The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Joe Markowitz — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:28:55 -0000

I understand the thinking that if someone is against gay marriage, they must be against equal rights for gays, but I think that logic is flawed. Until recently, I believe it was possible to be in favor of gay rights, but to be against gay marriage. There was a respectable position that civil unions could provide all of the legal rights of marriage, without using the word marriage, a word which we should not use out of respect to the deeply-held views of a large segment of the public. That position is probably no longer sustainable, due to court decisions and changing public attitudes, and that is why Obama now says that his views on gay marriage are evolving. He is still and always has been progressive on gay rights in general, however.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Sol — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:47:49 -0000

I would like to call 'time out' on comparisons of Obama with Lincoln or any one else. He didn't finish his first term in the Senate and isn't even 6 months into his presidency. Of course he hasn't addressed the concerns of all his constituencies. Even a stalwart conservative like Charles Krauthammer has expressed shocked awe at the range of challenges Obama has taken on, so many of which are 'third rails' that the cliche needs to be revised. And Obama has now added immigration reform to the list.

Next topic. Petty sniping about Wilentz and the failed Clinton run for the White House campaign ignores what even The Economist, a magazine where news and spin are particularly hard to separate, can see. One of their recent columns says that Clinton's appointment as Sec. of State may be his most successful.

I agree. Obama saw through the small mindedness among his campaign staff and Democractic circles and of course vulture journalists, and recognized her brains, professionalism, maturity and personal integrity. When she accepted his offer she obviously made a full commitment to the job and is giving it everything she has. I was one of the skeptics, thinking that she would have trouble with the reality that Obama would get the brighter spotlights, the bigger headlines. I was completely wrong.

There has been a lot of talk about Lincoln and his Cabinet. Obama is getting off to a great start with his own. I worry about, am skeptical about, some big things in his short record, like compromises on cap and trade or possible big health care concessions. But it's far too early to know. DADT and DOMA are important, but I am OK with Obama's priorities.

Recommended reading on Lincoln and race is "Lincoln on Race and Slavery", intro and edited by Henry Louis Gates. Garry Wills has a fine essay/review in June 11, 2009 The New York Review of Books. Read the Wills review, at least.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

hal2010 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:19:50 -0000

"Blackface, in the narrow sense, is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to take on the appearance of certain archetypes of American racism, especially those of the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified coon ". Blackface in the broader sense includes similarly stereotyped performances even when they do not involve blackface makeup."

Sorry, but the Bush in blackface irks me. It just doesn't apply to an actual black man.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Adam Serwer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:29:53 -0000

I think there's also the issue that the administration is technically obligated to uphold the laws as they currently exist, whether they like them or not. But I understand why that's not the least bit comforting to the gay community.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Adam Serwer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:27:07 -0000

I think that's a fair assessment, slavery was the dominant issue of the day in a way that gay rights is not.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Cornet Mustich — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:07:00 -0000

Re: Obama, DOMA, DADT, "war" funding, national health, bail-outs for the looters on Wall St, Israel-Palestine, etc...

Obama is looking more and more like Bush in black face to me....but this guy knows better....

Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,

Washington, Connecticut

Kudos to New England (sans RI) and Iowa for supporting marriage.

And to the marriage foes...remember, we have freedom of religion, and also freedom from religion in America...so find something else to do with your time, because life's too short. Find love..

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

TW — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:48:08 -0000

Actually, I don't think you're an idiot, I had similar thoughts about this issue just yesterday. I kept going back and forth about whether Obama should just issue an executive order to freeze the enforcement of DADT or if he should push repeal of the statute through Congress -- honestly, I think that doing both would be helpful. It's not a perfect solution, but it is a good starting point.

But then I was reading a blog post on the Swamp, and they were talking about how legislation that would repeal DADT was introduced in 2005, but has never made it out of committee...why is that? My thing is this legislation had the support of Congress in 1993, so the current members of Congress should be forced to man up and either vote in favor of repeal or explain why they continue to support a policy that is harmful to our national security, treats gays and lesbians like second class citizens, and wastes hundreds of millions of our tax dollars.

I'm sick of this. People keep accusing Obama of failing to take leadership on this issue, when members of Congress had five years to repeal this policy through legislation that has already been introduced and currently has 150 sponsors.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

lupe — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:21:07 -0000

"Not even the most cautious of gay rights advocates (and there are certainly many cautious ones, and many that have been burned) think we need to go this slow for strategic reasons relating to gay rights."

Agree with abcommentator. See Obama's uebercaution on DADT although public opinion supports torpedoing it.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

abcommentator — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:05:07 -0000

Ok...you're an idiot. This idea is just spin. It's such poor spin that I'm dismayed to even have to address it. They just don't want to do it yet--for whatever reason, the possibilities are numerous--but the press wouldn't stop asking so they had to come up with something.

If anything, the experience with openly serving gays will make it that much easier for Congress to change this down the line. Either way, it stops the ongoing dismissals.

By the way, I have been in meetings where people mention that the spin doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to give the people inclined to support you something to hang a hat on. That was directed at the right, but it obviously goes both ways, and sadly it works.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

abcommentator — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:58:47 -0000

I don't think the reality on the ground warrants this historical comparison to Lincoln. Obama may be setting aside gay rights for reasons of strategy, but the strategy is not one directed at advancing gay rights . They are doing it for reasons of overall Democratic strategy. I.e., he's just willing to make it lower priority in order to achieve his other goals. I personally don't at all agree that it's as necessary as he thinks -- to me he and his key advisors are far too stuck in 1993--but it's pretty plain that's what is going on. See, e.g., Rahm's recent comments to the press about avoiding hot social issues.

Not even the most cautious of gay rights advocates (and there are certainly many cautious ones, and many that have been burned) think we need to go this slow for strategic reasons relating to gay rights . So to me an analogy where Obama is Lincoln and knows better than any one else working on the issues is both far-fetched and kind of insulting. And it ignores the much plainer story of what is happening here.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

burnstony — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:33:12 -0000

all available, appropriate means and seize the opportune moment.

the ends justifies the means - if it works out

Think about the conspiracy theories that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor - at this point 70 years it would only make him a greater hero

I also find it hard to believe any Republican was not for ending slavery wasn't that the whole point of the party in that time period

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Consumatopia — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:29:36 -0000

I'm all for respecting the automony and accomplishments of Lincoln and LBJ as people who really knew how to work the system and did so for the very best of ends.

But to draw a general lesson from that, to say that we should always just look for the dirtiest politician and assume that they have the best of intentions is a horrible mistake. It's a strange Stakhanovite elitism. Even if Lincoln was the best president and Stakhanov was the best worker, it's stupid policy to expect all presidents to be Lincoln and all workers to be Stakhanov. Most leaders need pressure and convincing to do the right thing just as most workers need incentives to work harder.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

metricpenny — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:47:22 -0000

AS writes - "It is the job of public voices and radicals to be honest--it is the job of politicians to create favorable political circumstances by all available, appropriate means and seize the opportune moment."

That about sums up what I think President Obama is doing. And, I have no problem with the strategy. Yeah, it's easy for me to support this strategy since I'm heterosexual and I'm not being deprived of MY civil rights.

I've commented on other blogs that if LGB and T Americans want to circumvent this strategy, the Obama Adminsitration and Congress are going to have to be shamed into granting them full equality faster than is planned.

Think the black civil rights movement. It wasn't the Montgomery Bus Boycott, sit-ins or even the March on Washington that got us the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was what all Americans saw in Birmingham in 1963 - the bombing of a church that killed four young Sunday schoolers; the dogs and the water hoses.

I'm not advocating that death or harm befall anyone, but usually Americans have to SEE the pain and injustice that is visited upon our discriminated Americans as a group if political action is to be taken BEFORE its "scheduled" time.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Sebastian H — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:23:49 -0000

"That administration's frustrating foot-dragging on DADT in defiance of public opinion may have to do with internal administration politics, or it may be an indication that everything I am reading into his stance is wrong. At the same time, his incremental moves--extension of federal benefits to same sex couples, appointing John Berry to the Office of Personnel Management--mirror Lincon's baby steps towards emancipation and recruitment of black soldiers."

I'm inclined to give Obama some of the benefit of the doubt, but I'm loyalty oriented--which is good, but means sometimes I hang on too long. So my question is: when should we worry?

When should we be able to say "We've given you time, you aren't acting, I'm beginning to suspect that maybe you never really cared about this issue".

DOMA, I understand the need to act slowly. It is still a contested issue public opinion is sharply divided on.

DADT, I'm much less understanding on. Public opinion is already on the side he says he is on. We are publically losing mission critical soldiers. The issue isn't very complicated and could be corrected by a very straightforward bill. He isn't pushing Congress. He isn't taking administrative action. I don't get it.

On the HIV travel ban, I REALLY don't get. The Congressional obstacles were lifted at the end of Bush's term under a much more Republican Congress. So he can't blame Congress. What the heck is going on? Another super easy area which is languishing for no reason.

The completely unnecessary DOJ intervention in the Prop 8 lawsuit is very discouraging. This was a direct and un-required administration act. And blaming it on a Bush appointee isn't going to fly. There is no way that brief went out without authorization from the poltical appointees. What the heck?

I'm willing to wait if there is a strategy. But what if the strategy is about shutting me up, not getting things done for gay people?

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

MAJeff — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:13:34 -0000

(Or maybe there's a solid handful we can count on, but there's no indication that the current President has been among that handful.)

And Rahm definitely has NOT been among them.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

MAJeff — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:11:33 -0000

I noted this in comments yesterday, and I'll start with it here again. The WaPo yesterday reported that basically the White House (Rahm) and Congressional leadership have basically agreed to not to take any action on "controversial social issues" for the foreseeable future, so as not to "derail" health care or whatever. Rahm, the article notes, is working from his experience in the Clinton administration.

We gay folks have experiences with the Clinton administration, too. He was a candidate who talked nice to us and fucked us over. Hard. (Let's face it, we got worse law at the federal level under Clinton than Bush, if for no other reason that at least when Bush was in town Congress didn't pass anything to hurt us, try as the Republicans might.)

We really have no reason to trust that any DC politicians will pursue policy favorable to us. (Or maybe there's a solid handful we can count on, but there's no indication that the current President has been among that handful.)

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

shiplett — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:08:17 -0000

Another thing to consider, I think, is the legal side in all of this.

Obama believes in the rule of law. As a previous commenter stated, it would take Congress to truly repeal DADT, DOMA, etc. . . . or it would take the Courts.

I know that some are upset that Obama has kept the same tact as Bush in regards to defending DOMA, but if that case is defeated - i.e., the government defense of DOMA loses - then there is a legal precedent stating that the law is unconstitutional, which would then necessitate a statutory change.

By pursuing this path (if, indeed this is the path, and it is just speculation on my part), Obama works within the system to produce the result that he wants, it becomes part of U.S. law, and he can use that as further leverage to push for equality.

As I've said, this is speculation, but I think it makes sense.

The other reason to use either the Courts or Congress, rather than Executive Order, is permanence. An executive order can be overturned by the next President that disagrees with it. Law, as determined by the Courts and the legislature, can not.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

brucds — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:57:37 -0000

In either event, the obvious "right thing to do" isn't to "wait" or "be patient."

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

exitr — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:54:47 -0000

Actually, I think that (along the same lines as brucds's example w/health care reform), the progressive stridency may well be part of the administration's long game. It's useful to have "radical" voices out there so that Obama can appear to be charting a moderate course on gay rights; it may not appease the hardliners on the right, but I think it helps bring along the reluctant middle.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Eduardo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:53:33 -0000

Your reasoning is perfectly plausible. It could be the right one. I admit I hadn't looked at it this way.

But allow me to keep my first reading of it as another possibility. Because it is the one that matches with his actions and the actions of his administration so far.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

brucds — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:47:10 -0000

"hey, he is so good. Read his recent speech to gays on the Stonewell 40 anniversary. Look how seamlessly, beautifully our fierce advocate tell us he is not going to ask us to wait then the substance of the speech is exactly the opposite: wait, wait till the end of my term; Congress, Congress"

I actually think he did something rhetorically brilliand and honest - especially because in stating "it's not for me to tell you to be patient" he linked the gay movement to the civil rights movement which evokes similiar historical symbiosis between politicians and activists. I don't think he was telling folks "wait", in the sense of "don't keep the pressure on or slow your movement" - I think he was telling people that he was indeed committed to equality over the longer term and what he believes he could actually get done if given the chance. I actually think Obama is smart enough to know that a lack of "patience" at the grassroots isn't at all inconsistent with his successful execution of certain strategic goals within a full-term time frame - it's inevitable and it's more of a help to him than a hindrance. This thing is a dance - not "cheek-to-cheek" but the guy is actually out there dancing with you.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Eduardo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:43:51 -0000

One more thing: I am not disparaging Obama. He is a politician. I probably would do the same if I was him --and wasn't gay.

But the idea that gay people will STFU already is a fool's dream. I will not happen. Many of us have stopped accepting our inequality and many of us will do so soon. So sorry.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

lupe — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:35:48 -0000

Nice post, Adam. I think there's a chance this is right - that Obama really does favor gay rights and will eventually act on it.

But even if that's right, I think it's misguided to tell LGBT folks to stop with the "now now now now," as the post may lead some to say. For one thing, if you are a gay person who has finally started to believe you are a real person entitled to equality, it stings when a superstar progressive politician tells the world "too bad" for gays.

For example, the DOJ brief states that DOMA doesn't undermine gay people's rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Sorry, but that is shitty and people have the right to say it. Just like black people had the right to think Lincoln was a jerk for using racism to his advantage. They didn't have equality yet, and lord knows they had no reason to believe it would be coming without a mighty struggle.

Second, if Obama really is committed to advancing LGBT rights, we need to hold him to it, because it's a hard thing for a politician to do. If you want something, you have to hold politicians' feet to the fire. Obama himself has said that he is empowering us, not the other way around, sending the clear message that we are supposed to make our views known and hold people in authority accountable.

I'm sure the calls for "equality now" can sometimes annoy some folks, and I'm sure people can disagree about tactics for achieving, but every community has a right to call out blatant discrimination wherever and whenever it happens.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

Eduardo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:31:04 -0000

History will tell. But no matter what full equality for gays and lesbians mean to me as a gay man, slavery was the absolute main issue for Lincoln and the country. Think something like terrorism + 2 wars + economy + health care and still all that together doesn't amount to what slavery as an issue meant in Lincoln's times.

What is in the President's mind about gay rights? For a man of his formation, smarts and empathy and for a man that 13 years ago was in favor of marriage equality and for all the things that he says for me it is a no-brainer that he is in favor of full gay rights. You see all Democrats talking about FULL equality for gays and them say they are against gay marriage and you know that this is not what they really think, they really are for gay marriage but cannot say it because they think they will be toast. That is what you see Dems evolving in Conn and New York. There just one Feingold in the Senate. Remember how funny was Joe Biden in the debate about this. Obama is a very skillful politician and so he doesn't sound that funny but really...

I agree that Obama is playing a game here, but I don't think that it is the one Serwer think Obama is. I tend to think that Obama is dragging his foot on this because he thinks there are other issues way more important in his agenda than gay rights. He might not want to ignite a cultural war. He has been courting very hard moderate white evangelicals. He might think that repealing of DOMA will cost the Dems some seats in 2012. He might not want to face the Army on DODT --he actually needs the big Republican guns like Gates and Petraus etc to give him some "tough" credentials vis a disengagement in Irak and procurement reform in the Pentagon. So, so many reasons not to go there.

Sometimes things are simpler: I believe he is stalling because he doesn't think this is the right time. If there is a moment in which doing something will be politically convenient, he will move swiftly.

And hey, he is so good. Read his recent speech to gays on the Stonewell 40 anniversary. Look how seamlessly, beautifully our fierce advocate tell us he is not going to ask us to wait then the substance of the speech is exactly the opposite: wait, wait till the end of my term; Congress, Congress.

Re: Obama, Lincoln, and Gay Rights

dmf — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:23:23 -0000

I get that Lincoln is in these days but wouldn't JFK/LBJ and the Civil Rights movement be a better comparison for Obama and the Gay Rights movement, not so much for the human interest story (I prefer my pscyho-history in novels), dealing with the wars, cold and hot, and the economy and the southern vote and all? It seems worth remembering how MLK and co. had to keep pushing back against "more general/pressing" concerns of the admin and their struggles with the congress. If there is a lesson to be learned from Clinton on gay right it's probably that good intentions aren't enough...