just based on LGBT rights alone, and this is coming from a gay person.  I think single issue voting is foolish.  That said, the Administration's performance has been poor on gay rights.  If all they can do is muster some token hate crimes bill by 2012, I will not be donating or assisting his reelection campaign.

Grassroots effort at the state level is important.  Such an action helps build momentum for a federal case.  Yes, there are some states which will never accept gay marriage.  But it is when there is conflict in the lower courts or states -- with some areas accepting gay marriage while others continue to reject it -- that the Supreme Court is most likely to take up the case and hopefully rule in favor of gay rights.  And then there is the actual composition of the Court itself, which is a separate issue and a strong reason I support Democratic Presidents.  A Republican President will not appoint a gay-friendly Justice except by accident (David Souter).

[CJK]

I sincerely hope that Obama begins to actively promote gay marriage. The more backlash the better chances for conservative victories in 2010.

[ChrisJG777]

I sincerely hope that Obama begins to actively promote gay marriage. The more backlash the better chances for conservative victories in 2010.

Somehow it's very doubtful he will.