Commentary Magazine


Contentions

A Vote For Obama Isn’t a Vote for Gay Rights

As we know by now, five days before the election, President Obama is unable to run on his record, and has chosen not to run on a plan for the next four years. The president has instead been dependent on scare tactics–probably because he himself is quite scared. With the polling numbers coming out of swing states that were once reliably blue, like Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Michigan, he should be nervous about his looming possible unemployment. 

Only six months after Obama’s “evolution” (read: flip-flop) on gay marriage, he’s now basing a large portion of his campaign messaging on the subject. Hollywood elites have finally come in line with giving him some endorsements and have thrown fundraisers for the president, albeit not nearly as enthusiastically as they did four years ago. In the swing state of Wisconsin, a 20-something friend told me that for every ten ads she hears on her Pandora radio station, eight have been purchased by Obama’s reelection campaign. Many of these ads, she’s told me, implore her to vote for the president lest they find themselves unable to look their gay friends in the eye after election day. How could they vote against their friends’ own civil rights and liberties? Today on the Huffington Post a similar message appears,

If I hear one more person explain how, even though they believe in gay rights, they’re voting for Romney, I’m going to lose my mind. We need to find ways to reach these people who say they love us and call us friends.

That’s a pretty heavy gauntlet. The bottom line for that writer is that a vote for Romney is a vote against your gay friends and family. But is it?

Unlike Obama, Romney has barely uttered a word about social issues, steering clear of gay marriage and abortion and instead focusing on encouraging voters to consider his economic and foreign policy plans. A vote for Romney, for many, isn’t a vote against gays, but instead a vote for providing for their families and keeping their country safe from the very serious risks posed by countries like Iran, China, and yes, even Russia. 

Like he has been for the last four years on many other issues, President Obama is a lot of talk and very little action on gay rights, aside from reversing the draconian Bush-era policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell… Wait. Oh, that was written and enacted by the Clinton White House? Well, it’s a good thing Obama has repudiated that bigoted former president. Except that he hasn’t, and Clinton has instead been one of Obama’s most effective surrogates, both at the DNC and on the stump. The only change in the last four years that Obama has attempted, let alone executed, for gay rights is to reverse a policy enacted by his Democratic predecessor. Back in April, before his gay marriage flip-flop, President Obama had the ability to enact an executive order to protect gay and lesbian government contractors from workplace discrimination. Instead, in the Washington Posts words, “he punted.”

And what about the next four years? What strides will Obama make for gay rights? Released just last week, the President’s plan “Forward” contains zero promises or pledges to the gay community. Despite relying heavily on gay and lesbian couples for fundraising efforts, it appears they should expect nothing in return. 

As Obama’s actions both before and after his gay marriage flip-flop have shown, his commitment to gay rights appears to be merely one of convenience. Four years ago, it was politically expedient to be against gay marriage, thus President Obama made statements to that effect. In May, after Vice President Biden blurted out his previously unmentioned support of gay marriage, President Obama found it politically necessary to either repudiate his own vice president or change his stance, and chose to do the latter. He was rewarded with a flood of donations and a boost with youth voters who were unenthusiastic about going to the polls for a president who accomplished very little of what he promised four years ago. We now know what Obama believes, but we’re again left wondering, what is he going to do about it? If the last four years and his own reelection campaign promises are any indication, very little. 

Introducing Commentary Complete

6 Responses to “A Vote For Obama Isn’t a Vote for Gay Rights”

  1. BDZ says:

    You are wrong. The gays (in the sense of the activist community who lead and therefore define "gays"; not talking about rank and file who may actually be Republican in some cases) are an important Leftist constituency. They will be well taken care of by Obama, even if occassionally he needs to sound centerist. It is a huge error to see Obama as a guy who will adopt any position to stay in power: He would never, ever, become a conservative Republican even if he thought that was the only way to be elected. He is a committed Leftist ideologue. The idea that he does not actually want to give favors to a key constituency is foolish. It is true he may give very little to the gays, but that is only becuase it is hard to give them much in a semi conservative country. But has their back overall and they know it.

  2. ManyaShochet says:

    "But has their back overall and they know it" n nGreat. He says he has Israel's back too, and we see how little that means.

  3. ahadhaamoratsim says:

    There is a snark here waiting to be made aboutg ay marriage of convenience but I don't have time right now to figure out what it might be.

  4. sry123 says:

    Is there any chance that Romney's Justice Department will argue that the Supreme Court should apply heightened scrutiny when it evaluates the Constitutionality of state bans on gay marriage in the coming term? If not, isn't that an enormously important difference to gay Americans?

  5. ryeisenman says:

    You are confusing government entitlements (tax breaks of various sorts for married persons in matters of inheritance, health care, etc ) with human rights. Gays no more deserve government entitlements than do heterosexual couples. The law should treat individuals equally. What sort of romantic relationship one is or is not in should have no bearing. Government should stay out of the gay vs. straight moral battle, which is largely a religious battle (even involving those of the atheist religion). Couples of any sort should have the right to civil unions only. If you want to get married, you are free to go to the church of your choice. Determining what "marriage" might be should be left to the church of your choice.

  6. DavidBerkeley says:

    It's my suspicion that lefty gay activists of The Huff Post persuasion have no compunctions about echoing Pat Buchanan types and condemning "Israel Firsters" as one issue voters. Gay moral outrage at those who will vote for Romney,despite having gay friends,is therefore,highly selective………..

Leave a Reply