Obama pressure on gay issues is partially self-created

“We’ve elected probably the most pro-gay president in history; he’s very good on the issues but he is not good on gay marriage,” said Steven Elmendorf, a gay Democratic lobbyist. “From the gay community’s perspective, he and a lot of other elected officials are wrong on this. My view is that over time, they’re going to realise they’re wrong and they’re going to change.” (New York Times)

The quote above is from an item by Sheryl Gay Stolberg that appeared in the New York Times yesterday and which may be accessed through the link above. It forms one of a number of articles starting to emerge in the American press arising out of a growing impatience among the gay and lesbian communities at what they perceive to be US President Barack Obama’s failure to address key issues in his first 100 days in office.

They specifically draw attention to the fact that as a presidential candidate, Obama promised the LGBT citizens full equality and yet now 100 days in office nothing has been done to address this in terms of legislative movement. Though there have been about 35 appointments to federal posts nothing has been done to include their community at Cabinet level. Yes it is nice to have more attention being paid to HIV/Aids and supporting the employment practices that disavow discrimination based upon sexual orientation, but vital issues — as far as they are concerned — such as same-sex marriages, gays in the military and the appointment of a Supreme Court judge are not getting the urgent attention they deserve.

As you will note from Stolberg’s article, Obama has already confirmed that he opposes same-sex marriages as a Christian but supports full equality for gay men and lesbians. Of course this view can be attributed to the fact that this is a popular approach among many of the moderate voters who supported his campaign and was expedient at that time. Right now it is going to create bedlam as conflicting interest groups go head to head.

The problem is that equality — to my mind at least — means full equality. As such it means that discrimination wherever it occurs should not be allowed and accordingly removed whenever it is encountered. It also means, for example, that if people wish to marry then regardless of their choice they should be allowed to do so. It also means that the union concerned should be accepted across the whole country, indeed the planet, and it most certainly means that the Defense of Marriage Act, 1996, which allows states to decide whether or not to recognise these unions carried out in other states has to be kicked into touch.

It entails the GLBT community being allowed to join the military or pursue whatever other career they choose and being able to say whatever anybody else is able to say.

Accordingly Obama cannot claim to support the community achieving 100% equality … and then baulk in those instances where he has promised moderates that his views on Christianity would prevail and as such 100% equality does not apply to marriages.

As president of the United States and unless it constitutes a threat to the national security of his country, where he has a problem with conflicting interests — as he does now — he should always lean towards favouring the side that would be released from hatred and prejudice. Clearly in this instance it is the GLBT community. When he goes to church on a Sunday he will know that he is the president of a country full of people whose views differ from Christianity, which in itself comprises only one component that is factored in when the laws of his country are legislated or interpreted. Moreover just in terms of religion he is president of a country which has large Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, atheist and other communities who differ from those beliefs but who carry on their civil and religious ceremonies with the blessing of the country.

The United States of America is after all still considered to be the leader of the free world.

No doubt the Democratic Party and his administration will be urging extreme caution in respect of this issue. They will after all have many more elections to fight in the coming years and getting behind this community may well drive many into the GOP camp. Of course the fact that conflicting promises have been made won’t exactly endear the president to everyone either.

My point of departure is that if citizens of a country live within the laws of that country, they should never suffer prejudice. In this case the leaders of the free world are making people into criminals based upon their sexual orientation.

That’s garbage which I find wholly unacceptable. If it’s a human being they must get equal treatment until the law requires otherwise. If they don’t break the law or the law is not required to intervene eg mental illness, then they must be given an equal start and a level playing field.

The qualifying point is human being.

Hereendthelesson.