Obama Throws the Gays a Bone, Part II

Taking a break from writing fiction, Alan Scott writes me:

"Gay rights are a bitter pill for most people to swallow, so we have to take baby steps to turn negative public opinion to our side. I know that we are pinning a lot of hopes on Obama but sweeping changes aren't going to happen overnight. Baby steps, although frustratingly slow, are how we have to gain our freedoms. :)"

There is some doubt that this was even a step, or if it was, it was a step in place. John Arovosis claims Federal agencies already had the ability to offer these benefits. And the claim that Obama couldn't offer health benefits because of DOMA is at the least debatable because DOMA defines marriage -- not domestic partnership. And the benefits offered in the presidential memo go to domestic partners, not same sex spouses.

It may make some political sense to cheer Obama for this "step." I admit it was striking to see Frank Kameny at the President's shoulder in the Oval Office.

But my fear is that this was a cynical ploy on the part of the White House to smooth over relations with the gay community. In fact, that's what the New York Times reported:

"But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups..."

There is the growing sense that Obama's actions are the exact opposite of his words. He claims to be a "Fierce Advocate" for gay rights, but as the Washington Post notes today:

"Obama's memorandum, designed to be both incremental and pragmatic, typifies the cautious way he has approached gay issues since taking office five months ago."

Obama claims to find DOMA "abhorrent" yet allows his DOJ to advance some of the most abhorrent notions about gay people possible to defend it. Much has been made of the brief's comparison to incest, but to me the most offensive is the claim that if gay people want to marry, they can -- they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex! See, no inequality! To me, that denies our existence and our humanity -- it stands contrary to the fact that gay people require someone of the same sex to meet their physical and emotional human needs, just as straight people require someone of the opposite sex for fulfillment. It's a view that is rooted in pre-nineteenth century scholarship about homosexuality.

Finally, you say that "sweeping changes aren't going to happen overnight." But in a sense, they are -- the recent successes for same sex marriage at the state level augur for some type of sea change. But let's leave the more vexing question of marriage aside for a moment.

As Sean Bugg has been hammering home, 70 percent of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly in America's armed forces. Obama claims he will remove DADT but has taken no steps in that direction, despite the fact that a vast majority of Americans would support him on it. Even the pragmatic "incremental steps" mentioned early are absent here -- the Pentagon says there has been no talks about changing the policy and apparently there hasn't even been staff level discussions about it between the White House and Senate leadership. Apparently Obama and Sen. Harry Reid are staring at each other from opposite ends of Pennsylvania Avenue pointing at each other saying "you do it!"

"Fierce Advocate." Hrmph.

I'm glad every day that John McCain is not in the White House. But until I see action indicating otherwise, President Fierce Advocate is a dud on gay rights.