[Alyssa Rosenberg]
All respect to everything Ta-Nehisi is saying about Obama and gay rights, and how credit for speaking out should be apportioned. But I have to say, I'd be much more interested to hear what Bill Clinton has to say on the ways his views on equal marriage rights have evolved right now than I am to hear Obama talk about what he's going to do, at some point, in the next three years. Someone who is reflecting, and who can acknowledge his beliefs and how they've changed and why, free of political responsibility, might do a lot more good than a reluctant advocate.
Update: Lots of thoughts on this in comments. I said this because I don't believe that Obama, while in office, will
ever a) talk about his honest feelings about and personal experiences
with gay people, or b) endorse full marriage equality. And
I believe that a) knowing gay people personally is the single
experience most likely to change people's minds about equal rights, and b) that, now that Lawrence has
decriminalized sodomy, that marriage is THE issue around which
difficult discussions are going to be had, because it is the policy
that gets at the difference between gay people and straight people. If
Bill Clinton were willing to talk about how his attitudes on equal
marriage rights changed, he'd be addressing both of those issues. I'd love to be
surprised on this. But for now, I'm a cynic.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm waiting on an apology for the language used in the DOMA brief. I'm sure he sees how it was received, but he's acting as if it meant nothing, and that's unacceptable.
He kind of half-heartedly tried to skirt around it during his gay pride weekend meet with the LGBT community, and maybe he apologized privately but...
...nope, no public apology.
Clinton also said near the end of his presidency that marijuana should be decriminalized, never did anything about that. I doubt the man is interested in anything but non-partisan philanthropy. I really doubt someone who was a Democratic president and has a spouse in a Democratic White House is going to advocate for a more progressive stance on a very divisive issue.
I think I'd rather have a reluctant advocate who currently holds the highest office in the land speak out on behalf of the queer community than a completely convinced former President not currently holding any office. Clinton's story might be more interesting, but every time Obama opens his mouth to make those promises, he gives gay rights advocates a little more ammo to hold his feet to the fire on making those promises come true.
Even Dick Cheney can advocate for gay marriage - once he's no longer in power. There are plenty of people who are happy to do the right thing once they are no longer in any position to do so. Ask any retired legislator whether they think the war on drugs is a good idea, you'll get an answer you'd almost never hear from an active legislator.
It just raises the question though--is the War on Drugs popular? Polling seems to indicate not really. Still, nothing changes amongst average legislators though.
why is "free of political responsibility" and of course political authority more interesting than what someone with power and responsibility thinks?
I'm interested in the journey: if Clinton spoke personally about the folks he knew who raised kids and the impact on them of not being married, about how he deals with his mistakes, etc., he could connect with folks struggling with those questions on a gut level.
I think it is naive to call it a "journey." That's the kind of convenient narrative you tack on the end of a career to excuse pure political calculation in the middle of it. Think how many segregationist politicians did the same thing once they no longer needed the racist vote.
I see I guess for me when it comes to public figures I'm only interested in the private "journey" as it intersects with the public/political systems of change and here I don't think that Bubba's life really has any significant impact on the broader debate, in some significant ways this seems to be a post-boomer affair now.
p.s, lemmy, wrongshore, and others, what's with the attitude? i realize that there is some taste on this blog for a kind of gotcha attacks and even character assasination but this seems to be a growing and unfortunate trend. if you're not here to learn something and to help others to learn at least show some common decency.
dmf, I think the post as written really is naive. It's not attitude: it's blunt honesty, and real intellectual discourse needs at least as much honesty as it does courtesy. Calling a statement naive IMO does not rise to the level of an ad hominem.
The truly snippy attitude I reserve for the politicians who do characterize their recalculations as a "journey of discovery" rather than as the cynical calculations they really are. Obama was for gay marriage before he was against it: there's no intellectual or spiritual journey to be found here. I had voted for him, ultimately, because I (naively) thought he had a trace of the characteristic of leadership: of the willingness to say unpopular things and risk unpopular measures in the service of conscience. With the DOMA memo, with gay marriage, and most seriously with his willingness to continue indefinite detentions and other Bush-era "war on terror" policies, my own naivety was exposed.
Please don't call posts in which you are making a modest proposal "A Modest Proposal." It means something different.
I'm not very interested in what Clinton has to say on the issue. So far as I can tell he botched or pandered on gay issues every single time he had a chance. He set up Don't Ask Don't Tell (when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress), he signed the HIV travel ban, he signed DOMA AND campaigned on signing it. Even if he claimed that he has changed his mind on any of those issues, how could we believe him? He's always been good with words and short on actions.
Most def, most def. I really do believe that Clinton is full of empathy and that he and Hillary had good gay friends before it wasn't cool. But he --actually they-- f_cked us so, so hard in a such a transparent --really vulgar-- way that nothing that he says now will start to redeem him in my eyes.
And boy, I forgot the HIV travel ban. What a cruel thing.
As for other people that are on the fence... do people really listen to him? (It is an honest question)
Alissa, I believe gay marriage is not the issue at federal level now. We gays get it, it is hard. I live in Florida and last years 62% voted to forbid same-sex marriages and civil unions even for straight people. We would love but we do understand that the President cannot do much by now or the next 4,5 years at least. We really get it.
But DODT? ENDA?
And maybe repealing at least the odious clause on DOMA that forbids the federal gov to recognize those marriages that the states recognize. That one I don't think we are screaming: today, today, today!
The problem with Obama and the admin in general is that they have done NOTHING and some of what the have done is odious. That's our beef.
I hear you about former ex-presidents and share your opinion about Obama not being able to go there. Cool. My doubt with Clinton is that what credibility that big fat liar has?