Joyce L. Arnold: Liberal, lesbian, Independent, equality activist, writer.
President Obama was, for the second time, the keynote speaker at the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Annual Dinner in DC. At the October 1 festivities, some 3000 attendees heard the speech, and many more have watched a video, or read the transcript. What they heard, not surprisingly, seems to depend on perspective.
Repeating myself yet again: Obama has done some important things toward LGBT equality – signed the repeal of DADT (not made it happen), signed Hate Crimes legislation into law (not made it happen), and other smaller, but still significant, things. He’s done all of it primarily because, in my opinion, he’s been pushed, and because the ground work was done by others, over many years. He’s not done other things, like come even close to making ENDA happen, or most talked about, “evolve” on marriage, though his administration did finally stop defending DOMA in court. They didn’t, by the way, stop working to keep the Log Cabin Republican suit against DADT from coming to trial. In fact, they finally stopped that, though there will likely be an appeal. The purpose of continuing with that law suit, post-DADT, is so that it would be declared unconstitutional, and thus make it much more difficult for a return of something like DADT in the future. And regarding marriage equality, since he didn’t announce support for marriage between same gender couples at the HRC event, I doubt it will happen between now and November 2012.
Not surprisingly, the HRC crowd cheered, and online posts and comments also reveal a significant number of Obama supporters. They also show an equally as significant number of people who are not among those supporters. It’s definitely campaign time in Queerdom.
In addition to the “Obama has done more for LGBT’s than any other president” argument is the “Would you rather have one of the Republicans in the White House?” argument. First, Obama has done more, or at least, he’s signed off on more. Second, Obama is in office, and so can do more, at an unprecedented time of still growing support for LGBT equality, something that’s in place because of decades of work, not because he’s in the WH. And third, the comparison argument – he’s much better than a Republican – isn’t exactly a rousing endorsement. The Republican wannabe’s make him look positively liberal. He isn’t. This is the “less evil,” and preferred Insider framing, and the limitations are obvious. Usually it’s meant to shut down criticism, and from my perspective, that means a lessening of the ability to hold him accountable.
You can read the transcript of the HRC speech here. Watch the video here.
From HRC:
Tonight President Obama reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to LGBT Americans. Two years ago when he addressed the HRC National Dinner, he made a commitment that he would end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and just last week we celebrated the end of that shameful law. It was a remarkable experience to see openly gay and lesbian uniformed service members in the audience be able to salute their commander in chief.
The “out” service members at the Dinner is very cool. Obama played a role in making that possible, but neither he, nor HRC, can or should take anything but partial credit. The “we” who made the repeal happen is much, much bigger than the WH or HRC.
Like others, John Aravosis at AmericaBlog points to a key moment in Obama’s speech.
The highlight of the President’s speech … was his sharp rebuke of the GOP presidential candidates for refusing to say a word while several members of the audience at the last debate booed a gay soldier.
Or as The Daily Mail reported it:
During a highly combative speech to an audience of 3,000 gay rights activists, the president said: ‘You want to be commander in chief?
‘You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient … .’
The GOP wannabe’s handed Obama a gift with that group debate gaffe. And Obama and everyone else are right to call them on it. But it’s also important to recognize that in part, the “rebuke” is a diversionary tactic, another way to do the “compare me to them” framing. “Politically convenient” isn’t just a factor on the GOP side of things.
Also via The Daily Mail,
Joe Sudbay of AmericaBlog.com was among the bloggers Obama spoke with last year. He said that while most gay advocates won’t stop supporting the president if he doesn’t speak out in favour of gay marriage before the election, doing so could give Obama’s base much-needed energy.
‘He might not lose votes, but he won’t gain enthusiasm,’ Mr. Sudbay said.
Editor of Americablog John Aravosis told CNN they have heard enough speeches but are now ready for action towards real change, especially in relation to gay marriage.
I’m not sure what Sudbay means when he says Obama “might not lose votes.” Obama has already lost votes, quite a few. But maybe Joe means it’s likely that he won’t lose any more, and that may very well be correct. That, in fact, may be accurate for the various segments of Obama’s “base.” And so Obama the Campaigner will be giving numerous HRC Dinner-like speeches, designed to “fire up” the people who helped put him in office in 2008. Classic politics. One problem, of course, is that the disaffected and even unsure aren’t as likely to be sitting in the choir, and so will miss the sermon.
(Photo via HRC)
