Dan Savage: Was Obama a One-Night Stand?

From The Advocate September 2009

Dan Savage: Was Obama a One-Night Stand?

It wasn’t love at first sight, but author Dan Savage warmed up to Barack Obama. Now he’s wondering if all the promises the candidate whispered in his ear were just to get him into the electoral sack.


We could start with the betrayals and the slights -- the Reverend Rick Warren, 265 (and counting) gay men and lesbians kicked out of the military since Barack Obama was sworn in, the now-infamous DOMA brief that compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia -- but maybe we should start by remembering the good times.

Hey, remember when Barack Obama couldn’t get his tongue any further up our butts?

Remember when he practically spooned Melissa Etheridge during the Logo–Human Rights Campaign debate? Remember when he positioned himself to the left of Hillary Clinton on the Defense of Marriage Act? While Clinton came out in favor of a partial repeal, Obama said he favored -- and would fight for -- a complete repeal, and described DOMA as “abhorrent.”

That was pretty sweet.

Then there was Barack Obama’s open letter to the gay community. “Equality is a moral imperative,” candidate Obama wrote, before reiterating his promise to repeal DOMA. He also promised to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” to pressure Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard hate-crimes act, and to lift the HIV travel ban. And then this line in particular jumped out at me, as it must have for other gay parents: “As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.”

But the highlight of the campaign for me came during the vice-presidential debate. An Obama-Biden administration would support civil unions for same-sex couples, Joe Biden said, adding that there should be “no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint” between same-sex and opposite-sex couples (except for the “marriage/civil unions” distinction). When Sarah Palin said that she didn’t support same-sex marriage either and that she agreed with Biden that the federal government shouldn’t “do anything to prohibit” visitation or other rights, Biden moved in for the kill: “I take her at her word, obviously, that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple.”

Ah, those were good times.

But then Obama was sworn in under Rick Warren’s porcine gaze and the “fierce urgency of now” quickly morphed, in Andrew Sullivan’s damning turn of phrase, into the “fierce urgency of whenever.” Never mind that gay people are being turned away from their partners’ bedsides during medical emergencies now. Never mind that people are being kicked out of the military now. Never mind that Arkansas banned adoptions by same-sex couples on the very same day that Obama was elected. (Gosh, where’s that bully pulpit when you need it?) The man who wasn’t afraid to appeal directly to us for our votes as a candidate -- and certainly wasn’t shy about asking us for our dollars -- couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge the promises he had made to us and seemed to greatly resent being asked to actually honor them.

The difference between candidate Obama and President Obama crystallized for me when NBC’s Brian Williams asked the president if “gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry ... have a friend in the White House?” The comfort candidate Obama demonstrated with gay people and issues was gone. I don’t remember exactly what the president said, but I will never forget the look on his face. Judging from his pained and slightly annoyed expression, you would have thought that Williams put the question to him in a suppository form.

Have you ever been introduced to someone with whom you’d had a torrid one-night stand and he acted like he didn’t know you? “Don’t know me?” you’re tempted to say in a loud voice. “Honey, you ate my ass.”

Could Barack Obama be that one-night stand?

I started screaming and yelling about Barack weeks before his Department of Justice chose to celebrate the beginning of Gay Pride Month by defending DOMA, leaning on every bigoted argument against marriage equality that Pat Robertson ever advanced. Back in April, in a Salon piece I wrote marking the president’s first 100 days in office, I gave him a D-minus on gay issues. A few weeks later, when I was on MSNBC discussing Obama’s first comments about gay marriage since taking office (a lame joke delivered at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner), I revised that grade downward: F.

Then came the DOMA brief, and all hell broke loose on the blogosphere and outside two gay fund-raisers for the Democratic National Committee. But the screaming and yelling online -- a unique moment of unanimity among bloggers John Aravosis, Andy Towle, Pam Spaulding, Andrew Sullivan, Michelangelo Signorile, and Joe Jervis -- was nothing compared to the screaming and yelling in my kitchen.

Anyone who wonders why I’m so down on Barack Obama -- and have been for months -- needs to meet my boyfriend: He supported Hillary Clinton during the primary, while I backed Obama. My support wasn’t passionate; I didn’t write Obama a check until after he clinched the nomination. During the primary I was fond of saying, “I’m for Hillary or Barack or both.” But those facts can’t save me from the boyfriend’s wrath. I’m not to blame, he admits, but I’m handy. Barack Obama has been backtracking on his commitments to gays and lesbians since the moment he got elected, and someone’s going to hear about it. Might as well be me.

Take “don’t ask, don’t tell.” During the campaign Obama promised to “end” the ban on gays in the military, but now he talks about “changing” it. Apparently, the president hopes to find some middle ground, a “bipartisan solution,” some compromise that pleases both advocates of gay equality and raving antigay bigots. Someone needs to tell the president that “don’t ask, don’t tell,” crafted in 1993 by the Clinton administration, was the split-the-difference middle ground, it was the “bipartisan” compromise, and it’s proved to be as unworkable as it is unjust. The policy was supposed to allow gay people to serve in the military so long as they remained closeted, so long as they didn’t tell. But it’s only the telling part of this equation -- also known as honesty -- that’s ever been punished under “don’t ask, don’t tell.” No one’s been tossed out of the military for asking (or telling on) a gay soldier, so the witch hunts and expulsions have continued -- at the rate of two service members a day.

My boyfriend is certain that Hillary Clinton, if she’d been elected president, would have been a passionate, ballsy supporter of gay rights. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” would already be history, he insists, and it’s hard for me to argue. Not because he’s necessarily right -- we’ve been betrayed by the Clintons before (Bill signed “don’t ask, don’t tell” and DOMA into law in the first place) -- but because it’s impossible to argue with him about all the progress being made on the civil rights front in the parallel universe where Hillary Clinton is president. He can’t actually prove that things would be better under President Hillary Clinton, but I can’t prove things would be as bad or worse. All he knows for sure is that -- seven months in -- things are bad under Obama.

And since, um, Barack Obama won the White House by a single vote -- mine -- that makes me ultimately responsible for everything.

And that’s why I’m being so tough on the president. Not because Obama won the White House thanks to my vote (or check), but because I know that every broken or delayed promise, every weasel word that falls out of Robert Gibbs’s mouth at the daily press briefing, every shift from “end” to “change” is going to upset the man I married in Canada -- where they actually don’t make a distinction from a constitutional or legal standpoint between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. And that means yet another argument about what could have been under Hillary Clinton.

Ain’t love grand?

While the boyfriend beats me up -- figuratively speaking (he abuses me physically only at my request) -- I’m also being pummeled, via e-mail, by Obama supporters (most of them straight) who think I’ve been too critical of the president during my TV appearances and in my blog posts at Slog.TheStranger.com.

These presidential defenders seem to fall in two basic camps: those urging patience and those urging self-reliance.

The patience crowd’s argument goes like this: The president has a lot on his plate. Compared to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our collapsing economy, and the effort to bring health care to all Americans, repealing DOMA, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and ending the HIV travel ban are ridiculously trivial. Plus he’s only been in the White House for seven months. Be patient!

But gay rights don’t seem so trivial if you’re the person being kicked out of the military -- like Dan Choi, Arabic linguist, West Point grad, Iraq vet -- or if you’re the person being turned away from your partner’s bedside during a medical emergency. But the supposed triviality of “our” issues is just as good an argument for moving on them as it is for shelving them. Demand a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” -- a move supported by 75% of the American people (including wide majorities of conservatives) -- and if members of Congress balk, call them out for bogging down on such a trivial issue, one that most Americans would like to see resolved in our favor.

And it’s not like “don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t a distraction now. Obama’s failure to act on the policy -- he has the authority to suspend enforcement of it right now, and 77 members of Congress sent him a letter asking him to do just that -- hasn’t kept the issue of gays in the military out of the news. The president has been forced to address it, as have his press secretary and Defense secretary.

And, I’m sorry, but if not now…then when? Next year, 2010, will be time for the midterm election, and we’ll be told that Washington can’t move on gay issues because they’re too controversial -- which is a lie where “don’t ask, don’t tell” is concerned -- and that we have to focus instead on all the Democrats running in swing districts. Then the following year, 2011, the president’s reelection campaign begins.

Can we expect action in a second term? Maybe. But there’s no guarantee that the Democrats will hold such large margins in the House and Senate after 2012. Obama may be willing to move on our issues in 2013 -- if we take him at his word -- but might not have the support in Congress by that point. Then we’ll once again be told to sit down and shut up during midterms in 2014 and the kickoff of another two-year presidential election cycle in 2015.

Now’s the time -- people are being kicked out of the military now, turned away from their partners’ bedsides now. And yes, President Obama has a lot on his plate now. But delay now could very well result in no action on gay issues until the next Democrat is president. And since the White House tends to flip back and forth between parties, that could be 16 years from now.

The self-reliance crowd insists that it’s irrational for gay people to expect the president to do this work for us. “You want this done,” one self-reliance type wrote me, “then you have to do it for yourselves! Don’t expect the president or the Democrats to do it for you!” But how exactly are we supposed to go about “doing this” for ourselves? Are we supposed to elect a gay president? Seize power in a coup d’état (a coup gay’tat?) and pack Congress and the Supreme Court with men who sing in choruses and women who play softball?

The sad fact is this: We can’t do this stuff for ourselves. It’s not like we haven’t been working on these issues; we’ve been suing, agitating, marching, raising money, crafting and winning arguments. (Colin Powell, one of the architects of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” has come out for its repeal.) But we still need a president and a Congress -- this president, some future president; this Congress, some future Congress -- to enact and sign the legislation that ensures our full civil equality.

And I’m sorry, self-reliance douche bags, but if it’s unfair of us to expect the president to do this stuff for us, then why did Barack run around the country for two years promising to do just that? He didn’t point to his positions on highway beautification when he asked for our support and our money.

There are some positive signs, some indications that the screaming and yelling -- on the blogosphere, outside of DNC fund-raisers, in my kitchen -- is having an effect. And the White House press corps -- God bless you, Jake Tapper -- has been grilling Robert Gibbs on gay issues, taking our equality and civil rights struggle with the seriousness it deserves and has long been denied.

The president had the Good Gays into the White House for a reception to mark Gay Pride Month, and he used the occasion to rehearse his campaign promises to the gay and lesbian community. After months of dithering, the HIV travel ban looks like it may soon be history; the Matthew Shepard hate-crimes act continues to inch its way through Congress; a trans-inclusive ENDA may be in the works.

These positive developments have only occurred because we made it clear to the White House that we will not be patient. We’ve made it clear that, as much as we like the president, we will extract a political price if we are slighted or lied to. We’ve made it clear that we expect President Obama to deliver on candidate Obama’s promises.

And deliver on them now. At the Pride Month reception the president predicted that we would all be pleased by the end of his administration. “I suspect that by the time this administration is over, you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration,” he said. But that’s not good enough.

Last fall we, along with everyone else, got swept up in the momentousness of the campaign, in the symbolism and the history and the drama, and lost sight of something important: Obama is a politician -- and a Chicago politician at that. Nothing is ever given to you. You have to ask and tell and demand and do the work -- not passing the legislation ourselves or signing it ourselves (no coup gay’tat is in the offing), but in making sure our “friends” in the White House and Congress understand that we won’t take “wait” for an answer.

What do we want? What we were promised. When do we want it?

Now.

Obama, the Gay-Marriage Flip-Flopper, from TIME.com

Obama, the Gay-Marriage Flip-Flopper
By John Cloud Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2009
TIME

On a sunny Saturday last month, I crashed a fancy brunch on New York's Fire Island at the swank beachside home of Daniel Cochran and Greg Sutphin, a wealthy gay couple. They served lovely Bloody Marys and a giant spread of eggs and meats and assorted asparagus dishes prepared by a white-coated chef. The brunch was the 31st to be held in Fire Island's Pines community to raise money for Lambda Legal, the gay movement's litigation arm. At last year's brunch, cheers went up virtually every time Barack Obama's name was uttered. This time, when Lambda executive director Kevin Cathcart began to review the President's record on gay issues, he was greeted with steely silence.

That silence — because it came from some of the most generous gay political donors in the country — is key to understanding the confusing position the Obama Administration took this week on whether gays and lesbians should enjoy equal marriage rights.

Try to thread this needle: The President has stated his opposition to marriage equality many times. In fact, during his campaign, he pandered to African-American audiences — a group that was already for him — by inviting a black singer named Donnie McClurkin to perform at his events; McClurkin believes one's sexuality can be changed by praying to Jesus Christ. And yet Obama has also said he opposes Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Statute 2419, a 1996 bill (signed by President Clinton) that anti-gay forces called the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Obama has said several times that he would like that law overturned.

And yet — sorry, the contradictions keep coming — once Obama was elected, and once a gay couple in California had sued to overturn DOMA, his Administration not only defended the law, but defended it in a legal argument so reactionary that it would embarrass Dick Cheney (who, incidentally, is to the left of Obama on marriage). In that argument — here's a PDF courtesy of Georgetown professor Nan Hunter — Obama's lawyers noted that "courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with ... public policy." The examples the Justice Department offered: "marriage of uncle to niece," "marriage of 16-year-old," "marriage of first cousins."
(Watch a gay-marriage wedding video.)

That argument — that two consenting adult men marrying isn't unlike a man marrying his niece — led to the silence at that Fire Island brunch. And as I have pointed out before, Obama loves to raise political donations; he has plainly begun to worry about his standing among the rich homosexuals who used to fawn over him. As the New York Times' Adam Nagourney first reported, the California legal brief was one reason that a prominent gay supporter of Obama's went to the Oval Office in late June to express, for 15 full minutes, the gay community's deep disappointment.

And so this week we get a new legal brief from the Obama Administration in the California case, this one denuded of the execrable incest defense. This time (here's another PDF from Hunter), Obama flip-flops again — now back to his campaign position. (It must be dizzying to work in the White House these days.) Now the Administration says it opposes DOMA and wants it overturned — but that tradition dictates that it defend the law. And that is why, the White House said in a statement, "the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to [DOMA], as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged."
(See a gay-rights timeline.)

Legalistically speaking, the tradition argument is true, but it's yet another Obama dodge. The Administration could easily decline to defend the anti-gay law on discrimination grounds, just as the Administration of George H.W. Bush declined to defend federal laws setting a preference for awarding broadcast licenses to minority-owned businesses in 1990. The radical firebrand at the Department of Justice who successfully argued against defending those laws? A young DOJ attorney named John Roberts, who is now the Chief Justice of the United States. Clearly, Obama could have refused to defend DOMA if he had really wanted to. Georgetown's Hunter cites other cases in which the Justice Department has declined to defend laws, including one involving a minor cable-TV dispute. As Eugene Volokh of UCLA told me Aug. 18, there is nothing in the constitution or the law that would have prevented the Department of Justice from sitting on the sidelines in the DOMA case.

Nothing except politics. Obama's triangulation between left and right has become excruciatingly obvious on this issue, and he's not quite as deft a politician as Bill Clinton at keeping his left flank at bay. I wouldn't be surprised if, next summer at the 32nd Fire Island Pines fundraiser for Lambda, I hear booing when the President's name is mentioned.

See pictures of gay celebrities on LIFE.com.


See TIME's Pictures of the Week.

Print Reprints Email Twitter LinkedIn Buzz up!Facebook MORE...Add to my:
del.icio.us Technorati reddit Google Bookmarks Mixx StumbleUpon Blog this on:
TypePad LiveJournal Blogger MySpace Most Popular »Full List »MOST READMOST EMAILEDWhy Does Facebook Hate Babies?
Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food
Michelle Obama: The Shorts Heard Round the World
Ex-Wives Eagerly Await UBS Tax-Cheater List
Could This Women's World Champ Be a Man?
The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists
Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin
Mourning Death at the Magic Kingdom
Blackwater Hit Squads: What Was the CIA Thinking?
Behind Hamas' Own War on Terror
Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food
Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin
Michelle Obama: The Shorts Heard Round the World
The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists
Ex-Wives Eagerly Await UBS Tax-Cheater List
Less Vegas: The Casino Town Bets on a Comeback
Why Does Facebook Hate Babies?
Could This Women's World Champ Be a Man?
The Meaning of Michelle Obama
Canine Lifeguards Hit Italy's Beaches
Quotes of the Day »Get & Share "It was a ridiculous movie."
BRAD PITT star of the new World War II film Inglourious Basterds, criticizing Valkyrie, a Nazi-themed flick that featured Tom Cruise as a Hitler assassin
More Quotes »For use in rail of Articles page or Section Fronts pages. Duplicate and change name as necesssary to distinguish. Time.com on Digg
Upcoming Popular Today POWERED BY digg

State/ProvinceAAABAEAKALAPARASAZBCCACOCTDCDEFLGAGUHIIAIDILINKSKYLAMAMBMDMEMIMNMOMSMTNBNCNDNENHNJNLNMNSNTNUNVNYOHOKONORPAPEPRQCRISCSDSKTNTXUTVAVIVTWAWIWVWYYT






That silence — because it came from some of the most generous gay political donors in the country — is key to understanding the confusing position the Obama Administration took this week on whether gays and lesbians should enjoy equal marriage rights.
(See a visual history of the gay-rights movement.)

Try to thread this needle: The President has stated his opposition to marriage equality many times. In fact, during his campaign, he pandered to African-American audiences — a group that was already for him — by inviting a black singer named Donnie McClurkin to perform at his events; McClurkin believes one's sexuality can be changed by praying to Jesus Christ. And yet Obama has also said he opposes Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Statute 2419, a 1996 bill (signed by President Clinton) that anti-gay forces called the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Obama has said several times that he would like that law overturned.

And yet — sorry, the contradictions keep coming — once Obama was elected, and once a gay couple in California had sued to overturn DOMA, his Administration not only defended the law, but defended it in a legal argument so reactionary that it would embarrass Dick Cheney (who, incidentally, is to the left of Obama on marriage). In that argument — here's a PDF courtesy of Georgetown professor Nan Hunter — Obama's lawyers noted that "courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with ... public policy." The examples the Justice Department offered: "marriage of uncle to niece," "marriage of 16-year-old," "marriage of first cousins."
(Watch a gay-marriage wedding video.)

That argument — that two consenting adult men marrying isn't unlike a man marrying his niece — led to the silence at that Fire Island brunch. And as I have pointed out before, Obama loves to raise political donations; he has plainly begun to worry about his standing among the rich homosexuals who used to fawn over him. As the New York Times' Adam Nagourney first reported, the California legal brief was one reason that a prominent gay supporter of Obama's went to the Oval Office in late June to express, for 15 full minutes, the gay community's deep disappointment.

And so this week we get a new legal brief from the Obama Administration in the California case, this one denuded of the execrable incest defense. This time (here's another PDF from Hunter), Obama flip-flops again — now back to his campaign position. (It must be dizzying to work in the White House these days.) Now the Administration says it opposes DOMA and wants it overturned — but that tradition dictates that it defend the law. And that is why, the White House said in a statement, "the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to [DOMA], as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged."
(See a gay-rights timeline.)

Legalistically speaking, the tradition argument is true, but it's yet another Obama dodge. The Administration could easily decline to defend the anti-gay law on discrimination grounds, just as the Administration of George H.W. Bush declined to defend federal laws setting a preference for awarding broadcast licenses to minority-owned businesses in 1990. The radical firebrand at the Department of Justice who successfully argued against defending those laws? A young DOJ attorney named John Roberts, who is now the Chief Justice of the United States. Clearly, Obama could have refused to defend DOMA if he had really wanted to. Georgetown's Hunter cites other cases in which the Justice Department has declined to defend laws, including one involving a minor cable-TV dispute. As Eugene Volokh of UCLA told me Aug. 18, there is nothing in the constitution or the law that would have prevented the Department of Justice from sitting on the sidelines in the DOMA case.

Nothing except politics. Obama's triangulation between left and right has become excruciatingly obvious on this issue, and he's not quite as deft a politician as Bill Clinton at keeping his left flank at bay. I wouldn't be surprised if, next summer at the 32nd Fire Island Pines fundraiser for Lambda, I hear booing when the President's name is mentioned.

Obama -- Nope?

(From Narayan)

one of the pittsburgh khush guys compiled this ...

An interesting read......

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1917344,00.html

I have been ranting about Obama for the last couple of months on Facebook about how he has been a colossal disappointment in the first 7 months of his Presidency.... I am glad that others are calling him out as a hack including The Advocate...

He was failed to prosecute the guys who authorized torture of "enemy combatants", hasn't set up even a truth commission for it, has continued Bush policy of unfair military tribunals instead of legally charging and prosecuting POWs, continued Bush white house secrecy policy, stopped the release of torture photos thus snubbing ACLU and the freedom of information act, we know how poorly he is handling the health care reform..........

but Obama's biggest failure has been not only the complete indifference to equal civil rights for LGBT community....he is actually shafting us......

1. first he invited homophobe extraordinaire Rick Warren for his invocation at the inauguration

2. he has kept firing gay service members under Don't ask dont tell, an executive order would have stopped the firings. He hasn't proposed anything to the congress to repeal it especially when almost 75% of the population wants it repealed.

3. he ridiculed the Iowa supreme court decision to legalize gay marriage at the white house correspondent's dinner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS51dMws5zk)

4. In the lawsuit filed against Defense of Marriage Act, Obama's Department of Justice filed a brief saying it will not only defend the case but compared gay marriage to incest and rape.

5. The hate crimes bill (Mathew Shepard Act) and Employee Non discrimination Act have gone no where

6. he has even taken down a lot of the promises to lGBT causes he made just after election from whitehouse.gov

The Democrats have huge majorities in the Senate, the House and control the White House........there is absolutely no excuse or better time to do SOME stuff now......once you establish rights for a minority for few years before they can be challenged, it becomes very difficult to take them away....hiring a couple of gay guys, inviting a lesbian couple to white house for easter and giving partial benefits (no medical benefits) to gay couples who are federal employees are just token gestures....

All the Democrats and Human Rights Watch care about is money from the gay community, I mean if there is no gay rights struggle how will they raise money for their party and who will pay the fat paychecks to the folks at HRW...

Dems and Obama aint gonna do anything for us until we stop supporting them financially, intellectually and physically

ufff.....I will shut my mouth now....

take care, Shri

border crossing

I had a really sad experience after a pleasant weekend up in Toronto for Gay Pride. I drove. Coming back to the United States, just after crossing the Peace Bridge, at Buffalo, I waited in the shortest line of cars I could see.

The line seemed to move pretty fast. I thought to myself, "Good. Maybe I got lucky and this guy -- I could see the officer getting chatty with drivers in his line, his hand on his heart through much of the conversations -- is a good one." I actually thought to myself, "Maybe he's one of the reasonable ones."

Well...

When it was my turn, I drove up to his window, and handed him my passport. I said, "Hello sir."

He looked at my passport and asked, "Did you land in Canada?"

I wasn't sure what he was asking or why he was asking that, so I hesitated a moment. "No." After all, we had landed in Canada a year and a half ago, and we had come straight home afterwards.

"Do you live there?" he demanded.

"No, I live here, in the U.S. I just went up for the weekend."

"What were you doing?"

"Visiting a friend in Toronto."

Then he asked, "Do you have Ontario plates on your vehicle?"

And I'm thinking..."Aren't you the one in the guard booth? Can't you see or didn't you look?"

"No. I live in the U.S."

"So did you renounce your Canadian residency?" His tone hadn't been warm and welcoming to begin with, but the tone was decidedly unfriendly now.

"No."...thinking to myself, "Why would I?" But I said, simply, "I am a U.S. citizen..."

"I KNOW THAT!" he said, sounding openly irritated as if I'd challenged his intelligence.

Trying to assuage any ruffled feathers, I continued, "I have Canadian residency but I'm American and live in the U.S. I was born here."

It's really not his business why I have Canadian residency, and, since the reason I went to the trouble of getting Canadian residency has everything to do with the fact I'm gay, I'm hardly going to disclose THAT to some unknown policeman at a border crossing, or anywhere else! Police have a long, long, long history of antigay hostility and raging homophobia...there's hardly a more macho-centric profession out there, so we can take no chances.

Then all of a sudden he demanded, in the tone of a dad who had just found an unused condom buried in his 12 year old's drawer of socks, "AND WHAT'S THIS?"

Seriously.

He had my passport open in his hand, and held it out the window of his little booth the way people who'd rather not have to walk someone else's dog might hold the little baggie of fresh poop. His thumb covered most of the information, so I could only see some Arabic script. I knew, from that, that it was one of the two visas from my Christmas trip. I couldn't see which. As I tried to focus (the eyes aren't as young as they used to be), he barked again impatiently, in the same tone as before,

"You went TO SYRIA?!"

Now, I thought to myself, "Yeah. There's no law against it." But I bravely and forthrightly (I thought) said, instead,

"Yeah. It was really great. An interesting place. We went there over Christmas."

"WHAT WERE YOU DOING THERE?" Again, the implied tone was, "you dangerous criminal, you."

Now by that point I was thinking to myself, "What the hell do you think I was doing there you idiot?" But again, I said my internal blessings on him and on myself, and tried to keep things calm and civil and simple, and answered, as he, not waiting for an answer, demanded, "Did you go there for work, or...?"

"Vacation. Christmas vacation."

Thus, if he's paying attention, I get to let him know I'm just a normal every day American. "Christmas", remember? That means I'm CHRISTIAN. Which should be okay in your book.

Then once again, in the same accusatory, hostile tone, he said, "I see you went to JORDAN!"

"Yes."

"What were you doing there?"

"Visiting a friend who lives there."

"Where ELSE did you go when you were overseas?"

Again, I hesitated, unsure what he was asking. I was thinking to myself, "Is he asking me to name all the places I've traveled overseas in my life...?" So, continuing to follow the general principle of simply supplying the answers they ask for, when dealing with cops, I stuck with the immediate topic that seemed to be on his mind, thinking he could supply clarification if he wanted more information...

"...uh, we stopped at Paris for a few days, on the way over..."

"I MEAN IN THE MIDDLE EAST." Again, he said "the Middle East" like it was a collection of really dirty words.

So then I'm thinking to myself, "YOU have my passport in your hand. Do you SEE any other destinations from the Middle East in my passport?!" But once again, I kept calm, then simply and politely supplied the answer.

"No. Only Jordan and Syria."

"When did you come back?"

"That was early last January." Again I repeated, at the risk of 'insulting' his intelligence, "We went over Christmas."

"Where do you live?"

Keep it simple, I thought to myself. If I tell him Maryland is my home, but I work in Pittsburgh, it's just going to complicate things, and then I'll have to explain I maintain my house in Maryland but have an apartment at Pittsburgh, and then I'm going to come off like some elitist who has more than his fair share to some guy who is basically a kind of turnpike attendant, who may only have a high school education, and lives in what is reputed to be one of the ugliest and most depressed cities in the country.

"Maryland."

"Where do you work?"

"I work for the VA."

"The D.A.?"

"The Veterans Administration."

He went back into his booth.

After a moment he emerged again, "What do you do at the VA?"

"I'm an interior designer."

"You're an interior designer?"

"Yes."

"HOLD ON."

He went back into his little booth.

He typed, and he typed. And he looked at a screen over and over again. Several times he looked like he was about to emerge once more, but he jerked back in again at the last minute. Finally, he stuck the passport out his window and said, "You can go."

I don't know if he was entering me into a database of suspicious persons, or checking for me in a database of suspicious persons. I only hope it's the latter. The potential tyranny of one lone jerkoff at a border crossing, whose ignorant, hostile attitude could put a real and lasting damper on my love of travel, for years to come, is just SO depressing.

That was a truly rattling experience, being treated as if I had done something wrong, simply in exercising my curiosity about other parts of this great big world. It was not as if I had gone to Cuba, or Vietnam before travel restrictions were lifted, or Iraq, or North Korea. We may not have diplomats in Syria at the moment but our President is about to change that...which I'd be surprised if this guy, with his ignorant and hostile attitude, even knows.

Then as I got onto the freeway, I saw signs for Lackawanna.

Lackawanna to an interior designer used to mean "leather" the way Detroit means cars. In our brave new Bush world, Lackawanna makes me think of the Lackawanna Six.

I'd be willing to bet my border cop knows about THAT, if he's from Buffalo. And that's sad, because it means he knows about fear of Muslims, fear of the stranger living right in your town, and fear of terrorism. What he probably doesn't know to distinguish -- since for him, The Middle East is like a dirty word -- is that the Lackawanna Six were Yemenis, not Syrian, nor Jordanian, and -- there is still some uncertainty, last I read about it -- not even, necessarily, real terrorists.

I just felt so ashamed of the blatant Islamo-phobia displayed by this young guy. It wouldn't mean anything to him to teach him that Damascus is FULL of Christians. And it has even been home, for some centuries past, to a significant minority population of Jews. A lost cause, his mind closed.

This country can change Presidents. But it can't "change hearts and minds" among our own people...particularly the hearts and minds of those who are closed, and who are happily steeped in ignorance and prejudice.

Sad, sad, sad, all around.

Margaret: for some of us, it's been 300 years

Robert,

There's plenty of anger and disappointment to go around. It's been 6 months, no for some of us, it's been 300 years. Do you know that a lot of Black people expected Barack Obama to take office and immediately start giving African Americans our 20 acres and a mule - literally. Or at least reparations. I mean damn, the Jews got their real estate and art work back, we even paid reparations to the Japanese, Filipinos got citizenship, and every dam body else who arrives by boat, donkey or plane (except the poor Haitians) gets asylum. Aren't we entitled to anything?

This nation was built on the backs of African Americans. Our free labor made The United States of America. We were here before most of the white people who live here now. Our sweat and our blood watered the crops that fed the American agricultural revolution, the American industrial revolution, and every war America has ever fought - including when we fought each other. And what have we gotten in return? The OPPORTUNITY to start all over again, on our own, with nothing. THAT MY FRIEND IS BULLSHIT.

A lot of Black - people are saying they're sorry they voted for Barack - A LOT OF US. They are still poor, they are still broke, they eat garbage, live in 3rd world conditions and the crime in their communities is worse. Their children are still hauled off to jail for nothing and murdered in the streets by cops (Black and White) that take all the racist stereotypes to heart.

I, PERSONALLY, AM HURT, that the pace of change is still incremental. That the 52 African Americans (51 of them women) that the Congressional Research Service furloughed three years ago, have still not seen justice.

I am furious, that Dr. James Billington, Librarian of Congress has permitted a foreign contractor to run the Madison Building Cafeteria. And that contractor has in the past year done everything possible to destroy the union of those Black cafeteria workers; including firing, without cause, many who have worked there for 20 years, forcing some of the most elderly to perform onerous tasks, and making them wait outside in the cold because they no longer have IDs to enter the building before 8:30

.
I am livid about the United States Congress passing a Climate Change Bill, and right across the street the temperature in my office is so damn cold I need a winter coat. And knowing that it will probably take another act of Congress and new Librarian of Congress to get the change that could save millions of dollars in these three buildings alone. Turn up the GOD DAMN AIR CONDITIONING UP 5 DEGREES during the summer. AND WHEN THE COLD MONTHS ARRIVE, TURN DOWN THE DAMN HEAT 5 DEGREES.

I know you're angry, you are not alone Robert. I feel ya my Brother :-/

six months on, tired of waiting through those unfulfilled promises

from THE ADVOCATE

June 26, 2009

DNC Fund-raiser Nets $1 Million
Click the byline to view more stories by this author.By Kerry Eleveld

Attendees of the 10th annual LGBT Leadership Council fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee Thursday in Washington were greeted by protesters carrying signs that read “Gay Uncle Toms” and “265 Discharged Since January 20, 2009.”

When Wisconsin reresentative Tammy Baldwin arrived, she chatted with the spirited flock of about 25 and then pivoted to enter the Mandarin Oriental Hotel as cries of “Don’t go in, Tammy!” and “Shame on you!” followed her.

“I think it’s so important that as gay and lesbian people who are denied equal rights, we do feel an impatience and a frustration, and it’s really important that that be expressed both outside and inside,” she said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was one of the detractors camped outside the event. “Tonight we’re here to send a strong message to the vice president and to the president that it’s time to end the silence on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” he said. “His presidential leadership and commitment is needed up on the Hill.”

A long list of LGBT activists had also registered their discontent by simply declining to attend the dinner: activist David Mixner, former Clinton adviser Richard Socarides, millionaire Bruce Bastian, prominent Obama supporter Stampp Corbin, blogger Andy Towle, and the entire board of the Stonewall Democrats.

Despite the controversy, about 180 people showed up to hear Vice President Joe Biden speak for a price tag of $1,000 to $30,400 per plate. The event brought in nearly $1 million, up from about $750,000 last year, according to a Democratic Party source.

But the scene was not one of total discord between inside and outside. Some DNC staffers working the event were also wearing red, white, and blue “265” buttons as a reminder of the number of gay and lesbian service members who have been discharged from the military since President Barack Obama took office.

When Vice President Biden took the stage, he told the crowd that he had specifically asked to speak at the event and that his wife, Jill Biden, had also requested to address a Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network event earlier this month.

“I am not unaware of the controversies swirling around this dinner,” Joe Biden said, “swirling around the speed -- or lack thereof -- that we’re moving on issues that are of great importance to you and, quite frankly, to me and to the president and to millions of Americans.”

Biden thanked people in the room for their hard work and dedication during the election.

“More importantly , I want thank you for being a critical -- critical -- voice for keeping the nation focused on the unfinished business of true equality for all of our people; and I know and this administration knows that we have so much more to do,” he said. “I promise you, I promise you, with your help we’ll get there in this administration.”

Biden ticked off a list of priorities for the community, starting with receiving a standing ovation for saying with great gusto, “We will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act with your help!” He touched on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, employment nondiscrimination, the HIV travel ban, and hate crimes.

“It all is for one purpose and that is, securing equality and dignity -- equality and dignity -- for all Americans,” Biden declared.

But if the vice president gave a well-received and heartfelt speech, those who attended the dinner were less taken with the overtures made by the DNC chairman, Virginia governor Tim Kaine.

“He didn’t really seem to recognize what it meant for the people who were in that room to show up,” said LGBT activist Peter Rosenstein, calling his speech “disappointing.”

Rosenstein said he did speak individually with Kaine about making sure that Congress doesn’t interfere with the District of Columbia’s right to determine whether same-sex marriages would be legal and recognized in the city.

“He said he would work with us on that,” Rosenstein said. “But he didn’t run down the litany of issues that the vice president did during his speech -- it lacked a real commitment to showing what the DNC is going to do on our issues.”

* * * * * * * * *

You've really got to see the posts by the readers of the Advocate. The ANGER and the outrage of the ordinary Jane and Joe homo outside the Beltway is INSPIRING!

see:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid93604.asp#Receipt


You know, it has often been said that Obama is being extra cautious, based on what happened when Clinton tried to fulfill HIS promises to the LGBTQ community, in fulfilling his own promises for change and equal rights. But what nobody seems to realize is that Obama needs to be extra cautious WITH US.

We have already lived through one Presidential candidate who came into office WITH OUR MONEY AND VOTES and then dashed all hopes, threw us to the wolves, made things FAR worse than they were before, made a few token gay and lesbian appointments for people of money and privilege but did nothing toward assuring equal rights for LGBTQ Americans, and then, after screwing us for DECADES TO COME with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, actually CAMPAIGNED FOR REELECTION on having signed it! The rights of LGBTQ Americans further deteriorated after Clinton left office.

WELL OBAMA OUGHT TO WATCH THE HELL OUT.

WITH HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S DEFENSE OF DOMA, THE HONEYMOON -- and our wide-eyed approval of the man and assumption of integrity -- IS CLEARLY AND OFFICIALLY OVER. And if he doesn't watch himself, we are HEADED FOR DIVORCE COURT!

Didn't Jesus say, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."?

And didn't Pastor Martin Neimuller warn him and all of us, some 50 years ago,

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

If we, the gays and lesbians and transgender and bisexuals are the first to slide off the Obama-superstar bandwagon, the rest of the country, and probably therefore ultimately the world, won't be far behind. (Honey everyone knows we always lead the way in fashion and trends!)


And for my own post...unfortunately, they only permit posts of 1000 characters so I had to edit a bit:

"I am utterly cheered by the tone of the overwhelming majority of posts on this topic!

THIS is the spirit of Stonewall -- a spirit NOT embodied by those who, utterly disgracefully, pay out $1000-$30000+ thousand dollars each for a dinner that, for all intents and purposes as pointed out here by others, seals OUR fates by assuring that the Democratic National Committee CONTINUES to fail to live up to promises on equal rights for LGBTQ Americans.

That kind of money also does a major disservice to our community in that it is used against us when people argue -- as heard on NPR just this week -- that we are a PRIVILEDGED class and do not NEED any MORE rights!

Well, in a way it’s true. The privileged class of LGBs really doesn’t need any more rights because wealth in this country -- can you say "Mary Cheney"? -- ALWAYS buys privilege.

To hell with DNC and to hell with Joe Biden and especially, to hell with Barack Obama who, it turns out for all his audacity, is after all an EMPTY HOPE."

Remember it was a bunch of tired angry drag queens who grabbed the cops' keys and took off the handcuffs and then took off their heels to finally hit back, and beat the shit out of a bunch of cops who had come to harrass them to make bail money for the City of New York, for the hundred and one-th time. It was NOT those homos and dykes who could afford TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS A PLATE to have DINNER with the GODDAMNED VICE PRESIDENT!

Inauguration Day

...work in progress...

a NATIONAL DISGRACE

Remember the refrain of the ignorant, after the September 11 attacks, uttered with such ingenuous incredulity, "Why do they hate us?"

Well, here's ONE example (of many)...why "they" might hate us...

In spite of international outrage at the war crimes, the murders of over a thousand innocent civilians and the burning and maiming of thousands more, and the collective human rights abuses being committed by the state of Israel since Christmas against the civilian population in Gaza, on January 9th, an overwhelming number of U.S. Congressmen and women cast a vote IN SUPPORT of the state of Israel!

WHAT AN APPALLING, NATIONAL, DISGRACE.

What does that wholly unnecessary vote symbolize, anyway? The nation's abject subservience to AIPAC? That Israel is suzerain to the United States of America?

But even if these truths are held self-evident, many Israelis, and American Jews, are wholly opposed to what is being done in Gaza. So why does our Congress have to demonstrate "support" for the insupportable?

Just when you thought things were getting better, and the Presidency of Evil was on its way out, for good...our representatives show they, themselves, are every bit as venal, cowardly, and lacking in basic humanity and sensitivity for the suffering of other human beings.

I thought we were supposed to be a nation founded on support for the rights of humankind for freedom, peace, and justice....?

Oh, excuse me...I forgot one of the chief lessons of the Bush years....it momentarily slipped my mind that those ideals only apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS in the minds of many of our leaders, and, evidently, in the minds of most of our populace as well.

As I visited Paris and the Middle East over Christmas, I once again felt proud of my country, thanks to our recent election. On the day-pack I carried everywhere -- until Israel's attacks, that is -- I kept a smiling photo of next Tuesday's new President. That pride couldn't last too long, I guess, faced with the reality of life in America today.

Once again I am ashamed, and embarrassed, and even humiliated by this new outrage by my own country on the international stage...a nation whose leaders SUPPORT and DEFEND the acts of an aggressor state, a nation whose leaders do not even follow our own ideals in supporting such horrific and appalling violence against humanity, a nation seemingly populated by a silent, indifferent, self-absorbed majority.

What a complete disgrace!


Details:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-10
House Vote On Passage: H. Res. 34: Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks...

Overview
TotalsDemocratsRepublicansIndependentsAll Votes
Yea:390(90%)
2221680
Nay:5(1%)410
Present:22(5%)2200
Not Voting:16(4%)880
Required: 2/3 of 417 votes (=278 votes)
(Vacancies in Congress may affect vote totals.)

Maryland
YeaMD-1Kratovil, Frank [D]
YeaMD-2Ruppersberger, C.A. [D]
YeaMD-3Sarbanes, John [D]
PresentMD-4Edwards, Donna [D]
YeaMD-5Hoyer, Steny [D]
YeaMD-6Bartlett, Roscoe [R]
YeaMD-7Cummings, Elijah [D]
YeaMD-8Van Hollen, Christopher [D]


Profiles in courage:

NayCA-35Waters, Maxine [D]

NayOH-10Kucinich, Dennis [D]

NayTX-14Paul, Ronald [R]

NayWV-3Rahall, Nick [D]

NayWI-4Moore, Gwen [D]


(Remember these names!)
Profiles in cowardice, or something else...:

PresentAZ-7Grijalva, Raul [D]

PresentCA-6Woolsey, Lynn [D]

PresentCA-7Miller, George [D]

PresentCA-9Lee, Barbara [D]

PresentCA-13Stark, Fortney [D]

PresentCA-17Farr, Sam [D]

PresentCA-33Watson, Diane [D]

PresentCA-47Sanchez, Loretta [D]

PresentGA-4Johnson, Henry [D]

PresentHI-1Abercrombie, Neil [D]

PresentMD-4Edwards, Donna [D]

PresentMA-1Olver, John [D]

PresentMI-13Kilpatrick, Carolyn [D]

PresentMI-15Dingell, John [D]

PresentMN-4McCollum, Betty [D]

PresentMN-5Ellison, Keith [D]
FIRST AND ONLY MUSLIM IN CONGRESS

PresentNJ-10Payne, Donald [D]

PresentNY-22Hinchey, Maurice [D]

PresentOR-3Blumenauer, Earl [D]

PresentOR-4DeFazio, Peter [D]

PresentVA-8Moran, James [D]

PresentWA-7McDermott, James [D]

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto me

Once upon a time, as a naive teenager, I unequivocally and wholeheartedly supported Israel's existence, as a good and natural and reasonable thing.

That was a long, long time ago. I never entirely let go of that opinion.

When I hear unwavering Israel supporters, talking heads, and government officials speak of threats to Israel's existence, I consider it doublespeak. Talking about Israel's existence is simply a means of changing the subject, shifting focus from the matter at hand (Israel's government's violations of human rights, for example). Nobody who's at all rational challenges Israel's right to exist.

But today, when I consider Israel, I feel outraged, angry, and saddened. I see a nation apparently gone mad, a nation seemingly governed by unfeeling and dangerous human beings, a government apparently made up entirely of sociopaths.

I know there are protesters against violence on both sides of the divide, Israeli and Palestinian. Everyone with any real grasp on what it means to live an ethical life knows that violence is not an answer to any kind of conflict or problem-solving. It will forever make things worse.

I have read as much of the Hebrew Bible as any literate and religious-minded Christian-reared kid would have digested, growing up. And I tried not many years ago, enthusiastically at first, to read a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I couldn't get through the screed of it, full as it is of prayers against perceived enemies, begging for God to smite them all down.

Some things never really change, I guess.

The actions of a state should be incomparable to the acts of a few disorganized lunatics. (A true apologist, which I am not, would call them desperate and disempowered people). But in the case today, the government of Israel and the violent membership of Hamas are practically the same. The only difference between them is that Israel’s actions are far, far worse because Israel is A GOVERNMENT taking these actions, and because the end results are so much more catastrophic for human life and well-being, with incomparable numbers of injuries and deaths to innocents.

Justifying Israel’s actions today, by comparison to the acts of Hamas, as the Israeli government spokespeople and the Bush Administration do, is not unlike excusing sexual harassment in the work place – ignoring who, in the equation, has the real power – and it’s not unlike sentencing a woman to the death penalty who, after years and years of extreme abuse, has finally lost all balance and killed the abusive spouse.

I oppose violence in every form. But I can no longer say I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to exist as the nation state it is today, since it isn't a very promising display of the heights of human achievement and progress. After the governement's orchestrated campaigns for building illegal settlements in the West Bank (since the Bush I years), the attacks on Lebanon (a sovereign state), the so-called "fence" (which has destroyed Palestinian homes and livlihoods), the blockades (which have crippled people's ability for day-to-day survival), the deliberately dehumanizing border control processes, and now this...

I am appalled by what is happening in Gaza, by the callousness, by the absolute disregard for the sanctity of human life, by the absence of any real effort to protect innocent civilians, by the well-documented organized governmental interference with relief efforts, the use of flesh-melting phosphorus in its bombs, by the lies and the doublespeak and the obvious hypocrisy of the Israeli government's public statements about the current aggressions.

In due course, true justice and true balance must come. Of that we can be certain.

"Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
That was said by a guy named Jesus, an Israelite, from a very humble background, a marginalized person in the nation-state of his day, and a Jewish peace and justice activist, some 2000 years ago. His message of non-violence is unchanged to this day...