If the premise of the problems that the LGBT community believes it has with President Obama is a lack of engagement on our issues and a lack of movement on those issues, then what steps would we want to see from the President?
- Quick movement on some LGBT issues.
- Engagement of the Justice Department with the LGBT community on its defense of DOMA.
- Engagement of the President with the LGBT community.
- A plan of action on our issues, from the repeal of DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Baldwin-Lieberman domestic partner health benefits bill.
Within a week of the filing of the brief in Smelt v. United States, the Obama Administration has done the first step with Wednesday’s memorandum signing and Thursday’s Census directive. Within two weeks of the filing, Obama will have done the second and third step, with the DOJ meeting to be held with LGBT legal groups and the Obama event with LGBT leaders (not to mention the LGBT DNC call on Monday).
Somehow, though, some think engagement is now a bad thing. I don’t understand.
Yes, the Smelt brief was offensive — and unnecessarily so — to the LGBT community and our allies. Yes, after the joy of the Election Night presidential win being tamped down by the Prop 8 loss, after the second Prop 8 loss in the California Supreme Court, this brief was all the more painful to see. Yes, we would have preferred to see more active engagement from the Administration on LGBT issues before needing to respond to the outcry over the Smelt brief.
Even assuming all that, what now?
Have people like Pam Spaulding, John Aravosis and Michelangelo Signorile absolutely given up on this Administration?
Even assuming that everything written at AmericaBlog over the past 10 days is absolutely, 100% correct, shouldn’t we at least let Mary Bonauto — who pulled out of attending the DNC fund-raising event and is one of the people most to thank for all we’ve achieved in marriage equality thus far — go to the meeting with the DOJ and report back to the community before judging whether these are empty gestures or real attempts to correct what the Administration had determined was a real problem? Shouldn’t we at least see whether the event with President Obama leads to something real or whether it was just “buying off gay leaders by seducing them”?
And if not, explain to me how we’re going to get anywhere?
Now, if the month ends and no one feels like we’re getting anywhere, if Bonauto comes out after the meeting and slams the Administration, if someone attending the White House event comes out after the event sharing that the President continues to give no timeline for legislative action on anything other than the hate crimes prevention legislation, then I would agree that we need to come up with a way of pressing our issues more forcefully.
But if we are seeing a real change in tone and action from the Administration, then haven’t we gotten — at least as a preliminary matter — exactly the sort of response we should want from the Administration?
[UPDATE: In my going through past and upcoming events, and looking at the two happenings -- the DOJ meeting and the White House event -- I believe that Michelangelo Signorile is correct and that -- at least as to him and Pam -- I unfairly conflated the two because of my belief that the two happenings are part and parcel of the White House's response to the concerns raised. Michelangelo has not written about the DOJ meeting, and Pam wrote about the meeting in a positive light. John, however, wrote of the DOJ meeting, "That's nice" and then critiqued how that doesn't answer what's gone wrong in the past. Apologies to Michelangelo and Pam for my painting with too broad a brush.]
* * * * *
Finally, a thought for Monday morning.
Even if you still think I’m wrong, can we at least agree that we should use this week to make sure that those attending these events don’t allow them to become events where the Administration is “buying off gay leaders by seducing them”?
Joe Solomonese, Mary Bonauto and whoever else is attending these events need to use the opportunity to “speak truth to power.” Let’s find out who is attending the events and ask them to pledge that they will use the opportunity to get answers from DOJ on the circumstances of the DOMA brief filing and the President on a timeline for legislative action.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Chris Geidner is the senior political writer at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
That’s a very good point. I don’t think they know what to do but spit foolish chatter. We need real leaders in this mess. We just look so disorganized right now.
I largely agree. Boycotting provides incentive to change behavior and garnering media attention provides pressure and scrutiny to engage with a problem. Both have occurred and the administration is currently responding with both of those hoped for reactions. Now is the time to engage this renewed interest with organized, objective-oriented discussion. If we don’t come back to the table then the incentive and pressure to engage merely diminishes over time as we appear more churlish.
This isn’t from the standpoint of an Obama apologist; it’s the best strategy given the current circumstances. If we’re afraid the fete is a party to seduce and woo with words and inaction, then how about we thank the administration kindly for the invitation but request to use the now scheduled time and space for a conference of sorts with all of the same invitees and White House staff? They’d even get to save taxpayer money! (I imagine it’s cheaper to set up some tables, chairs, and pads of paper than throw an “LGBT fete”.)
Chris, thanks for your perspective.
I need to clarify/correct something however:
I never said Mary Buonato or anyone should not attend meetings at the DOJ. There’s nothing in my post about meetings, or having gay activists pull out of them. For the record, I absolutely believe they should be in the meetings — they asked for meetings earlier and didn’t get them, and it could have stopped/tempered the DOMA brief. So, I’m all for the meetings because they are about substantive issues.
Equally, as I wrote in my post, unlike some critics I believe HRC and other groups should have been at the signing of the memorandum. I see both sides of this, but in my opinion it was appropriate to be there. However inadequate the memo was it was official business, the president giving some benefits, and it was right to be there, keep the dialogue open, and let him know it’s not nearly enough.
What I am opposed to them attending, however, is this cocktail party at the end of the month thrown for gay a-listers (lobbyists, exec directors, donors), etc. To me, this is solely about a photo-op for the president, and he doesn’t deserve that yet — there is no substantive issue to discuss (unlike the meetings) and he is not signing anything. Don’t let him use gay leaders to paper over the difference with a photo op. That was my message.
In fact, that was the meat of the posts by Pam Spaulding and John Aravosis, and you didn’t mention it at all — the cocktail party. Instead, you turned it into something about meetings at the DOJ, a straw man, at least in my case, because I don’t even discuss that.
Thanks, I encourage people to read my post (link below) for clarification and correction.
Michelangelo Signorile.
http://www.signorile.com/2009/06/gay-leaders-to-be-feted-at-white-house.html
The reason some think engagement is a bad thing is because it took “us” and people like Pam Spaulding, John Aravosis and Michelangelo Signorile and our anger at the SJC brief to get things going. Also please remember theres not only alot of frustration at the administration but also at the “organizations” that “represent us” like the HRC, etc. They have become totally worthless. Take Joe Solomese for example. Is he REALLY worth the quarter of a million dollar salary he makes? Does he earn it? I think not. I think alot of the frustration is that we don’t want Joe and the others representing us anymore. Because they do nothing and they can’t be trusted.
Look at what happened after we galvanized as individuals and out on some pressure Things began to happen. And we need to keep that going.
Yes we should listen. I truly wish though Obama would deal with members of the REAL LGBT Community and not professional advocates. Thats what needs to happen.
Does this not piss you off at all?
http://www.back2stonewall.com/?p=6287
Hi Chris,
I think you’re right that many in the LGBT community have become disillusioned with the Obama administration and the glacial pace of politics for advancement of LGBT rights. It seems there’s a populist uprising that’s caught the “leaders” of the LGBT movement and the administration off guard.
What I think most people have given up on is old style politics. Obama promised change, change that many in the LGBT community bought hook, line and sinker. I think people are feeling that Obama, for all his eloquence, is just another politician.
That said, the LGBT grassroots need to crank up the heat on the LGBT leaders and the Obama administration. As you’ve noted, the political beasts have taken notice. Now, we have to close the deal by continuing to demand the change that was promised.
On a similar note, I think we’re beginning to see the same disillusionment regarding healthcare reform…stay tuned.
Jim
Aravosis is risking the movement’s credibility with his tantrums. He’ll stop being taken seriously if he keeps it up.
That’s a fantastic idea.
You’re right. You didn’t write about the DOJ meeting.
I think that I see them as part of a coordinated White House-led response to the outcry over the Smelt brief, and, thus, have combined them as of the same effort in my mind. I see one as the legal-specific meeting to discuss the substance of the DOMA defense, and the other as the more generalized get-together for all folks.
But, you’re right they I have unfairly conflated the two happenings.
We wanted a quick response, and we got it. I believe the White House event could be as important as the DOJ event and that is is up to those attending to make it so.
As if the HRC and Joe Solomese can be taken “seriously” at the moment.