–noun
- the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.
- the state of being despised; dishonor; disgrace.
- Law .
a. willful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court (contempt of court) or legislative body.
b. an act showing such disrespect.
Contempt.
Why contempt for this administration's record on LGBT issues? Well first, it isn't just LGBT issues, at least in my case. I could cite any number of problems with this administration's policies. But with this issue, of course, it is personal. I still remember trying to elect "more Democrats" before it was chic, and finding their response to gay issues cool indeed. When Michigan passed a bigot amendment in 2004, the party couldn't even be bothered to take an official stance against it. At least, not until 2006, when they wanted gay donors and volunteers. I remember "God is in the mix" being on my voicemail the day after Prop 8 passed, after I had spent the day out campaigning for our "fierce advocate." Almost two years later, and the only legislative achievement the Party can point to on this issue is hate crimes. Important, sure, but hardly a cornerstone of the LGBT civil rights movement. It was, believe it or not, illegal to kill homosexuals and the transgendered before 2009, and it is just as illegal today. But have they done anything about employment discrimination, which impacts LGBT Americans harder in hard times? No. Relationship recognition? Not really; we are going to be tossed out of any immigration reform, and we were informed that DOMA repeal is a second term goal, after the administration finishes defending constitutional attacks on it in court. So there was remarkably little progress on LGBT rights under the Democratic majority. And why should they bother, anyway?
What is political homophobia?
"Political homophobes aren't gay-hating in the traditional sense. In fact, publicly, most are strong supporters of LGBT equality. But, behind closed doors, many Democratic leaders, consultants, Hill staffers and the rest will vociferously argue that there is no political benefit to actually supporting LGBT rights. Political homophobia is rampant among some Democrats. In some ways, it's worse than blatant homophobia, since we think most Democrats are on our side. And outwardly, they are."
Joe Sudbay is a DC-based political consultant with over twenty-five years of experience at both the state and federal level. Joe has managed political operations and legislative efforts for both candidates and issues-based organizations. For seven years, he was the Director of State Legislation at Handgun Control, Inc. He served as that organization's first Political Director during the 2000 cycle. Joe has appeared on numerous national and local television and radio shows including the Diane Rehm Show, CNN's Crossfire (when Lynne Cheney was the co-host), and even Hannity and Colmes. Joe is a graduate of the University of Maine School of Law. In addition, he has a Masters in Public Administration from Lehigh University and received his B.A. from the University of New Hampshire. He also has a fun dog, Petey, a worthy successor to Boomer, who got Joe through eight years of Bush and Cheney. Joe likes to think he is a world class athlete having finished the 2005 Chicago Marathon in the time of 4:10. He has completed five other marathons as well -- and is determined to break the four hour mark.
December 2008: Obama: I’m a ‘Fierce Advocate’ for Gay and Lesbians
At a press conference in Chicago this morning, President-elect Barack Obama responded to attacks from gay-rights advocates who say they his selection of Pastor Rick Warren, a critic of gay rights, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
Warren, a leader of the evangelical Saddleback Church in Orange County,Calif., came out in favor of Proposition 8 — a ballot initiative that stripped gays of the right to marry in the state. The hot-button initiative narrowly passed, setting off a firestorm among gay rights advocates who took to the streets in protests across the state.
Obama, who often mentioned his support of gay rights in stump speeches, though not gay marriage, said today that he is a "fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans," adding, "It’s something I’ve been consistent on."
Consistency? No one put a gun to his head and forced him to describe himself as a "fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans." It was a label he himself chose. It has now become, well, an insult, and a deserved one. Nothing about this administration's record supports that label. This was not always the case; in 1996, Obama did take some principled stands but, much like Senator Kerry did in 2004 after being one of 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, has since flipped on them:
1996: Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally'
President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions". [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.]
And what of DADT? Gibbs assured us that the policy would be repealed. In fact, he didn't hesitate at all:
"Is the new administration going to get rid of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy?" he asked.
Spokesman Robert Gibbs replied, "[Y]ou don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much, but it's yes
Yes, how inspiring. And now?
June 29, 2009: Air Force Hero Forced to Choose: Admit You're Gay or Accept Rape Charge:
Fehrenbach's case also caught Obama's eye. On June 29, Fehrenbach attended a White House ceremony for the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, which marked the beginning of the gay rights movement.
Fehrenbach asked Obama for his help and urged him to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Fehrenbach told Maddow that night that Obama said: "We're gonna get this done."
The following day, Gates reiterated the administration's view that Congress should repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Q How much of a priority is this for him?
MR. GIBBS: Well, it's something that --
Q I mean, is there a timeline or --
MR. GIBBS: When we can get it done. The President has talked about this -- and I've talked about the fact that to have an enduring solution this had to be done legislatively. That, I think most people recognize, is going to take some time to do, working with both Congress and the Pentagon. I think the President will address this in remarks at the event a little bit later today.
Q Change in policy?
MR. GIBBS: Pardon me?
Q A change?
MR. GIBBS: No. But, again, in order to have that enduring solution, this is going to have to be done legislatively.
When can we get it done? Robert Gibbs, our critic of the "professional left," delivered this tired response the same day that President Obama met with Fehrenbach and assured him that "we're gonna get this done." Fehrenbach doesn't believe President Obama these days, if he ever did:
Fehrenbach claims he was denied due process, that his Board of Inquiry "held preconceived notions about homosexuality that prevented them from rendering an impartial verdict;" that his discharge process was begun without "credible information;" that his own statements were obtained through coercion and in violation of military rules, specifically Article 31; that the Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and his commanding officers denied him equal protection because of his sexual orientation; and that they violated his First Amendment right to free speech and "expressive association."
He seeks a restraining order and injunction and wants the "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' statute, 10 U.S.C. § 654, and regulations issued under it, including, but not limited to Air Force Instruction 36-3206, entitled Administrative Discharge Procedures for Commissioned Officers, (declared) on their face null and void as violating the United States Constitution."
Of course, this didn't need to happen. President Obama has a basis for halting discharges. Several, in fact; his wilful refusal to do so, along with his checkered history on LGBT issues, lofty rhetoric notwithstanding, is what makes many gay and lesbian citizens question his commitment to basic civil rights and fair treatment. A May 2009 study revealed that the president has the authority to prevent Fehrenbach's discharge:
May 11, 2009: New Study: Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order
There are three legal bases to the president’s authority, the report says. First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, "Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation" Under the law "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States" during a "period of national emergency." The statute specifically defines a "national emergency" as a time when "members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty."
The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the "don’t ask, don’t tell" legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed "under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense... in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation." Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members "if" a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the "authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made."
Of course, the White House's proposed "durable solution" is no solution at all for Fehrenbach, or for Jarod McIntosh and Katherine Miller, as our own DADT regular diarist Clarknt67 has documented. First, it hasn't been passed. Second, it is inferior to a statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, a statute that was being considered before it was torpedoed by conservative anti-gay Democrats in collusion with the White House.. In any event, even if the necessary steps are followed, the discharges continue, and there is no indication that those who were let go in the interim will return to their jobs or have their records corrected.
Even the Pentagon's "reforms" in enforcement are bogus, as illustrated by the case of McIntosh. Here is what is not covered by Gates' "humane" revisions:
Even with the updated Pentagon Instructions, the language does not change the fact that statements, acts, or same-sex marriage, are still grounds for discharge under DADT, including:
A service member can still be fired if outed by his or her parents;
A service member can still be fired for revealing his or her sexual orientation while making a statement to the police that would prevent or help solve a crime;
A service member's middle school teacher can still out the service member 10 years after he came out to her in social studies class;
A service member can still be discharged if he reports that someone has threatened to kill him for being gay;
A service member can still be fired for hugging someone of the same sex;
A service member can still be fired for getting married; and
A service member can still be fired for saying she would like to return from Iraq to care for her dying girlfriend.
Even in the midst of this horror record, Organizing for America, with no hint of shame, continues to ask for gay volunteer time and money, without dirtying itself by doing, well, anything for gay rights. They need not bother, as there's little to no justification for any self-respecting LGBT person to lift a finger for this administration. In spite of its assurances, there is no indicating that ENDA will be passed this year, and "repeal" of DADT is no given. HRC and SLDN have mobilized a grassroots campaign to push for passage, but nothing is guaranteed and there is little reason to be optimistic.
In response to one of the most important federal decisions, President Obama stated that he opposed Proposition 8. Off the record, an aide further explained, once again sending mixed signals consistent with his awkward position on marriage equality:
And yet, Obama's position remains that "marriage is between a man and woman," as he said shortly before the 2008 presidential vote. An unnamed aide explains the logic to Politico:
The official statement didn’t reiterate Obama’s opposition to gay marriage, but a spokesman said his position on that issue was unchanged.
"He supports civil unions, doesn’t personally support gay marriage though he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has opposed divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop. 8 in other states," said the Obama aide, who asked not to be named.
New York Magazine
Gays aren't good enough for marriage, but they are good enough for civil unions. Got it.
Well, you know what I have to say to this? Fuck you, cowards, in Congress and in the White House. Win your elections on your own corporate dime, with whatever enthusiastic volunteer support you can muster. I hope you have points that will sell when presented to the American public, because given your record so far and the insanity of the opposition, it doesn't look so hot.
Better Democrats, period.