In what is seen as simply the latest betrayal by the Obama administration of the gay rights movement, the Justice Department recently expressed its support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from formally recognizing (and thus extending equal marriage rights to) same-sex couples. Obama’s camp gave the same excuse it did when it defended the president’s silence after two more gay officers were dismissed from the military for violating the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy: the president can’t change anything without congressional approval. Ignoring the fact that harsh words against either of these discriminatory policies would surely sway members of Congress, it’s important that Obama feel comfortable in making his true opinions known and vocal; a nation that is facing increasing polarization between its two major political parties requires strong leadership from the White House, no matter its tenant’s beliefs. And all Obama’s silence says is that he really doesn’t care about gay rights, that he doesn’t want to do anything to change Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and that he not only opposes gay marriage but also that it’s just not his problem.
And I can’t see Republicans, who are surely desperate to figure out some way to win back voters in 2012 and beyond, not viewing Obama’s nonchalance as a wonderful political opportunity. Gays are growing increasingly critical of President Obama’s attitude towards gay rights—and how that attitude has shifted from what he promised during the campaign. Do you really think it’s any coincidence that Dick Cheney chose this month to voice his personal support for gay marriage, or at least voicing his lack of opposition to it? “The former vice president’s remarks came as, a few blocks away at the White House, Obama was proclaiming June as ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month,’” according to the article, and while it’s naive to expect social conservatives to suddenly come flocking to the aid of this country’s gays and lesbians, it’s becoming more and more plausible that being virulently opposed to gay rights—whether marriage itself or at least equal legal protection—may not be necessary for a successful Republican campaign.
And don’t just take my word for it. Far be it from me to attempt to summarize this nation’s current conservative mindset, but some strongly Republican thinkers are starting to bring up the issue of small government—a central tenet of Republican philosophy—and how belief in decreased federal regulation precludes any national legalization or prohibition of gay marriage. Meanwhile, independent voters who don’t subscribe completely to either Democrats or Republicans will have even more influence in the coming election years, meaning you may see more fiscal conservatives supporting equal rights and, equally likely, some very bitter gays voting not necessarily for a Republican but against Obama and his perceived homophobia.
Because there are really on three ways 2012 can go down for Obama, as far as gay voters are concerned:
1) Obama continues to stay silent on so-called “gay issues,” thereby enraging the gay voting bloc and giving the next Republican presidential candidate a potential minority group to gain (you might think “exploit,” but should this situation arise, the next president would surely not replicate Obama’s gay-rights hypocrisy). Whether or not a major gay voting shift would alter the scales of a national election is, of course, unknowable until it happens, if even a few gay voters decided to vote against Obama, Democratic leaders would be hard-pressed to not sweat the first chink in their armor of social liberalism.
2) Obama continues to stay silent on so-called “gay issues,” thereby indicating that support of gay rights is not necessary to win office in twenty-first-century America. Republicans and Democrats alike oppose marriage equality and the repeal of policies like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Gays grow increasingly discontented with their federal government and continue to fight gay-rights battles on the state level, thereby promulgating the necessity of small government for national progression—which, as I said, is a tenet of Republican philosophy. And if social battles of the future are fought on the state level, who does that help, politically? Those who support more state-based and less federal regulation, and let me tell you, those people aren’t Democrats.
3) Obama finally speaks up in favor of gay rights, wins back the support of his gay constituency, and, as our nation increasingly (though slowly) comes to accept gay rights, bolsters his backing among “progressive” groups as well as those independent voters who count legislative equality as an important issue.
As one can see, there are several ways that Democrats could potentially lose unanimous gay support; if they want to keep us, they’re going to have to persuade Obama to follow through on the promises he made in his campaign.
June 14, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
Dude. Gay people are what, 2-3% of the population? And people who hate us and don’t want us to marry are significantly more than that? And Republicans have secured the latter group already and would probably not be inclined to risk forcing them to stay home in exchange for a minimal edge?
I’m afraid there aren’t enough LGBT people to make up an attractive bloc. Obama will oppose gay marriage in 2012 out of inertia, the 2016 nominee will support it, and the American party system will continue onward unchanged. Such is life.
June 15, 2009 at 12:12 am |
I don’t know if it’s naivete or my natural inclination to read into things too much or what, but I see a larger political and cultural shift going on here. It’s becoming less and less okay in the mainstream to openly “hate us”; while many still don’t embrace gay rights, being blatantly homophobic and anti-gay is seen as an increasingly reactionary move carried out by extremists on the political fringe. I don’t now, I think that the religious right’s zenith was passed when W. left the White House. I don’t think the next politically successful and nationally popular Republican politician will be catering to the homophobes.
June 15, 2009 at 7:58 pm |
You’re certainly right about the social dynamics behind this. Time and demography are on our side, and we won’t be debating basic legal equality issues in 20-30 years.
But while overplayed as an analogy, I think the history of civil rights in the ’70s and ’80s is instructive here. No one challenged de jure equality, obviously, but there was still white resentment about the end of Jim Crow, and one party chose to milk that for all it was worth. Recall the Lee Atwater line: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
Obviously, it’s entirely possible that some weird party realignment occurs in which more subtle gay baiting becomes a part of Democratic campaign strategy while Republicans avoid it like the plague. But I highly doubt it. Institutional inertia is a bitch, and the GOP would have to burn a lot of bridges to outflank the Dems on the left on this. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians are already huge donors to the Democratic party (think David Geffen), which is also hard to change.
June 16, 2009 at 1:00 am |
Dylan: I understand the tenacity of institutional inertia. I don’t believe that at any point in the near future will Republicans embrace the “gay vote” while Democrats ignore and/or go against it; but I do think that as a whole, the Republican would be wise to (and is surely astute enough to realize) the fact that homosexuality is becoming increasingly tolerated in this nation, and a major Republican political player doesn’t HAVE to simply oppose gay rights to retain both influence within the party as well as the “bridges” that make up so much of his constituency. History has proved time and again that only takes one smooth talker.