Sunday, December 28, 2008

Warren, Obama, and Gay Rights

I have been dismayed with the choice of Rich Warren by President-Elect Obama as a key participant in the inauguration. In particular, this choice confirms my suspicions (raised last spring) about Obama that his centrism and religious beliefs ultimately may harm the LGBTQ community, especially in light of the numbers of Obama supporters who turned out to be homophobes in California. Granted, Obama has promised to include diverse groups in his administration so as to represent a cornucopia of voices, rather than a political ideology. But, his refusal to be on the "right" side of this historical issue is troubling, and it remains to be seen whether he will sacrifice sexual minorities--including all of my voracious friends who marched in the Chicago PRIDE parade with pink Obama shirts--when it is politically expedient so as to achieve a larger political goal. Obama has been and remains a key figure of hope, an audacious hope in an America which no longer is beholden to and hostage of the "agents of intolerance," so many of whom, we've discovered, are so intolerant because of their own self-loathing. Rev. Haggard? Senator Craig? And, I still believe, Rev. Robertson?


However, are we looking at the sort of hope that Harvey Milk sought and that LGBTQ activists have fought for for decades? Or, a hope that Obama won't slide into the "don't ask, don't tell" backstabbing of Bill Clinton, once his own honeymoon was squandered, and he had to make policy in a "center-right" nation.  

Frank Rich, writing in the NY Times, has a great column and much to say on this topic and the fact that gay people are "likable enough" for the Obama camp which is reveling in its political capital by choosing Warren. One of my favorite moments: 

But we're not there yet. Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.

Indeed. I'm all for moving the country to a new position and doing so in a way that ensures Proposition 8 disasters don't happen again. But I grow tired of the "need" of homosexuals to subordinate their rights for party unity without much in the way of progress on an institutional level. We may be winning the cultural wars one bloody battle at a time, but we are often failing politically. And it is those losses which will scar the face of American human and civil rights for a generation, despite the newer opportunities LGBTQ individuals may have in the United States today.


3 comments:

Matthew said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Matthew said...

I pretty much agree with you on this, Ryan, however I have to ask something, since you've made a special point of it in your post:

Why is everyone (i.e. most gay people and gay rights supporters) up in arms over the passage of Proposition 8?

I mean, on the basic level, of course I understand why they would be. I'm very upset about it, too.

But I was also upset when gay marriage bans passed in the plethora of states before California (including some pretty liberal ones -- and, here's a clue: California isn't THE MOST liberal state in the union, so if that's the perception, and why folks are so upset, then it shouldn't be the reason).

At any rate, I've just been quite perplexed about the reaction to Prop 8's passage. Excited, finally, but still perplexed. It's like: 'It's nice to have you all on board, protesting and outraged, but where were you 20-plus states ago?'

Yes, it's a travesty that Prop 8 passed, but perhaps it wouldn't have if folks had woken up a little sooner.

NOTE: I am by no means impuning all the hard work and effort of the people who *have been* fighting the good fight against these gay marriage bans for several years. I even attended meetings here in Illinois that were aimed at challenging petitions and keeping a gay marriage ban from appearing on the Illinois ballot. But I just don't remember nationwide protests and a 'gays on strike' day being organized after the passage of gay marriage bans in tons of other states.

And are you now on board with this, Ryan? I seem to remember a lengthy conversation with you a couple years ago in downtown Champaign where I felt like I was having to defend why it was ok for gays to want the option to get married. You were talking about it with some disdain, and were calling it hetero-normative, or something like that.

Oh, well.

Ryan said...

Matt:
the problem in California was that it removed rights that were already granted by the state Supreme Court, i.e., a stripping of rights that had been politically sanctified; in most of the other states, it involved the segregation of rights not yet solidified in the states constitution. California was a surprise in one sense because of the states generally progressive stances more recently on numerous issues, it's Democratic powerhouse, and the presence of a vocal gay community in SF and visible supporters state-wide. I was dismayed about all of the other amendments, but I didn't expect anything better of people in Florida, Arkansas, and the dozens of other states. Arizona was also a blow, given its previous stance, but somehow expected. California represents a land of opportunity for gays (whether justified or not); thus the blow was harder. As far as working harder--I've always supported gay rights and have voted and vocalized as such, and it seems to be the case the anti Prop 8 people were too arrogant at the start and ran a bad campaign. But I felt that my 20 bucks would make a difference in California in ways it wouldn't have in other places. I remember you saying that we should pick battles we could win...I thought California was one.

I do think marriage is heteronormative, Matt, and I think that the basis of citizenship in the United States should be the individual, not the couple, as that reifies forms of "respectability" that are anti-queer and anti-LGBT in the sense that the undermine the challenges these groups made against the dominance of hetero power in American society. Making us able to marry and fight in the military doesn't make us 'normal' and there is a problem in wanting assimilation that doesn't respect diversity and difference, that says sure, let's hide sexuality behind walls so as not to offend the sensibilities of people who don't understand us, hate us, or refuse to accept and embrace difference. In this way, normalcy is just another form of the tact that Obama is using: gays are "likeable" enough, but expendable; they're 'normal' like others, but we still really don't like them. Etc. I think if you want to marry, you should have that right, a perspective I articulated in that long conversation. I will fight for you to have that right even as I realize the chances of someone wishing that with me is about the same as the Cubs winning the World Series. And I'm tired of bigotry. But my support of anti-Prop 8 measures doesn't require me to be in favor or be on "board" with gay marriage, only that I am expressing solidarity for aspirations of my fellow "family" members. I still think it is flawed and isolates the segments of our culture that are interested in trios, orgies, s/m, whatever...or those who recognize that pairs benefit in ways that actually strip rights of individuals. Perhaps I would feel differently if I were paired, but that's not happening any time soon and I do think we as queer individuals must continue leaving the door open for other constellations of desire that are not based on pairs.