Within the past few hours news has begun breaking that Obama is expected to announce the extension of benefits to the partners of same-sex employees of the federal government. So to be fully clear what this means is gay employees of the federal government will be able to provide things like healthcare to their same-sex partners.
This is clearly a response to the growing pressure from the general public surrounding the President’s handling of gay rights issues thus far. In addition to pressure from the media, several big names including HRC National Field Director Marty Rouse and gay blogger Andy Towle have pulled out of an upcoming gay-centered fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee. So Obama clearly had to do something.
So, while this is certainly a welcome move, it is not enough. Sorry, Mr. Obama, but LGBT rights are not a slot machine and you can’t just pull the arm and hope your nickel gets you out of this mess. Unless the media outlets are wrong and you are announcing something major tomorrow, understand that it isn’t good enough. There is no appeasement any longer. No small gesture to show that you are still our “fierce advocate.” The only action at this point is strong and swift action on all fronts. Tomorrow, come to the table with the following, or come to the table with the knowledge that you are no friend of an equal America:
- An executive order immediately ending Don’t ask, don’t tell and a timeline for legislation to be introduced to permanently repeal the policy including sponsors in both the House and Senate.
- A clear condemnation of the abusive and offensive language used in last week’s brief supporting DOMA along with a timeline for introducing legislation to permanently repeal DOMA, sponsors in both the House and Senate, and the immediate dismissal of all staffers involved in allowing this version of the brief to be issued.
- A date in the next two weeks for the return of the Matthew Shepard Act to Congress for immediate vote and a promise to sign the bill into law no later than the anniversary of the Stonewall riots on June 28.
- A publicly-announced policy shift supporting full same-sex marriage equality.
- The immediate appointment of a top-level adviser on gay-rights issues.
Sources:
AMERICABlog – Obama not to address any of his eight promises tomorrow…
The New Civil Rights Movement – Obama extends benefits to Federal LGBT Employees’ Partners
The Rachel Maddow Show
UPDATE: The Rachel Maddow video clip has been fixed and a few new articles and tweets have been added since mid-day.
I feel as though I’m constantly re-tweeting and posting to Facebook a wealth of articles about the (snail-paced) advancement of gay rights issues. I’m now going to post a collection of each days articles, video clips, editorials, and quotes in a post called the Equality Roundup (name is open to more creative suggestions).
- The New York Times has published yet another strong editorial in support of gay rights -- this time the going after the Obama administration for their harshly worded and completely unnecessary brief issued last week in support of the Defense of (bigoted) Marriage Act. In the brief, the Obama-appointed Justice Department compares same-sex marriage to incest and marriage between children and adults.
[ View the full editorial here. ] - Rachel Maddow, the only-slightly-sarcastic-but-incredibly-witty MSNBC host brought former Governor of Vermont Howard Dean to discuss the president’s stance on gay rights. During the interview Dean calls Do(b)MA unconstitutional and says that it was a mistake of the Obama administration to issue the legal brief. He also suggests that the administration might now have to move Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to the front of their agenda in order to make up for their blunder.
- glaadBLOG posted their commentary on June 9th’s “The 700 Club” in which Pat Robertson advises the mother of a gay child to tell her son that being gay is “an abomination before God” and goes on to say that “if somebody’s on the way to hell you’ve got to love them to rescue them.” He also insists that gay people are not born that way but rather “made homosexuals” through abuse.
[ View the full story and video. ]
- Tonight PBS airs the documentary “ASK NOT” -- “ASK NOT explores the history of the infamous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and reveals the personal stories of gay Americans willing to risk their lives for a country that criminalizes the act of coming out.” If you are in Chicago it airs on Channel 11 and 11.1 at 10pm and 3:30am as well as channel 11.2 at 4pm.
[ More information and showtimes here. ]
- Cleve Jones responded to concerns about the upcoming March on Washington over at The Bilerco Project. He covered ten reasons why such a march would be a success for gay rights. The gist of his argument is that this march is supposed to help ignite a larger movement nationwide.
[ Full post available at The Bilerco Project. ]
- Multiple bloggers and twitter users posted links to a very simple page -- “Obama’s Plan for Gay Rights.”
[ Obama's full plan available here. ]
- And finally -- some tweets:
@ntinaz RT @DCBadger: As much as I love the DNC email from POTUS re: Health Care, where’s email re: LGBTQ rights? #p2
@ntinaz RT @jtbritto RT @hobronto: http://www.obamasplanforgayrights.com/
@perezhilton Join us this October! RT @NtlEqMarch 10 Reasons to March, by Cleve Jones http://is.gd/13Atk
A friend of mine (hi Jamie!) forwarded this wonderful note to me on Facebook. It has apparently been making the rounds and to be completely honest I can not recall reading any better written argument for why marriage rights are so important to homosexuals. In fact I was so impressed that I contacted Terry (the author) to get his permission to publish his note on my blog. Comments are of course encouraged!
Open Letter to My Friend Who Opposes Gay Marriage
By Terry Allen-Rouman
May 27, 2009
Thank you for your message, which I’m keeping private at your request, and for your honesty. But I disagree with you. People say that just because they are against gay marriage doesn’t mean they are homophobic. I agree that they do not necessarily “fear” gays, as “phobic” implies, but they are absolutely demonstrating that they feel gays are somehow inferior. My being gay is defined by my being in love with a man rather than a woman. If someone does not see my relationship as equal to a non-gay relationship, I can only conclude they somehow feel, even if subconsciously, that I am inferior.
Marriage in the United States is actually two different institutions, civil marriage and religious marriage. Many couples enjoy both, while others have only one or the other.
Civil marriage legally confers over 1,400 legal rights on a couple, things such as the right to file joint taxes, the right to visit each other in the hospital, the right to inherit each other’s property without lengthy and expensive additional processes in place. In addition to state rights, the federal government confers over 1,100 rights to married couples and up until recently recognized each state’s civil marriages to confer these rights – now they single out same-gender marriages for exclusion of these rights. Some states, including California, grant many, if not all, of the same state rights as civil marriage under a separate umbrella, such as domestic partnership. But as with other civil rights struggles, separate has proven not to be equal. First and foremost, not all rights are granted to these other types of relationships (especially federal rights in this case). And perhaps as important, at least to me, many people in society simply don’t understand the other types of relationships – everyone understands marriage. With one word, husband, I am able to convey and receive respect for my lifelong commitment to my husband, a “right” that you enjoy, probably without a second thought.
Religious marriage is an institution defined separately by each religion, church, or synagogue. Many religions do not recognize each other’s marriages. I absolutely honor your decision to belong to a religion that does not sanction same-gender marriages. But other religions do sanction same-gender marriages. And at least in the United States, our laws are not supposed to be driven by one religion over another, and certainly are not supposed to suppress any religion. Your church defines “marriage” one way – and I am not trying to change how your church defines it. But I deeply resent Californians voting for, and even being allowed to vote for, changing how my religion defines “marriage.”
Not long ago, interracial marriage was outlawed in many states, using remarkably similar arguments as those used today by those opposing same-gender marriage. Interracial marriage was against many people’s religions at the time, and it was argued that allowing interracial marriage would undermine the entire institution of marriage. Luckily, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage, ruling in 1967 that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.”
Jason and I had our religious wedding in 1993, well before we were allowed to have our civil marriage in 2008. Now, although our marriages remain valid, the voters of California have decided not to allow other same-gender couples to enjoy this same right, and the California Supreme Court has agreed. For the first time in history, the majority of voters have rewritten a state’s constitution to discriminate against a minority. This is a dangerous precedent. I find it interesting that although 52.3% of voters voted for Prop. 8 in November, this represents only 30.2% of eligible California voters, and only 19.0% of all Californians. So less than one in five Californians is all it takes to eliminate a group of people’s rights.
Luckily, our country continues to define equality more and more broadly. And history has never looked back kindly at those who have stood in the way of equality. More and more Californians and more and more Americans support same-gender marriage each year, realizing that equality needs to include everyone. I look forward to the day that it does.
It looks like Illinois may be the next state to legalize civil unions for gay (as well as straight) couples. While it isn’t full marriage rights, it is moving in the right direction. Read the full story at Joe. My. God.
The California Supreme Court will issue it’s ruling on Prop 8 on Tuesday, May 26. Keep your fingers crossed for good news, whatever you think that is. And by whatever you think that is I of course mean if you agree Prop 8 needs to be overturned. If you don’t agree with me go back to reading Ann Coulter’s blog or something.
I couldn’t find any new pics of cute couples on short notice, so here is a completely unrelated photo but fully acceptable photograph of one incredibly hot man.
The Chicago Tribune recently posted this editorial in support of civil unions in Illinois. I find myself conflicted. I’m happy that the Trib has gone on record vocally supporting some form of gay rights yet unimpressed with the language used. The argument does little to persuade and falls short of recognizing that civil unions can only be an injured step towards the real goal of full marriage rights for same sex couples.
An editorial should fervently support an argument one way or the other. I should walk away passionately in agreement or disgust. I don’t mean to sound unappreciative, I would love for the Trib to continue publishing pro-gay rights pieces, yet in a world where Iowa can unanimously approve gay marriage rights, Vermont can override a governor’s veto blocking full marriage rights, and New York’s governor can garner national press pushing a gay marriage bill this editorial does little to inspire any real movement.
What do you think? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Legalize civil unions at chicagotribune.com
Highlights:
“In fact, it is never the wrong time to do the right thing.”
“As African-American activists in the 1960s proved so conclusively, separate but equal is a lie.”
“Gay couples and families are as worthy as anyone else. And New Hampshire does not discriminate.”
Pass gay marriage bill and end discrimination @ Concord Monitor
Are the tables finally turning in America’s debate over gay marriage? I think they are. Iowa and Vermont both recently legalized full marriage rights for gay couples which is a wonderful mark of progress in the fight for equality. Even more striking are the changes in political policy elsewhere – hints that even in the most conservative corners of America the arguments against gay marriage are dwindling.
I came across this great Op-Ed piece in the The New York Times through the Joe. My. God. blog. In it Frank Rich details many of the ways that opinions on this debate are shifting. He describes how NOM (National Organization for Marriage) has if anything only achieved ridicule for their recent “Gathering Storm” video campaign and goes on to link to articles describing how the opinions of many conservatives are even moving towards support of gay marriage.
Rich links to many articles and I certainly encourage you to sift through all of them but these are the ones that I found most interesting:
- Fact and Fiction on Gay Marriage Polling at FiveThirtyEight.
- Ex-McCain aide to call for gay marriage support at CNN.
- The original article in case you missed the link above:
The Bigots’ Last Hurrah at The New York Times - And the referring source:
Justice Is Gathering at Joe. My. God.
