President Obama joined us yesterday. Now I'll join him.

[Prism]

I was unfortunately at work when the announcement came that President Obama endorses marriage equality and too exhausted at night to either celebrate or frown. Having spent the morning digesting all the angles, it's good to collect the good, the bad, and the historic when considering what happened.

The Bully Pulpit

The President takes a lot of flack for not having used the Bully Pulpit adequately during his first term. His endorsement yesterday is the ultimate use of that presidential instrument. Not only will many independents respect the courage of taking this position before the election, but the Republicans' favorite defense of "I hold the same position as the Democratic President" has been effectively neutered.

Furthermore, the LGBT establishment has been haunted to a degree by its excessive whiteness. In the wake of Prop 8 in California, many LGBT organizations have been stymied on how to approach ethnic minorities in campaigning for marriage equality. Many gay organizations know how to approach white evangelicals and Catholics, but conservative Hispanic Catholics and conservative Black Churches have been a weak point in the outreach efforts of the gay rights movement. The President's endorsement is a powerful campaign tool whose efficacy shouldn't be underestimated in that regard. This is something a Joe Solmonese and the rest of the Cocktail Brigade could never do, and the expansion of equality across ethnic lines accelerated yesterday.

LGBT Youth everywhere are now living in a country where their President believes in their equality. The psychological value of that cannot be calculated. It's massive.

The Supreme Court, especially the swing voters on it, oftentimes calculate their social decisions based on where they think the nation is as a whole. President Obama has effectively "de-radicalized" marriage equality once and for all and made it a mainstream national political position. Don't think the Justice Kennedy's of the world aren't taking note.

Credit Where Due

It wouldn't be DU if we didn't haggle over who gets what credit. Here's the great part of Civil Rights. It's so much bigger than all of us that everyone can get credit. The President deserves a great deal of credit for taking this position before the election. LGBTers and their allies deserve a great deal of credit for pushing the President to take this position before the election. LGBTers and our allies had to warm up that pool and say "Come on in, the water's fine!" before the President could jump in with us yesterday.

I see some people trying to say "See, I told you the President would do this. And you bitched at him the entire time!" This couldn't miss the point more wildly if it tried. The President took this step because of all that "bitching." Silence buys nothing in this world, and those who never remained silent brought us here. They did their part, the President is doing his.

Everyone gets credit. Everyone who brought us to this point through advocacy and not settling for anything less than is writing this story. Now, the President is part of that story. This is great for all of us.

The Bad

States Rights. Ouch. I flinched. But right now, that is where we are in this country. What this means is that LGBTers and our allies must continue pushing. There are things the President can yet do like ENDA in federal contracts. He needs to be pressured on this. The DOMA lawsuits need more tinkering. There is an undeniable amount of work yet to do, and I think it's important that the President's more ardent supporters understand LGBTers and our allies criticize and push because that's what works, that's what got us to where we are today, and that's what must happen for the sake of progress. There is no "The President did this in spite of . . ." happening. The correct narrative is "The President did this because of . . ." Politicians don't do things because they're asked nicely.

In The End

The good clearly outweighs the bad here. I've said I wouldn't donate or work for this campaign as long as the President continued his pretzel-like denial of equality. Well, he has drawn the battle line in the sand for this election. He has now crystallized what this campaign is about for LGBT Americans. For me, personally, I think it would be irresponsible to sit this one out. He is taking a risk for us by doing this before the election, and despite the failures of the administration and the disappointments many of us have felt during this first term, the question being put to us now is "If now is not the time to fully engage and fight as hard as we can on the national level, when?" If the President loses, make no mistake, LGBT Americans will be in for a world of shit. We will be blamed, and politicians with national aspirations will hesitate when it is their turn to decide if equality is worth it to their political careers.

So we need to be in this now, full throttle. I just sent my first donation to Obama's campaign. Because now, it really does behoove every single LGBT to kick Mitt Romney's ass and all the regressive bigotry his campaign is going to represent.

Just my 2 cents.

[cali]

1. excellent op. thanks for posting it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. Excellent essay. k&r

[DevonRex]

3. Love you Prism.

When I read that piece about Olson and Boies basing their brief to overturn Prop 8 on the Justice Department's refusing to enforce section 3 of DOMA, directed by Obama, it all became clear to me regarding this issue of states' rights. It's all so much more complicated, and in a crazy way, simpler than it seems.

Thank you so much for this post. I pledged yesterday to work for PFLAG. (Thanks yardwork for the suggestion of the specific organization.) So I'm happy you're not sitting this one out.

[Prism]

5. PFLAG is so great

A friend and I drop in meetings once in awhile to support a mutual friend. It can sometimes be rough when you sit there listening to some hard, hard stories, but it's so worth it in the end. Thanks so much for supporting it =)

[ruggerson]

4. Recommended

N/T

[pinto]

6. Well said.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. It's a start

but not much more. It all comes down to deeds. I'm more interested in what he does than what he says going forward.

[Prism]

8. In this case, I think the words were a deed.

You know I'm with you on the "Great speech, now show me the policy!" front.

However, I think we're seeing a rare case where the words have a significance all their own that your average speech does not. If the words didn't have that significance, it wouldn't have taken the President so long to say them. There are going to be a lot of political and social implications stemming from this. What the President has done, like or not, is hitched our fate to his. If he loses after saying those words, it will reflect on us and affect the future course of our war for equality.

So I think yesterday's words really mattered.

But you know I'm going to be right next to you in pushing for the policies.

[DevonRex]

16. I will, too. I think married LGBT military personnel are the key.

I think there is a reason he specifically mentioned them yesterday. He uses words very, very carefully. He also leaves out words very intentionally. So what he did not say is often as important as what he did say. It's worth remembering that he said he is for gay marriage. And he did not say he is for any state taking away the ability for gays to marry. That's why I believe married LGBT military personnel just might ultimately be the answer. They have no choice where they're stationed. Yet their marriage status changes willy nilly according to duty station. It could make them prisoners on base. Just something to think about. I plan to contact some LGBT attorneys in the near future on this issue and a JAG if I can get one to talk to me.

This might be of interest to you on how Prop 8 was overturned and how many state laws might be overturned in the future. We do have a conservative Supreme Court at the moment. So in the meantime, it might be worth our while to rack up some state and district court wins like Olson and Boies did with Prop 8. It's a short article but packed with detailed information. Here's the link:

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/news-analysis-obamas-marriage-equality-support-is.html

[Prism]

19. The military point is the most powerful one

To ask someone to give their lives for their country, but to disrespect their families? I think that's the kind of argument that has a pull that can reach as far as the center-right. It's one of those starkly outlined injustices that can crack an ideology and get a body to thinking. It's one of the most persuasive points we have, and I'm glad the President made it a central one in the interview.

[DevonRex]

20. I'm thinking emotionally and legally

it probably has bearing. They simply cannot be married ON base and not be married OFF base. Not when they have no choice in where they're stationed. It's not like it was in the 80s when soldiers could buy alcohol on base at 18 but couldn't buy it off base at 18. We're talking about married soldiers or marines not being able to buy homes together, or will each other their property without being challenged.

I have this crazy feeling that that is where this will be decided. It's either that or the domino effect of case law until we get a better court seated.

I've loved talking to you, btw. It's so much fun to hash out some scenarios. I've been doing this with my son, who's going to graduate from law school next week. He helped me with the Olson/Boies thing. And he told me to read up on DOMA striking down the "full faith and credit" clause. So that's where I'm going next.

[Prism]

29. I hadn't considered the implications of base movements

Is this currently being addressed in any way? Now I'm curious if any lawsuits addressing this have been filed. I admit to complete ignorance of the military and/or civilian legal implications of that. You'd figure something somewhere would have bearing. Must do some googling.

I'm enjoying our discussions as well. =) Congrats to your son!

[frazzled]

9. Your 2 cents are worth a million

Your post is clear, fair, and hopeful. Now, yes ... full speed ahead!

[ProSense]

10. Excellent. There are

two issues the President can address: repealing DOMA and enacting ENDA, which his statement appears to have brought back to the forefront in Congress.

A bipartisan call for Congressional action on gay rights

By Greg Sargent

Could Obama’s announced support for gay marriage — which won’t have any real impact in legislative terms — help build momentum in other areas where Congress can act on gay rights?

A bipartisan group of Senators is going public today with a call for Senate hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would expand the ban against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for all but the smallest private-sector employers, I’m told.

The White House came out in support of ENDA as a broader solution after it angered advocates by deciding against an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors. ENDA is a longtime priority for gay rights advocates, and there’s little chance it would pass this Congress, but the bipartisan group of Senators is hoping to draw attention to the issue in the wake of Obama’s announcement.

Today Dem Senators Jeff Merkley and Bob Casey and GOP Senators Mark Kirk and Susan Collins (who are both Republicans) will release a letter calling on the Senate health and labor committee to hold hearings on ENDA. From the letter:

ENDA would prohibit most workplaces in the United States, with exemptions for religious institutions, private membership clubs and certain small businesses, from discriminating against potential and existing employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. As strong supporters of this legislation, we urge you to schedule a time for Committee members to consider this proposed legislation.

ENDA embodies the American ideal of fairness: employees should be judged on their skills and abilities in the workplace, and not on their sexual orientation or gender identity. While some states prohibit public and private employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, recent studies have found evidence of continued widespread employment discrimination against LGBT people. Sadly, it is still legal for businesses in many states to fire someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

We appreciate your past support for discussing this critical issue for millions of American workers, and we respectfully ask that you ensure an opportunity during this Congress for the full Committee to consider testimony on this bill.

Gay advocates have been pushing for ENDA’s passage for years, and have repeatedly been frustrated each time it has gone nowhere. The bill’s hopes are still slim, but the fact that a couple of moderate Senate Republicans are calling for increased attention to it — via hearings — is a good development. At a minimum, it contrasts sharply with what happened in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives this morning, where Members struck back at Obama’s announcement by passing a measure to stop the Obama Justice Department from opposing the Defense of Marriage Act.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/a-bipartisan-call-for-congressional-action-on-gay-rights/2012/05/10/gIQA6UAiFU_blog.html

Time to put real pressure on Congress.

[EFerrari]

11. Thanks, Prism.

[DevonRex]

12. kick

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Quite Nicely Done

GAC

[cate94]

14. Thank you

for writing such an eloquent and thoughtful post.

[Scurrilous]

15. Thanks.

K & R

[stevedeshazer]

17. Very well said.

Kicked and rec'd.

This President took a stand and put his next term at risk on a big gamble.

I respect him for that.

[Maven]

18. Prism, I heart you

You said it all perfectly.

K/R

[suffragette]

21. K&R

Thoughtful and well done analysis.

[NYC_SKP]

22. K/R. Knew you would. Knew he would, too.

sorry it didn't happen sooner.

[Marrah_G]

23. thank you for a well thought out post

I am still struggling with being happy and frustrated at the same time. Sort of like election night 2008. Or the inauguration. I don't have any money this year, but I might do some phone banking.

[Spazito]

24. Excellent OP!

You spell out what has been done, what still needs to be done and now "full throttle" indeed.

[CakeGrrl]

25. Romney ALWAYS needed to be defeated. -nt

[Zorra]

26. "the battle line in the sand for this election"

Love ya, Prism.

[myrna minx]

27. I always enjoy and appreciate your thoughtful essays.

You are such an important voice here.

[Hatchling]

28. Me too!

Can't afford to donate money, but I will certainly be able to afford my time.

[Creideiki]

30. The states rights thing

seems really about uninspected privilege. I have discussions with pro-gay straight people at work all the time and their hearts are in the right place, they just don't understand the privilege. I would rather have quiet discussions on privilege and accept the good place that they approach the situation from.

So until given reason otherwise, I'll take the President that his intent is to fight in the states.

[Bluerthanblue]

31. it's good

to read this. You really put this issue into a clear, rational perspective.
Thank you!


Rec'd

[Puglover]

32. Wonderful post.

And I agree. I will work hard for his campaign.

[ibegurpard]

33. very reasonably thought out post

I wholeheartedly agree