RSS
Home
What progress can we expect from the Obama administration on LGBT issues?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Related Articles
Obama gave a speech to the HRC on October 11th, reaffirming his commitment to gay rights issues and pledging to abolish DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell). Whereas I appreciate him expressing these sentiments, I do not believe that he will be able to accomplish progress on LGBT issues given the rancorous political climate in Washington and the virulent opposition by Republicans.
After 8 years of Bush attacking the gay community to distract citizens from more important issues, I am happy to have a President who approaches these issues as an ally. However intentions do not equal action.
Obama specifically cited his intent to eliminate DADT. That would be great. I would love that. I am curious to hear his strategy for overcoming the substantial opposition likely to be encountered in the process. How does he intend to get Republican lawmakers to go along with overturning DADT when opposing gay rights is part of the right wing mantra?
Republican candidates discovered decades ago that blaming homosexuals for all moral and social ills is extremely profitable. The gay community provides the perfect ‘wag the dog’ distraction for politicians determined to avoid substantial discourse on political strategy and policy. How will Republicans raise adequate campaign funds without demonizing the gay community? Whenever Republicans are pressed on real issues, like energy dependence and the economy, they either 1) criticize what the Democrats are doing or 2) change the subject to the moral ills wrought by the gay community. They never seem to offer other solutions. Ultimately it is easier to attack the ideas of others rather than coming up with your own idea.
Realistically I anticipate many more years of this faulty, flawed, nonsensical DADT policy in some form before gay service members can truly serve openly. Service members will continue to be discharged for no reason related to performance. Our military will continue to be weakened by a code that encourages distrust, division and deceit rather than dialogue.
When I read a story recently about the disproportionate number of lesbians discharged under DADT, I was not surprised. When military rape statistics are considered, it becomes obvious that females are still subjected to sexist behavior within the military. A woman that rebuffs male advances is immediately at risk of pronounced a lesbian, though it is equally likely to be directed at heterosexual women.
With the health care debate, Iraq, Afghanistan and a recession vying for the headlines, issues relating to the gay community seem destined to remain stalled in the legislative process. Furthermore, we are currently trying to unravel 8 years of Bush making the ‘right to marry’ a rallying cry for Conservatives. Look at the vote in states that put same sex marriage on the ballot. It would appear that the Right did a brilliant job in convincing voters that the right to choose a life partner is subject to societal approval.
Many within the LGBT community are understandably disappointed by the lack of attention given to DOMA, DADT and UAFA. The unbridled optimism on the campaign trail has now encountered a brick wall of political reality. Personally I don’t believe that Obama’s goals regarding peace, social progress and community involvement are likely to be achieved while he is in the White House. Hopefully he pledges his post presidential career to these goals.
Just as Al Gore is unlikely to seek another bid for Presidency now that he has found an effective role to address his primary passion: the environment, I believe that Obama’s commitment to peaceful global dialogue and human rights will be demonstrated once he leaves the White House. Whereas I can understand how frustrating this reality is for the gay community, I see little opportunity for significant advancement when there are so many other political hot topics.
DOMA is likely to get more media attention when the mid-term elections draw near and Republican candidates start pounding the drums of division to motivate their electoral base. This tactic is already being utilized in Georgia. Republican candidate for governor, John Oxendine, has made the ‘vicious attacks by radical gay activists’ the centerpiece of his campaign for contributions. The political rhetoric sent to his supporters emphasizes traditional marriage rather than the economy. His political platform is based more on a mythos of morality rather than issues. The five points listed on Oxendine’s website as his critical issues: transportation, fair tax, tax code, the right to bear arms and pro life. There is no mention of energy, the economy or the environment. There is no information about plans or strategy.
Given that the Republican mantra is supposed to be based on curtailing ‘big government,’ the hypocrisy of Republicans responding to this issue so vehemently astounds me. When the government dictates the definition of our relationships to one another and defines one relationship as more valid and deserving of public support and services, it seems invasive to me. I consider political decisions about what constitutes domestic bliss as ‘big government.’
The same people who laud morality seem to frequently get caught falling short of their own ideals. Has anyone else noted that those who bang the drums of morality loudest often get caught with hookers, cheating on their spouses, engaged in illicit homosexual trysts and other sexual and moral indiscretions? Yet, so many people continue to listen to the zealots. Why? I think it is a fairly simple answer. Nothing appeals to our simian sensibilities like towering over others of our species, whether it is from an intellectual, moral, religious, age or racial vantage point. Nothing assuages the ego like perceived superiority.
Perhaps our cultural preoccupation with reality based programming has fostered the belief that one individual has the right to not only express their opinion about the personal lives of others, but to judge, invalidate and dictate definition. The reaction to the Defense of Marriage Act illustrates this phenomenon perfectly. An inordinate amount of media attention and political hot air has been invested in an issue that could not be more of an individual choice. It is offensive.
I naively presume, due to my American belief in the right of the individual to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, that who I date or spend my life with should not be subjected to public scrutiny or debate. Given that my tax dollars help fund programs to benefit people who should not own a cat, but opt to have children that require federal support to have any hope for success in life, debating my relationship options seems like a double standard rife with hypocrisy.
I don’t object to paying taxes. I view it as my responsibility as a citizen to pay my taxes, with the understanding that the taxes are utilized to fund programs for the common good. I like living in a wealthy country with a strong infrastructure. I recognize that the many services we enjoy are not free. However, there is no law prohibiting heterosexual couples from marrying a dozen times. Pious arguments regarding the sanctity of marriage do not hold water in a society with over a 50% divorce rate.
Most arguments against homosexuality invariably reference a deity and branch of organized religion to justify the condemnation and persecution. In the U.S. this is particularly alarming given our pretext of separation of church and state; however, God makes his way to the floors of the Senate and House of Representatives every time the subject is broached.
The Golden Girls had it right years ago:
E: meanderingmuse@comcast.net
If you like what you see, please share, subscribe, bookmark/RSS
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
