Victoria Brownworth

it’s been one week since president obama was feted by HRC and he’s done nothing to promote my civil rights or those of any other american queer.

this isn’t a surprise, of course.  millions of LGBT americans are, like me, waiting on tenterhooks to be granted full citizenship, but it does put yet another lie to the rampant rhetoric that comes out of the obama white house on an almost daily basis with regard to vital progressive issues. 

at the HRC event obama was lauded by the usual suspects: stalwart (read: overwhelmingly white and wealthy gay men) assimilationists who voted for obama and thus feel compelled to pretend that he’s repaying the favor ten months out. 

obama gave a rousing speech (i know i’m becoming a bit of a gadfly on obama and his speechifying, but if the ferragamo fits…). he said yet again that he was committed to civil rights for queers (he didn’t say queers).

and then there are the facts, m’am, and they just don’t jibe with what the president said. not even a little bit.

obama reaffirmed that he would end don’t ask, don’t tell. and that he supports “basic equality” (whatever that is). he said, “I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight.” really, mr. president? because dan choi doesn’t seem to think so. probably because he was discharged from the military under DADT, under your watch. like nearly 300 other lesbian and gay soldiers, sailors and marines.

then there’s the whole marriage thing. pesky, that. obama has skirted the DOMA issue repeatedly and for good reason: he’s on record as stating in more than one speech that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. but he also says he thinks civil unions are just as good and he supports those. but i would note that if civil unions are “just as good” as marriage, then why don’t barack and michelle obama have a civil union instead of a marriage?

no real answer for that one, is there, except that the only people who believe civil unions are “just as good” as marriage are all heterosexual and all married.

pam spaulding (www.pamshouseblend.com) argued after the HRC event that the focus should be on the fact that obama was saying nice things about queers (she didn’t say queers) and that meant kids in the hinterlands would feel less ostracized and more included in the mainstream. the mere fact of the president acknowledging the existence of queers should make every closeted kid in america feel good about her/himself.

it’s a nice argument and i agree with spaulding more often than not, but she does suffer from OAS (obama apology syndrome), which i do not.  this argument is pretty weak. it’s weak because a speech is a speech and without concomitant action, it is nothing but another big, bold f*** you with a nice red ribbon tied around it. being screwed up the ass without your consent with lube instead of without isn’t a present. it’s still being screwed.

why is spaulding’s argument weak ? because to begin with, obama’s message to HRC wasn’t exactly on prime time and it wasn’t exactly news. nor, alas, was this the first time  obama had made the same claims. (he’s been saying this for two years and ten months, but who’s counting…) 

if you check obama’s speeches over the past few months they all resonate with one singular chord: change takes time. you can’t just fix things.

that might be good enough for the crowd in new orleans a few days ago or the black-tied HRCites last weekend, but it’s really not good enough for anyone who isn’t an obama apologist.

see, actually, you can just fix things, mr. obama because you are president. and you can start by not partcipating in amicus briefs that equate same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and bestiality. (and yes, that is what the brief said and no amount of OAS will alter that fact. read the brief. read it.)

you can also start, mr.president, by issuing a stop-loss order which would end DADT until congress could officially end it, which they would, mr. president, if they had your imprimatur.

i would urge the obama white house to take a look–quick or long–at the eight bush years. i’m not suggesting that obama go all rogue and cheneyesque or anything. but one can use one’s executive power for good, not evil at pretty much any time. really–look over the work of any good president who has created positive change. it happens. when you are president you can get up at 3 a.m. whether hillary clinton has called you or not and convene a bunch of your higher-ups and sign an executive order. or you can wait until 10 a.m. and have the press there en masse and give out pens and smile at the crowd convened near the rose garden. but you can do it, because you are president.

obama told the cheering, applauding, ass-kissing, bend-over crowd at HRC:  ”We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness,” Obama said. “I’m working with the Pentagon and its leadership and members of the House and Senate on ending this policy…I will end ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.’ That’s my commitment to you.”

when, mr. president? when? dan choi is wondering.

i am reminded of how often obama repeated rev. martin luther king, jr.’s line about the “fierce urgency of now.” with obama civil rights have the “fierce urgency of whenever the polls look like it might be okay and rahm emanuel tests the political waters for me first and then i check my own moral compass which tells me that it might be better in my second term.”

i voted for obama for one reason and one reason only: to beat back the racism that had swelled up from the rancorous republican base. i didn’t vote for him because i thought he was the best candidate—he wasn’t. better than mccain, you betcha! better than hillary clinton? no way. better even than cynthia mckinney? i think not. i didn’t vote for obama because i drank the hope and change kool aid–i didn’t. i voted for him because i didn’t want the racists to get the upper hand because i had spent my life battling racism and i wasn’t about to stop just because my own candidate was no longer an option.  

all that said, i did believe that there was a chance that i would be wrong and that obama would rise to the occasion of a  nation in turmoil and flux and grab with alacrity at the remarkable opportunity to be a progressive president with some level of vision and purpose that would help people rise up in ways that candidate obama kept promising.

when i was still a college student i co-founded the first lesbian radio program in america–amazon country on WXPN-FM in philadelphia. the program is still on the air on the same local NPR station. but 30 years ago when the closet was still the place most american queers lived, being able to hear queers every sunday morning from the safety and comfort of your own home was incredible. in those years i received letter after letter, call after call from people of all ages over the tri-state area reached by our station. my show was a life-line.

obama could create a new lifeline for every queer in america, closeted or out. 

obama never went to jail for civil rights actions like his african-american forebears because he didn’t have to. he could go to harvard and be the editor of the law review. he could be a senator and he is now president. racism may still be alive and well in america, but more than 50 percent of the voters last november—the majority of whom were white–voted an african american into the highest position of authority in country and the world.

i have gone to jail quite a few times for civil rights actions for queer rights. my parents went to jail for actions for black civil rights. i am not asking obama to spend a night in jail for me or anyone else. but it would be good if he sat down and read rev. martin luther king, jr’s “letter from a birmingham jai.l” (www.africa.upenn.edu)  it would be good if he understood what it is for those of us who are on the margins of society–not because we belong there, but because bigotry and hatred jettisoned us there–to live without the same safety and security and ability to pursue life and liberty and happiness that the president enjoys because so many people worked to give him that chance.

this is not 1993. obama is not the political naif bill clinton was on the subject of LGBT rights. plus obama has the benefit of history: he can see what went wrong for clinton–clinton should have just signed an executive order and not respected the pentagon and the generals and all the bipartisan crap that keeps us from making real change in washington.  

obama said he was the embodiment of change we could believe in. he said he reflected the desire of all americans for change. we still want and need that change, mr. president. we are still waiting. for us the fierce urgency is indeed now. what do we have to do to make you understand that we need change now? what do we have to do to become equal in the eyes of you, mr. president, and the laws over which you hold sway? what do we have to do to become whole citizens in our own country? it will take more than one more speech, mr. president. it will take a pen in your hand poised for history.—vab