In the past few days, I have come across a lot of posts that criticize those in the gay rights community for being infuriated over things done and not done by the Obama administration in regard to gay rights.
"Give him time," someone said. "He's only been in office 5 months."
Five months is apparently long enough for Obama's attorney general to submit a brief defending a law he claims to want repealed, using inflammatory language that equates gay marriage to incestuous marriage.
"He had to defend the law!" it was argued, something others dispute.
On the State level, Arnold Schwarzenegger--a Republican!--faces a similar situation, with Proposition 8 being challenged in court. His response?
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declined to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8, telling a San Francisco judge that the legality of the anti-gaymarriage measure is for the courts to decide.
The governor's decision to remain neutral in a federal challenge to Proposition 8 means no statewide official will be defending the measure in federal court.
In declining to take sides in the suit, Schwarzenegger said the case "presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination."
"In a constitutional democracy, it is the role of the courts to determine and resolve such questions. . . . ," the governor said late Tuesday in his legal reply to the suit. "The Administration encourages the Court to resolve the merits of this action expeditiously."
Not being a lawyer, I can only rely on the claims of others who say the Obama administration had a similar option.
Another comment said people in the gay-lesbian community should not be "one issue voters." Yet what issue is more important? This brings me to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
Maslow categorized what he perceived as mankind's needs in order of importance, with the most important ones at the bottom and the least important at the top (not unlike the USDA Food Pyramid).
According to Maslow:
The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized.
The bottom four levels are considered "deficiency needs." Maslow said, with the exception of physiological needs, if the other deficiency needs are unmet, "the body gives no physical indication but the individual feels anxious and tense."
Looking at the second level--Security--you can see that without the right to marry or an assurance that you cannot be discriminated against in employment, these needs will never be met.
I have seen many gay people here express anxiety over their lack of a right to care for their partner if he/she becomes incapacitated or to choose burial arrangements in the event of death; gays have no right to share in benefits designed to keep families stable and secure; they have no right to feel confident that their families are secure. In fact, a judge recently overthrew a local judge's decision to prohibit a gay father from custodial visitation with his children in the company of homosexuals.
How can anyone challenge gay people for their anxiety at having these most basic rights unmet and even further threatened, when nothing, other than our physiological needs, supersedes them? Per Maslow, it is every person's psychological imperative to seek to fulfill this next level of need--not a choice.
I am straight, and I rest easy knowing that if my estranged husband dies, I automatically inherit his life insurance, retirement accounts, and his half of the house. I can draw on his social security. Nor will I ever be challenged by his parents for the right to raise our children, as some gay people have faced.
I know when we do divorce, my custody is not threatened simply because of who I choose to love, and I won't be denied visitation because I live with another man.
I know that if I do ever remarry another man, as long as one of us has health insurance, we are both protected. I know if we ever wanted to adopt a child together, we could.
How can anyone complain at others focusing on getting basic rights that we have had for so long we take for granted? Until everyone has their "security" needs met, it must be a priority for all of us.
Yes, I recognize many straight people do not have all their "security" needs met, but gay people have those concerns and more. It is short-sighted to suggest gay people are wrong to be angry at those they feel are standing between them and their most basic needs--even if that person is the president.
It also must be so disheartening to have heard Obama's promises in the campaign and see him take office, feeling so much hope that these rights were in your grasp and you could move up the pyramid, only to have it suddenly deflated. Even worse, the arguments laid out in the defense of DOMA will be picked up by attorneys in all states to argue against gay marriage. Just when gay rights seemed to be moving a step forward in some states, the Justice Department deals a blow that could quash the move.
While I agree Obama is far superior to the alternative, that does not mean we should let Obama think that just being better than the alternative is enough. Because in four years, there may be alternatives to Obama, also.