Obama, JFK and Gay Rights, Part II
I did this piece on Obama and gay marriage on CNN.com. Basically I argue that Obama’s approach to gay rights has some broad resemblances of the way Kennedy stiff-armed the civil rights community after he got elected. Here is the lede. The entire piece is available here.
(CNN) — Last week Gov. John Lynch signed a bill making New Hampshire the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.
It was a paradoxical moment. The new law is a reminder that same-sex marriage is the civil rights issue of our era and just how far the movement for marriage equality has come. It also highlighted the unexpected and remarkable silence from the White House on this issue…
But to date he has taken no significant action on this front and, more critically, his administration is actually being outpaced by state legislatures around the country.
Granted Obama has been in office for just 4½ months, but given the developments in Iowa, California and New Hampshire, they have been among the most significant months in the struggle for marriage equality.
The administration likely wishes to avoid the culture war debacle of Bill Clinton’s early presidency. But gay rights are a national issue in a way they weren’t in 1993. Thus the clouds of disappointment we already see gathering.
We long ago overdosed on comparisons of Obama and previous presidents, but it’s hard to miss the way his administration had begun to echo that of John F. Kennedy. And not in a good way.
PMM
I read your editorial on CNN. Well done. Well stated. I had not even thought of the atheist marriage slant. Thank you for your insight.
–Phil.
Jun 10, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Alan
Mr. Cobb
I’m a gay man (white), but I can name dozens of issues (war/peace, global warming, economy, global starvation, international religious tolerance and terrorism) that are MUCH higher priorities. I believe that gays are making enormous strides in many areas of civil rights, and that gay marriage is FAR from the emergency issue some portray it as. Gays have Civil Union protections in many places, and most are living together with their partners in peace. Gay marriage will come; we’re getting there. I am also surprised at people’s willingness to equate gay marriage with the civil rights struggles of African-Americans in the US, who were routinely deprived of MANY basic rights, such as physical safety, food, employment, and education. My sense is that at this point gays in the US have access to most of these things, AND to civil union protection for their relationships. Now, I see Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell as a higher priority (there is no alternative protection for gay military personnel equivalent to Civil Unions for marriage), but it still doesn’t rise near the level of Pres. Obama’s other pressing tasks. I support the pres in prioritizing basic safety for ALL and realizing that taking on a full-scale Culture War right now could jeopardize progress on these other crucial, and scary issues.
Jun 10, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Hey Jude
Thank you, Professor Cobb. Well said. There are lots of us so very
disappointed and angry with President Obama’s lack of attention to
this civil rights issue. Apparently life is always too busy for him to address the issue of equality.
Jun 10, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
John
What I don’t understand is why is this a suprise, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Carter..the issues are the same and as the gay population holds a mere 1.6 +/- % it is not likley any president is going to risk political capital to assist them. Whay are people suprised, for the same reason we slow down to see what happen in a car accident, its just entertainment.. If your still not sure ask your self, “why do people watch Jerry Springer?” An oh by the way this is not a civil rights issue its an issue of forced acceptance. Perhaps people should stop labeling them selves it would prove I think to carry far better, than to give your self a name that causes seperation.
Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Crystal
Thank you for your insight into this issue. We, the gay community are awaiting equality. It is an important issue since we are not allowed the same protections and rights as heterosexual married couples. Separate but equal will never suffice. I’m waiting for people to recognize the similarities as the civil rights movement, although if the LGBT community mentions the similarities, we are told that it is in no way similar. How people forget and refuse to open their minds to the fact that it isn’t our skin color, but is it something that is a part of who we are. Again, it is refreshing to read an educated man’s thoughts on the matter.
Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Pat - Houston
I agree with Alan; President Obama must put his priorities in order. He will get where you want him to go, give him time! Please let him deal with the “southern democrats” and the republican part of NO, so that he can advance policies for the greater good of ALL people!
Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Kim
I read your article on CNN and also had to write and commend you on your excellent story. Unlike the previous poster, I believe that gay rights are an EXTREMELY important priority and that they are the closest scenario we have to the civil rights fight of the 60’s (it wasn’t that long ago when interracial marriages were also illegal). I am a lesbian in a 17-year relationship and my partner and I have 2 small children. We live in a southern state that has banned same sex marriage (and will not recognize any marriages from out of state) and my employer absolutely will NOT put her on my health insurance (my partner stays home with the children) unless we can show a marriage certificate. My children and I have coverage and yet she is relegated to being a second-class citizen. Civil unions do not protect us — separate is inherently unequal and the former poster should be ashamed for thinking this issue isn’t just as important as hunger, homelessness, or peace. And there still isn’t a federal law banning employers from terminating employees based on sexual orientation! All of these issues involve basic human rights regarding health and safety — the right to have food when your hungry, the right to live without fear of a bomb falling on your head, the right to earn a living without fear of being terminated based on the gender of the person you love, the right to worship the religion of your choice without fear of your life, the right to care for those that your love when they are sick, the right for the person you love to inherit your property when you die AND the right to even take possession of said body for burial…all of these are extremely important and ALL should be valued. Thank you again for your wonderful article — I must admit, I was definitely skeptical before I read it, however I was very pleasantly surprised. I was impressed when you said that society didn’t value any less the marriages of atheists or people getting married by justices…definitely something to think about. Well done!
Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Willis
I don’t believe that President Obama is disregarding this Gay Right issue. I do believe the President will approach this issue as wisely as he can. Especically, on such a controversial topic. The fact that the Gay Right issue is so controversial, conveys that such a living is improper. To compare Gay Rights with Civil Rights is an injustice to humanity. The fight and struggle for Civil Rights is related to a race being denied of equality based on the color of their skin. The color of skin is a creation matter. No man choses or determines his own race. God the creator is the source of all human race. The Gay life style is a person’s own choice. It’s not a matter of creation, but a matter of choice. Every human being can choose whatever life style he or she desires, but we can not choose our skin color. Our creation is stictly according to God, not our life style. The President will eventually provide some support to the Gay society. Even though personally, I am against this support. I believe in the bible, God’s word. It’s clear that God created man and woman for marriage. Marriage is an expression of God’s divine image based on His creation. The continuation of this divine expression is by producing off-springs, children. The Gay life style is a direct contradiction with God’s divine order. My prayer is that the only wise God of heaven and earth will enlighten the President’s heart to view this issue through His divine and holy word. May God be meriful to our President; May many people in the Gay life style receive God’s gift of repentance to be delivered from such a living.
Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
AmericanException
There are several comments along the same lines in terms of taking offense at the comparison to the history of the civil rights movement.
We should start by saying that the people who actually guided, marched and got beaten for the civil rights movement (Coretta Scott King, Joseph Lowery, Jesse Jackson) have all said that gay rights are a civil rights issue.
I was once very offended by these comparisons too. Then I began actually studying the history of the civil rights movement.
I am not saying that the social histories of these movements is similar — for the most part they aren’t, though they share some broad themes as do many other reform movements in this country.
I am saying, however, that these were both instances where presidents were elected and promptly de-prioritized movements and issues that were said to be very high priorities on the campaign trail.
Moreover, the histories may be different, the suffering of African Americans may be more severe, but the Constitutional issues (the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for instance) are very, very similar.
Additionally, it is precisely BECAUSE I teach the history of the civil rights movement for a living that I am extremely wary of movements to reserve particular rights for one (majority) segment of society and withhold them from another (minority) segment of it.
Finally, as per the timing, I’m reminded that Martin Luther King warned in his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” that it is extremely dangerous for a privileged group of people to prescribe the timetable for other people attaining their rights.
If we look at the civil rights movement as a set of principles as opposed to a specific history this comparison begins to make much more sense.
Jun 10, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
AmericanException
One additional point. Gays do represent a tiny fraction of the electorate and the population. But strategists aren’t thinking about them as a representative portion of society, they’re thinking about the ripple effect. The numbers of folk like me — straight, but with close friends and family members who are gay — and who in turn make that segment of the population effectively much larger.
Similarly, LBJ and JFK had to contend not only with the 12 or so percent of the population that was black but the increasing numbers of liberal whites who began to see Jim Crow as intolerable.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 12:29 am
Bob
I found your posting very interesting and well spoken. I recently attended an LGBT event to support a friend and heard of the same parallels between Civil Rights and the LGBT movement. I am troubled by similar comments I have heard recently.
I do not dispute the fact that no one could/can hide from skin color. But in as much as a person cannot choose skin color, they cannot choose to be “not gay”…they can try, but the emotional turmoil that ensues is unsettling. The Jewish people in Nazi Germany were identified and summarily executed because they were Jewish. Slavery for Indians by the early settlers forced decimation of entire tribes and families and loss of heritage. The slave trade of Africans and the horrific pain it caused will never be forgotten….nor should it. Each of these groups (inclusive of the African American tragedy) had had their share of bigotry, isolation, persecution, and discrimination, and death. Each is entitled to Civil Rights and subject to the same benefits of a society as the other. Let’s not forget why each of these things happened…someone / something was different…didn’t fit in to the “plan”…whatever that was. They convinced society that the difference was grounds for acting out hateful aggressions and abuse of power and no amount of tears will ever heal the wounds.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 3:34 am
Jen
Mr. Cobb,
Thank you sir for your insightful editorial. Clearly there is a great amount of debate regarding the comparison between the struggle for gay rights and the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s. However, I fear that people are too engrossed with making or unmaking a comparison and miss the entire point; regardless, gay rights is still about civil rights. Further it has been argued here, and in other forums, that gay marriage is not as high a priority as other current issues such as the economy, the war or the environment. On this point I strongly disagree because there are so many fundamental rights tied into the legal state of marriage. Without gay marriage there cannot be social acceptance and there cannot be complete protection under the law. And as for those who consider “being gay” to be a “choice” I say this: people do not choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight. And if, for some reason, you believe that you have chosen to “be straight” then perhaps you aren’t as straight as you would like to think.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 5:02 am
Leo Cuevas
Thank you very much for your article.
This truly is the civil rights movement of our generation. Allowing a segment of the population to marry and denying another segment that civil right is unfair, unjust and unconstitutional. It’s interesting to read the comments and the ignorance that permeates in society. A “civil right” does not simply pertain to race, but to any civil right a country affords its citizens, marriage is only one of many civil rights.
My partner of almost 10 years became VERY vocal about Gay rights here in our Conservative town of Alamogordo, in Southern New Mexico prior to the 2004 election.
My partner is an elementary school teacher who has taken quite a bit of heat from co-workers and has been harassed by local pastors and residents for being so vocal about acceptance and equality. How a church or a citizen can become enraged when one calls for equality, love and tolerance is beyond me!
However, we’ve now both decided to become very vocal, hold rallies, write op-ed letters to help educate and open a discussion with the local, right-wing, closed minded community. We have also recently adopted a child in New Mexico, thanks to the state and CYFD supporting Gay adoptions.
We believe a people powered movement has to happen in order for us to gain our equal rights. We have followed blindly, believing year after year in The Democratic Party, while 50% of the party supports our cause, we still need the other 50% to help pass any legislation.
Here in New Mexico 40% of Democrats take guidance from the Catholic church, while others beelive Civil Rights must be negotiated. WE beleive the church has no place in politics and civil rights should NEVER be up for negotiation. We are in the process of working with others in Northern New Mexico to start our own movement and be heard!
As a Latino, I know my community is currently not very supportive of Gay marriage. I applaud you writing this article, knowing the African-American community does not support Gay Marriage either. This is not a religious issue, it is a civil rights issue, but how can we convince our communities to support equality for all?!
Thanks again for your article.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 5:33 am
james sitati
Please give President Obama time,he will surely address the gay issue,anything to do with gay people is a thorn to some Americans and you should know that,the USA is not above discrimination infact l think it is getting worse look at todays killing of a security guard at the holocaust meseum,one day soon gays will have equal rights with the general population and maybe soon America will have a gay President.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 5:42 am
Chuck
I think you need to chill. I honestly thought that Bill Clinton was the last President of this nation. 9/11 changed that, and an idiot became, possibly, the last president.
I applaud you for pushing Obama hard, but, also, you need to be aware of the alternatives that lurk.
Challenge, yes. But don’t divide. Obama is not a God. But he is an amazing human being and he somehow got elected and he now needs to manage the desires of many different groups.
If we play this out right, the Democrats will the the conservatives.
And a new party, representing progressive thought, will emerge as the opposition.
If you want this to happen, and I suspect you may, then play your damn cards right.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 6:01 am
Chuck
If we play this out right, the Democrats will the the conservatives.
I meant, the Democrats will become the new conservatives.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 6:03 am
Sam
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Kinohi
Thanks for this measured critique, Professor Cobb. It’s true that the states are pushing forward on this issue faster than Obama is. When even Dick Cheney offers half-hearted support for gay marriage, it makes Obama’s record (so far) on gay rights look meager indeed.
At stake in the administration’s silence, it seems to me, is Obama’s credibility. I’m sure something like California’s Proposition 8 lingers is brought to the fore whenever he considers gay rights issues. The fact of the matter is that there are still many people out there who would use Obama’s more direct support of gay rights issues to discredit him. The parallel to Kennedy, in this regard, is instructive. Like Kennedy with African American civil rights, Obama’s lukewarm stance toward gay rights is of a piece with his trying to hold together a broad coalition of constituencies and interests whose support he needs to advance his foreign and domestic policies.
As you rightly point out, this fact (of political maneuvering) is no excuse for Obama’s continued or, better, prolonged silence on the issue of gay rights. This is where Kennedy failed — nothing much would have changed were it not for the civil rights struggle and, ironically, the Southern Democrat LBJ’s rise to the presidency. I can only hope that as Obama retains broad-based political support — from moderate conservatives, Catholics, Latinos, and a host of others — during these difficult times, he’ll come to see gay rights as an important issue to address, especially through his allies in Congress (supporting someone who could craft a bill that would allow for gay and lesbian adoption nationally). This last point underscores the fact that, quite often, the most important civil rights gains start at home, through our locally elected representatives (and not necessarily with the President).
Jun 11, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
JamesD
Thanks for the useful info. It’s so interesting
Jun 11, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Sam
Marriage is sanctioned by God not the Government and it is a union between a man and a woman. It is not and will never be a Civil Rights issue. Gay couples live, work and entertain themselves in this country the same I do. For me it’s about a term ” Marriage”. Does the term Marriage make the term anymore legitimate then same sex couple, same sex partners? No, but it’s the need to force society to except what they do not belive in. I’ve never had a problem with Same Sex couples having full rights to their parners benefits and everything else.
The bible is clear about this issue ”
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. ”
“Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. ”
Marriage is a union between a Man (male) and a Woman (female).
God sanctioned Marriage with the creation of Eve. As stated above I believe that same sex couples should be able to form a union with all rights, but the term Marriage should not change. I’ve heard over and over again people should be able to love who they want ( this is true), does using the term Same Sex union mean you love the person less. Does saying Marriage mean you love the person more? No it’s about attempting to force the religous commuity to change the way they feel about the term Marriage. I don’t care what Lowery, Coretta Scott King or any of the other Civil Rights folks have to say about the issue my opinion still stand ( Marriage is a covenant between God a man and a Woman). I don’t believe Mr. Cobb cares one way or another about Gay Marriage it’s just his way of attacking President Obama.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Steve
Thank you for your excellent CNN article on President Obama and gay rights. You said exactly what I had been thinking, that our President is indeed the new JFK or FDR inasmuch as he may pay lip service to civil rights but seems unwilling to do much about it because it is just too controversial. I liked the article so much I e-mailed it to the President, although I doubt that will do much good.
I contributed to, and voted for, Obama, but am very disappointed that my civil rights are not on his radar. I had been complaining that, unlike President Clinton but like President Bush, President Obama had not proclaimed June as Gay Pride Month (which of course is only symbolic anyway). When I googled, I discovered that he had in fact issued the proclamation, but apparently did so on the road in such a low profile way that he hoped no one except gay people would notice.
There is a great line from MLK’s immortal “I Have a Dream” speech on the “tranquilizing tonic of gradualism.” MLK did not want to drink that tonic and neither do I.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Steve
It is especially refreshing to read this article by a black man, when so many blacks seem to want only to quote the Bible, when so many blacks trumpet the idea that gay rights is not a civil rights issue like black civil rights (as though blacks patented civil rights and have an exclusive franchise on the subject) and seem to believe that instead of a civil rights issue it is an issue of sexual perversion. It was devastating to read that seventy to seventy five percent of black voters voted against gay marriage in California, and that this huge black, anti-gay turnout for Obama passed Proposition 8 in California as well as the similar ballot measure here in Florida. Of course, we will win in California the next time we put it on the ballot, as least so long as Obama is not on the ballot at the same time.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Leo Cuevas
This musical with Jack Black is great:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
Jun 11, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Billl
Obama has stated, quite clearly, that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also believes that the states should decide for themselves. How can Obama, with these two opinions, have any input on whether the states allow same sex marriage?
Jun 11, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
M
As always, a thought-provoking piece. Thank you for sharing, Jelani.
I have stayed out of the fray until now, but the last comment pushed me over the edge, so here goes:
When someone presents the argument for gay marriage in terms of constitutional law and principles, as Jelani has in his writing, it makes it far clearer and easier for many folks — myself included — to consider gay marriage as a civil right. There are other issues at stake here, though. When he references the writings of Dr. King, it truly comes off quite differently than when a white gay does. Many of us Black folk are tired to death of having Dr. King’s words be used by everyone to talk about everything *except* white supremacy and the continuing issues of racism faced by Blacks in America.
While there are gays of every race and social class, the gay movement has done itself a massive disservice by allowing for the face of gayness to become incredibly materially well-to-do white men. The gay movement — if it is so concerned about civil rights and wants wide support — could probably do well by seeming to give a fuck about issues facing poor Black and Brown people. But I’m not really remembering seeing busses of white gays come down and rally around the Jena Six, for example. I didn’t hear widespread outcries from the Stonewall crowd when Sean Bell was murdered, or Amadou Diallo, for that matter. Why do white gays expect a one-way street as far as support goes?
Also, for Steve and others who share his beliefs: The accusation that Blacks are the primary force behind anti-gay legislation or belief, that the Black church is some behemoth monolithic force, and that Black voters somehow completely bent the laws of mathematics and electoral functioning and demography to single-handedly defeat Prop 8 is misguided, damaging, and highly offensive. Seriously, stop. We are a tiny fraction of the public in California and an even tinier fraction of eligible voters. Your focus on the Black vote allows you to remain in collusion with your white supremacy, to not point your fingers at the people in power, and I get that. Because it is all-too-often you, and folks like you, and your families. But it does not help your movement, and it does not encourage support for your causes.
Finally, it’s not just that race is (in some ways) more visibly marked than sexual orientation, it’s that racial discrimination is generational in a way that discrimination against gays isn’t and cannot be, because the vast, overwhelming majority of gay folks were raised in straight families. Quite a bit different than being the not-too-distant descendant of people who were brought to this country in chains on the bottom of a slave ship to work in the fields of the very same folks who still wield all of the power.
Jun 11, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Miles Ellison
Shouldn’t more of the anger about Prop 8 in California be directed at the Mormon Church? After all, they bankrolled the campaign. The larger issue, it seems to me, is religious interference with people’s constitutional rights. As has been pointed out, marriage is a civil and legal institution. It doesn’t HAVE to be a religious one. If devout churchgoers of various faiths don’t want gay people getting married under the cover of their religions, that’s an issue that should be settled with the gay members of those churches, outside of the purview of government. Co-opting the democratic process and denying people civil rights based on religious dogma is hostile to everything that this country is supposed to stand for.
Jun 12, 2009 @ 12:23 am
Winslowalrob
So Dr. Cobb, quick armchair historian question: how overrated was Kennedy? Personally I think he was not all that hot and gets tons of credit now based on nostalgia and hagiography, but I was wondering what you thought.
Jun 13, 2009 @ 1:07 am
AmericanException
A lot of Kennedy’s allure lay in the fact that the biographies of him, especially the early ones, were written under the shadow of his assassination.
Arthur Schlesinger, historian and court scribe to the Kennedy clan coined the term “Camelot” and his book 1,000 Days was the cornerstone of the hagiography.
But on multiple levels Kennedy was less than the public ideal. It’s not fair to lay this at his feet as part of a big hoax — it’s what happens to many major American figures, especially those who die tragic deaths.
He did drag his feet on civil rights tho. And he sold arms to South Africa despite their apartheid policies because he thought them a valuable ally during the Cold War.
He made strategic decisions again and again that were at odds with the general perception but again, part of this is inherent in the presidency.
I guess the best way to sum it up is Kennedy was overrated and so were most other people.
Jun 13, 2009 @ 1:43 am
Devon M
Thanks for the opportunity to openly comment on such a topic as this one.
Reading through other comments/opinions on this page, my eyebrows were raised in either agreement and sometimes in a partial frown due to confusion.
I am Black, lesbian, and legally married in the state of CT. I do not currently reside there. However, for the first time I felt a sense of liberation because I was married to the person that I will spend my life with from that day on. The people that were there at the legal office were so giving and so understanding regardless of their own personal/religious beliefs they all performed their duties as a citizen and as a gov’t employee. I said that to say this: When they woke up the next morning, dressed, kissed their husband/wife, my getting married to whom I chose is not affecting their daily lives nor is affecting anything else.
As stated above, if devout church goers or members of various faiths do not believe in gay marriage, then that’s an issue to be settled with gay members of those churches. That should be outside of the view of gov’t.
Furthermore, if ‘being gay’ is a choice then there’s another clause here. This country fights daily on the mention that we have the right of choice. If you are born with brown hair, decide to dye it blonde to be mainstream or otherwise, that’s your choice. I personally do not believe my being lesbian is a choice. Although I am well aware that there are people who follow or support ‘trends’, but for those gay/lesbian citizens that want and deserve equal rights as does any other couple, should have just that. A legal marriage, or a like meaning for legal marriage should be an option. How can we as a society segregate certain citizens from having that right?
Civil rights of the 60’s is much different than the issue of gay marriage, however both share broad, underlying similarities.
In my opinion, we as a country, and as a people (meaning the Black/Brown community), need to open our hearts and minds to the idea of equality and love. Because religion was/is driven into us as children, some of us are afraid to phathom the thought of thinking differently, yet some use the Bible to back their ignorance, hate, disgust, etc. How is it that people use religion so divisively, to think that a mainstream group of people can hault or create a timetable for others to gain rights?
Bottom line: Marriage is a civil and legal constitution that everyone citizen should be entitled to if they so choose.
Jun 18, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Clayton Koppes
Excellent piece, and your comparison with JFK, which I’ve also made to friends, is all too apt.
Clayton Koppes
Professor of History
Oberlin College
Jun 20, 2009 @ 5:01 pm