The Gay Opinion Blog is ripe with commentary and valuable information on the current shifts and balances (or lack there of) in the scales of justice for the GAY RIGHTS movement. The CBS News articles I read online were entitled:
- Obama And The Gay Community
written by Marc Ambinder, CBS News Chief Political Consultant - Obama Defends Rick Warren's Role At Inauguration
posted by Kevin Hechtkopf, CBS News Politcal Hotsheet.
As Obama is cited as saying in the second of the two CBS News Political Hotsheet Blog entries I've mentioned, his inauguration is meant to symbolize a connection or "dialogue" between ardently opposed ideologies—political discord previously hinged on decisive, contradictory viewpoints and values—signifying a unification of good will, mutual understanding and respect between conflicting political parties, religious institutions and social groups:
The president-elect stressed that he is a "fierce advocate for equality for gay & lesbian Americans," but said that it was also important for Americans to come together despite disagreements on social issues.This idea of "dialogue" was a distinctive element of Obama's campaign for President; no wonder it should be a motif echoed in the character and style of the ceremonies of his Official Oath of Office. "United We Stand!" "Yes We Can!" "The Change We Need!" All are political slogans of a nation's unifying force that brought 53 million people of ever race, ethnicity and creed to the polls on November 4, 2008 to vote for an Obama Presidency.
Mr. Obama said the inauguration would include people with a wide variety of view points represented and "that's how it should be."
He also pointed out that he was invited by Warren a few years ago to speak at his church, despite his disagreements with Warren on [Gay Rights issues]. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign has been about," he added."(K. Hechtkopf, "Obama Defends Rick Warren's Role At Inauguration."
CBS News Political Hotsheet, December 18, 2008.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 12:50AM).
My support for Obama's tactics as a campaigning, regime-changing politician is strong. Albiet, Obama (like all other major Democratic Candidates for President) may have been a "fierce advocate for equality" for all, but he never had the political gumption or cahones to full-out support Marriage Equality. He (like his adversaries) only supported civil unions, presumingly afraid that full support of Gay Marriage Rights would significantly impede upon his chances of winning the Presidency, causing him to seem far too liberal than he already is. In my opinion, support for civil unions (just and only civil unions) for GLBT Americans falls short of "fierce advocacy of equal rights," for the mere fact that civil unions are not equality under the law.
Supporting civil unions is as far as Obama will go in hailing the call for equal rights of all GLBT Americans, as if it's just enough to be said so as not to offend the more moderate or right-wing of his multitudes of supporters. In choosing such a slanted, half-of-nothing stance on the "issue," Obama saves his own ass, but in doing so, he offends and betrays his strigently loyal gay followers. This is why the choice of Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration is wrong. The choice is a disgracing affront to all GLBT Americans, especially to all those toiling in the trenches for Marriage Equality, and it fully demonstrates the inherent weakness in Obama's strategy for inclusion and unity: that such "dialogue" is at it's best awfully subjective and terribly biased and is likely to offend or betray at least one class of citizens (in this case, the Gays & Lesbians).
That said, I stick with my aforementioned support of the president-elect, and rightfully, I can not say that I am fully in line with the vehement opposition to the Rick Warren choice protrayed in citations from the same second CBS News Political Hotsheet Blog article:
In The Nation, Sarah Posner wrote the following: "Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics."In response to the first aforementioned CBS News Poltical Hotsheet Blog article, "Obama And The Gay Community" written by Marc Ambinder (the complete text of which you will find below), I have to say that Ambinder hits the nail on the head. In 1992, the GLBT community was elated that a queer political ally (i.e., Bill Clinton) was entering the Presidency and expected therefore great sweaping changes in favor of our causes, but what we got instead were disappointments and let downs:
"Warren represents the absolute worst of the Democrats' religious outreach, a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful," she added. (Read the full column.)
(K. Hechtkopf, "Obama Defends Rick Warren's Role At Inauguration."
CBS News Political Hotsheet, December 18, 2008.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 12:50AM).
One reason the Rick Warren thing is a big deal is because, after Bill Clinton, the gay community is unusually sensitive to getting the shorter angle of presidential triangulation. It is hard to overstate the optimism and excitement that gays and lesbians felt in 1992. But the optimism deflated spectacularly after "Don't Ask, Don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention President Clinton's sneaky 1996 ad boasting about DOMA, which aired only on Christian radio.
Clinton was willing to say the word "gay" in public and appear in black tie at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, but, in the eyes of the gay political community, his commitment to gay rights vanished both times it counted most.
Relative to other minority groups, the LGBT community is disproportion- ately dependent on the goodwill of the president, because almost all of their big-ticket agenda items are federal laws (the military, DOMA repeal, hate crimes, ENDA, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, etc.). And relative to other minorities, gays still want and need basic reassurance that they are an ordinary part of American life and politics. So everyone is peering anxiously at Obama wondering if he is going to let them down like Clinton did.(M. Ambinder, "Obama And The Gay Community."
CBS News Political Hotsheet, December 18, 2008.
Retrieved on December 22, 2008 1:36AM)
The GLBT community IS "disproportionately dependent on the goodwill of the president" for all its grandiose, meaningful, trend-breaking agenda items, but do we need "reassurance that [we] are an ordinary part of American life and politics?" You're damn right, we do! Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals & Transgendered People continue to exist on the extreme periphery of the liberal political agenda and are seen as mere harbingers of doom and ill-fortune by the right-wing Evangelicals. Where do we stand? What force do we have to affect change in our own lives? Or are we just short of powerless, impotent in the political arena?
As a "fierce advocate for equality," Obama should be expecting the scrutiny and judgement of the entire GLBT community in America in his practice to make real the changes we are fighting for. Selecting Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration was not an intelligent or appropriate choice by Obama; it was a let down: the first of let's hope is not many! We'll just have to wait and see how the Obama Administration responds to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention the myriad of concerns of those millions of Americans living with HIV/AIDS, many of whom are important proponents in the fight for Gay Rights.
It's a real shame that The Gay Opinion Blog omitted the final paragraph of the Ambinder article when citing it in their blog entry. That paragraph is an inciteful, intelligent discombobulation of the drastic complexities of the GLBT political identity and ideologies.
Although, I have to say, it's quite obvious this was the view of a politically savvy, heterosexual man, for I don't think that a homosexual, in writing such an article, would so denigrate and ashame the GLBT community with such judgements. A queer author would have striven for a more sympathetic, empowering tone, leaning in favor of the aptitudes and intrinsic equalities of Gays & Lesbians. But that's just my two sense on this whole issue... What do you think?
No comments :
Post a Comment