More on Obama & Gay Rights

Yesterday's post on Obama and gay rights deserves an addendum following Jamelle's insightful critique over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. On the whole, I think Jamelle makes some important points about social equality and politics.

To wit:

President Bush, if you remember, supported a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, and was generally supportive of state-based efforts to strip gay Americans of their rights. Indeed, stoking fear and hostility towards gay Americans was part of the Bush administration’s reelection effort. I mean, to just sort of underscore the degree to which it was open season on gay Americans, the White House consistently opposed the extension of hate crimes legislation to gays, even as the country saw a sharp rise in the number of hate crimes targeted at gays. Activists are well within their rights to criticize Obama’s speech as “just words,” but in doing so, they miss an important fact about presidential rhetoric: it makes a difference. It further brings gay concerns into the mainstream and gives them a sense of urgency.

This is certainly not to say that the gay community should ignore the fact that Obama has yet to really move on gay rights, but on the whole, I that it’s far more productive to at least acknowledge that Barack Obama is an ally, and – slow-walking notwithstanding – is openly supportive of gay rights. Tearing him down politically – as opposed to lobbying and pressuring – only makes his job that much harder.

Presidential rhetoric, though largely symbolic, definitely makes a difference. America's general disdain for identity politics often makes such rhetoric politically damaging, so going out on a limb for gay rights is certainly commendable. Attacks levied against President Obama, as Jamelle notes, do in fact lack historical perspective, as the last eight years were pretty atrocious as far as civil liberties and social equality are concerned.

That said, I think much of the defense of Obama on this issue also lacks perspective. I doubt many Obama defenders wake up each morning to a partner they can't call "husband" or "wife" because of some laughable "sanctity" of marriage. I doubt many people arguing "Just wait, your time will come" have to suppress their identity among men and women they share the ultimate wartime bond with. I doubt many people ignorantly claiming "Congress will defend gay rights when they have time" live with an identity that's caricatured in pop culture and historically rejected as immoral and perverse. I doubt many people suggesting "He's done a lot for gay rights already" face a culture where accepting your sexual identity is referred to as "coming out"--suggesting that your very existence represents a rejection of social norms. In judging a President's record on social equality, this is the perspective we need to keep in mind. This perspective--the human element behind the politics of social policy--is, in my opinion, a critical measure of our progress as a nation. And it is within this context that many critics are (rightfully) a bit frustrated with the Obama administration.

But Jamelle's also right: There's a fine line between attacking President Obama on this issue and pressuring him to move forward with his promises. Political criticism, when done tactfully, is healthy--but criticism can very quickly become an unhelpful attack. Obama's symbolic gestures are magnanimous, yes, but most of us can agree there's still a long way to go.

Meghan McCain Continues to Impress, President Obama Continues to Disappoint

Fresh off his Nobel Peace Prize announcement, President Obama addressed thousands of gay right protestors marching at our nation’s capital this past Saturday night. It was a rousing speech, as always, filled with promises and strong, assertive language.

But it was an empty speech, void of action, conviction, or credibility. He promised to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the controversial Clinton-era policy of identity suppression in the military. But it was a promise he’d made before. And it was a promise he has thus far utterly failed to act upon.

As Andrew Sullivan writes:

All I can say is: the president gave a speech he could have given at any point in the last three years. No one in that room could disagree with any of the things he said. I sure don't (with the exception of the hate crimes hooey). And he said it well and movingly. Like we didn't know he could do that.

But the point of electing a president who pledged to actually do things is to hold him to account, and to see if he is willing to take any risk of any kind to actually do something. I had a few prior tests of his seriousness or signs that he gets it, a few ways to judge if this speech had anything new or specific or clear. He failed every test.

Meghan McCain, equally appalled, writes:

Obama offered no timeline for phasing out this policy and, as usual, no real specifics. But the president verbalized his commitment to ending it—which is not insignificant [...]During the election, Obama pledged that the very first thing he would do as president would be to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although I thought it was an ambitious promise, I believed him. It's now almost a year into his presidency and other than making speeches, nothing has happened.

There’s no two ways around it: Sullivan and McCain are spot on. This administration has thus far been absolutely abysmal in promoting social equality. Abysmal. Crumbling economy notwithstanding, don’t get on a pulpit and expect us to be happy with negligence. Don’t say all the right things and expect us to be satisfied with gross inaction. Don’t try to appease the progressive electorate that struggled to put you in office. Don’t make empty promises you have no intention of honoring.

It’s a sad state of affairs when the daughter of Obama’s Republican challenger from last November has a better stance on gay rights than our own Democratic President. If the Nobel Peace Price was intended to push Obama to, you know, actually promote peace by ending our two wars, what award do we need to give him to promote gay rights? What will it take, and how much longer must we wait?

As Meghan McCain continues to assert herself at the forefront of the fight for gay rights, Obama continues to disappoint. Maybe he thinks repealing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is unwise politically, regardless of his personal beliefs. Maybe he thinks a gay rights agenda will hurt him in the future. This may be so, but his insulting failure to act—on the eve of National Coming Out Day, no less—certainly isn’t winning him any new progressive allies.

Obama has the potential to promote real, substantive change. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like he'll be acting on that potential any time soon.

Gay is Not the New Black

(Administrator's Note: The following piece was written by SSL Guest Contributor Steven Brown, an incoming graduate student in Harvard's department of sociology. He can be reached at ksbrown2@gmail.com)

Gay is not the new black. Black is the new black; gay is the new gay.

Earlier this week, sportswriter LZ Granderson published a piece in CNN entitled “Gay is not the new black.” I one-hundred-percent agree with his basic premise, but totally disagree in the way he argues it. According to Granderson, gay black men identify more with their racial self than they do with their sexuality, a situation exacerbated by powerful white LGBT persons who exclude blacks and criticize Obama.

Apparently, the LGBT movement is dealing with it own issues of racial preference and exclusion. As someone who is not entrenched in this community, I cannot speak to how true or not true this is. But it does appear that the very visible spokespeople for the LGBT community rarely tend to be black (Anthony Woods – the gay, black, Harvard-educated Iraq veteran running for Congress – seems to be an exception).

Granderson uses these racial divisions as the crux of his argument. He notes, “When Proposition 8 passed in California, white gays were quick to blame the black community despite blacks making up less than 10 percent of total voters and whites being close to 60 percent .” I think his language is a little strong, but he makes a fair point. The arguments that black people somehow caused Proposition 8 to pass are demonstrably and demographically false. Even among another minority community fighting for its civil rights, race still matters. Therefore, gay cannot be the new black if black is still black as ever.

Unfortunately, his argument seems to rest on the premise that only race matters, or at least it matters more than sexuality and other identity factors. Race is so important that LGBT-led criticism of President Obama alienates members of the black community – gay or not. “The parade of gay people calling Obama a "disappointment" on television is counterproductive in gaining acceptance, to say the least. And the fact that the loudest critics are mostly white doesn't help matters either.” It is possible to critique the President, and still be supportive. Granderson himself does both in the article. It is possible to inhabit both spaces, to acknowledge multiple aspects of one’s identity.

To make matters even worse, he very distastefully says that blacks have had it worse than gays in the struggle for civil rights, calls the LGBT community leaders “petulant child[ren],” and effectively tells the community they should wait their turn.

“The 40th anniversary of Stonewall dominated Gay Pride celebrations around the country, and while that is certainly a significant moment that should be recognized, 40 years is nothing compared with the 400 blood-soaked years black people have been through in this country. There are stories some blacks lived through, stories others were told by their parents and stories that never had a chance to be told.”

Making comparisons as to which minority group had is worse is NEVER useful (see Holocaust vs. slavery), both because it is pointless and reduces all minority struggles to being one-in-the-same. There is no special prize for being the “most oppressed” group between “competing minorities.” We can acknowledge that the LBGT community, blacks, Jews, Asians, Native Americans (etc, etc) have all struggled at the hands of a more powerful regime and that each group’s struggle is different and complex in its own way. We can and should learn from each other’s histories, not reduce them to slight variations of one another. That only leads to in-fighting, which helps no one’s cause. An extension of this is the idea that whichever minority group cries foul the loudest is the one that will get the most attention. The idea that these issues are relegated to just being special interest issues speaks to a continued belief that these issues don’t concern everyone. I personally long for the day when all these voices can be heard equally and simultaneously – not just one at a time.

While there are obviously similarities in the civil rights movements of the 1910s-1920s, the 1950s-1960s, the LGBT community faces different social pressures (religion and ideas of sexual normativity) and seeks different outcomes (all-inclusive marriage rights, adoption rights, the ability to serve the military openly, and more job discrimination protection more broadly).

But what isn’t different or distinct are the people involved in these different movements. A friend of mine found it interesting that Granderson assumed that gay black men privilege their racial identity. He queried: why does it have to be either-or…why not both? Anthony Jack, one of Social Science Lite's bloggers, has discussed on previous occasions the problematic assumption that people can divvy-up their being into race, gender, sexual orientation, ableness, etc. Indeed, this line of thinking is often decried in womanist literature. Gay black men could be actively involved in both black communities and gay communities equally, or maybe neither if they so choose. On a personal level, to say that gay is not the new black makes sense. If it were, then LBGT blacks would supposedly be forced to supplant one aspect of their identity to the dominant other.

Black is the new black. Gay is the new gay. I could say that being a heterosexual, black man is the new heterosexual, black man, but it would be easier to say that I’m Steven. I am black. I am heterosexual. I am male. I am all of these things, all the time, even in those occasions when I choose to highlight only one part of my identity.

Kissing in Public is “Illegal”… If You’re Gay

It may not be overtly apparent, but I can be a pretty romantic guy. I like to surprise my girlfriend with little gifts, and every now and then I even like to take her out for a nice dinner. And, if the mood strikes, I might even lean over the table and give her a light kiss, expressing my affection. Nothing gratuitous at all. As innocent as holding hands.

Apparently this brazen sign of affection is frowned upon in El Paso, Texas. Well, that is, if you’re gay.

Yesterday, the El Paso Times reported that five gay men were kicked out of Chico's Tacos restaurant when two members of their party embraced with a peck on the lips. The restaurant’s security staff informed the men that their fine establishment didn’t allow “that faggot stuff,” and promptly escorted them off the premises. Well, one member of the group, Carlos Diaz de Leon, called the police to file a report of discrimination.

Surely El Paso’s finest would step in and rectify the situation—or so you’d hope.

Well, apparently not. When the El Paso police showed up, they sided with the restaurant, informing the five men that it’s illegal for two men to kiss in public. According to De Leon, the men were told they could have been cited for “homosexual conduct.” The cops let them off easy by only kicking them out of the restaurant, you see. I mean, they could have been criminally charged for their public display of affection. That is, their gay public display of affection.

Unbeknownst to the El Paso police officer on the scene—a man clearly well versed in the law—the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Texas’s asinine, archaic, despicable sodomy laws unconstitutional six years ago in Lawrence v. Texas. I guess these minor changes—you know, Supreme Court cases—take a while to filter down to local police districts. Even so, Lawrence v. Texas merely upheld the right to sexual privacy—thus it might be reasonable to assume that “homosexual conduct” (whatever that is) might be illegal in public settings in Texas. This is Texas, after all. That might be a reasonable argument, if in fact the city of El Paso hadn’t passed an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation by businesses open to the public in 2003. Somebody must have forgotten to give the El Paso Police Department the memo.

As the facts stand today, no official report was filed, one of the security guards has contacted a lawyer, and the ACLU of Texas released an official statement condemning the incident. The assistant manager of the restaurant refused to comment, and the El Paso Police Department responded to press inquiries by noting that a more appropriate charge for what happened would “probably be criminal trespass.”

There’s a real tension here between a private business open to the public, state and local anti-discrimination legislation, and individual-level homophobia. Blatant refusal of services based on sexual orientation is supposedly barred in most states, yet private businesses have the supposed right to refuse those very same services for any reason they choose. Yet the business’s openness to the public makes any such refusal suspicious, if not outright discriminatory. The compromise in most states seems to be relatively straightforward: You can’t adopt a policy that explicitly discriminates against individuals based on race, sex, or orientation, and any policy you do adopt must be applied uniformly and equally to individuals regardless of race, sex or orientation.

Still, we can’t exactly legislate against homophobia. Systematic discrimination, yes. But with individual-level prejudices, fears, and disrespect, things get a little fuzzy. A new law helps change public perceptions, sure, but a decree from above doesn’t necessarily change individual-level mentalities on the ground. That's just a reality of prejudice and discrimination. An aggravating and sad reality, to be sure.

But even if we fail to legislate thoughts and beliefs, the least we can do is follow the letter of the law. Apparently the El Paso police missed that memo, too.

"Don't Let Them Jesse Jackson You"

In last week’s New York Times, Jeremy Peters wrote a thought-provoking article about the lack of visible leadership in the gay rights movement. While Peters is generally fast and loose (read: weak) with his historical analysis, his general point seems accurate: there really isn’t any national spokesperson for gay rights. Sure, Harvey Milk has become somewhat of a household name as of late, but we’d be naive to think that he had any national presence before Gus Van Sant’s award-winning biopic. Not to belittle Milk’s achievements, but let’s be real, he was only a city supervisor.

In the Times article, Peters compares the leadership dynamics of the contemporary gay rights movement with those of past movements for civil rights. According to Peters, social movements of yesteryear were generally associated with a single national leader: Frederick Douglass was the face of the abolitionist movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. defined the Civil Rights Movement, and Betty Freidan epitomized the modern women’s movement. The point here is not that social movements were in fact lead by individuals, but that the general American public looked to these leaders as surrogates for their respective constituencies. Put another way, the media knew exactly who to call for soundbites.

There is no such prominent figure in today’s battles for gay rights. No leader to turn to for direction. No individual to call on for an official statement of purpose or a list of goals. But, is this a bad thing? As usual, Ta-Nehisi Coates offered his own insightful commentary, reflecting on the gay rights movement’s lack of visible leadership:

“And for that, I think my gay brethren should be thankful. There's nothing like media anointing someone as your spokesperson. Don't let them Jesse Jackson you. No disrespect to Jesse. But the notion that one person, in these individualized times, should speak for whole populations is crazy. I think, ultimately, this will be for the best.”

Ta-Nehisi makes a really astute point here. It would be problematic, and perhaps detrimental, for the gay community to define themselves through a single national spokesperson. Associating your movement with a single leader means associating yourself with all of his or her faults, inconsistencies, and contradictions. When an individual represents an entire movement, all of their flaws reflect back on the movement, whether movement participants like it or not.

But there’s another layer of concern here that also deserves analysis. Minority populations are particularly susceptible to criticisms that highlight negative aspects of individuals as indicative of the whole group. Single acts of transgression or immaturity become evidence, or proof, of the cultural inferiority of entire populations. When a black man commits murder, he’s making his entire race look bad, contributing to existing stereotypes. But when a white man commits murder, his act is an individual transgression, rather than a group characteristic. Take acts of domestic terrorism, like this past month’s murder of George Tiller. Or Timothy McVeigh’s bombing in Oklahoma City. No one argued that these actions exemplified a characteristic of an entire racial group, as if domestic terrorism is some sort of a white male trait.

Herein lies the structure of oppression in America. With minority populations, individual-level flaws are interpreted as group-level deficiencies. This common logical fallacy fosters and legitimizes racism and other forms of discrimination. By contrast, when, say, a white male commits some sort of atrocity, his actions are seen as aberrations rather than the norm.

That is not to say that the gay rights movement is better off without formal leadership. Indeed, sustainable social movements require strong leadership and efficient organization. But these leaders don’t need to be the go-to voice when the media is looking for a comment. Sure, a movement needs strong leaders, but maybe they should stay behind the scenes. Maybe the message of the movement would be more powerful if defined by a collective identity, rather than a single national leader.

Still, anointing a national spokesperson may be inevitable. If this happens, the gay rights movement may want to take Ta-Nehisi Coates’ advice, and resist getting Jesse Jackson-ed. No disrespect to Jesse, of course.