LGBT Community Still Reeling From Setbacks and Obama Centrism
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White
These days it seems each faction of the progressive movement claims to be more betrayed than the next. Defenders of civil liberties, those who call for torture accountability, single-payer advocates and many others were surprised and bitterly disappointed by the centrist approach of the Obama Administration.
Perhaps the most disappointed group, however, is the LGBT community. First it's important to recall that a day which was a victory for many progressives was a step back for them, with the passage of Prop 8 in California last November.
Then came Rick Warren's prominence at the inauguration celebration. And then, Obama's promise to continue the federal funding for faith-based groups, some of which actively discriminate against the LGBT community. His position on keeping Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), a policy that almost everyone disagrees with, was especially baffling. Now the administration's extreme support of the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an especially stinging blow that has resulted in protests and a withdrawal of funding and support for Obama from the LGBT community.
Andrew Sullivan describes the injurious nature of the Obama Administration's DOMA defense:
To file an actual brief re-stating some of the worst and most denigrating arguments against gay civil equality is just bizarre. They could have argued for a narrow ruling or kept the "reasonable" arguments to a minimum. What they did -- without any heads up to any of their gay supporters and allies -- is unconscionable. Citing incest precedents? Calling gay couples free-loaders? Arguing that our civil rights are not impinged because we can marry someone of the opposite sex? Who on earth decided that that was a great idea?
This week I watched the 1997 film Ma Vie En Rose (I know I'm a little behind in my film viewing, but c'est la vie). The 
The main character, named Ludovic, keeps getting tiny tastes of what his heart desires, only to have his pretty dresses, jewelry, lipstick and long-ish hairstyle ripped from his grasp. At one point his family is so exasperated with his cross-dressing that they take the advice of his grandmother to just indulge him for a moment in order to remove the novelty -- and hopefully Ludovic's desire to wear girls' clothing -- simultaneously. This backfires, however. The community members pretend to understand, all but dripping with acceptance, but then take the family's livelihood from them. Ludovic's father is laid off from his job and his new house is painted with homophobic graffiti.
While the surrounding community is regarded distastefully for their duplicity by the family, Ludovic is ultimately seen to be at fault for the family's eventual relocation to a less-desirable location and economic status. Every time it seems like a family member or friend finally understands Ludovic and might let him simply be himself, the poor child is pulled back from a fantasy-land of acceptance into the cruel world at hand.
Ludovic is told that his desires are unnatural so many times that he sinks into a deep despair. Seeing the pain caused by his once-sympathetic mother shaving off his dark, shiny hair is so painful that one wonders if it would have been better if Ludovic had never been allowed to grow it out at all.
Sony Pictures, the company that distributes the film in the U.S., misleadingly says the ending of Ma Vie En Rose is "profoundly optimistic." But the idea that optimism features in Ludovic's apparently dim near future is an improbable thought, and indicative of the low expectations our culture harbors for the happiness of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.
Which brings me back to the way same-sex couples have been treated in this country over the last couple of years. In their fight for the right to marry, nearly every time they get their hands on something tangible it's minimized, if not completely ripped away from them. The promises floated by the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party have been ratcheted down in a callous lowering of political expectations. The best example of this is the manner in which partners of gay federal employees got a tiny hand-out.
Earlier this month, Obama extended some benefits, such as long-term care coverage and family leave, to same-sex partners of federal employees. Coming on the heels of the administration's support for DADT and DOMA however, the president's signature appeared to be more of a hollow appeasement of the LGBT community. In fact, DOMA itself curtailed the applicability of the extension, preventing the government from offering benefits such as health insurance to same-sex partners of federal employees.
Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, sent a letter to Obama in the wake of the administration's defense of DOMA:
Although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.
Solmonese goes on to poke huge holes in the pro-DOMA argument using well-reasoned legal points, ending on this poignant question:
As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief. In the course of your campaign, I became convinced -- and I still want to believe -- that you do, too. I have seen your administration aspire and achieve. Protecting women from employment discrimination. Insuring millions of children. Enabling stem cell research to go forward. These are powerful achievements. And they serve as evidence to me that this brief should not be good enough for you. The question is, Mr. President -- do you believe that it's good enough for us?
Granted, the uproar over DOMA does seem to have had an effect on the administration, which has recently put into motion incremental changes such as new protections for transgendered federal workers and allowing gay couples to change their last names on their passports.
Also, some have argued that the outrage from the LGBT community may do better to concentrate on Congress -- which bears more responsibility for DOMA and is freer to reverse its course -- than on the judicial or executive branches. A spokesman for the Obama Administration recently supported a legislative fix, insisting that "the president remains strongly committed to signing a legislative repeal of DOMA into law."
Optimism may yet prevail, thanks perhaps to dark humor. Take, for example, Jed Lewison's attempt at a bright side on DOMA: "at least the legal brief didn't compare same-sex marriage to bestiality."
Maybe it is possible to be at once hopelessly cynical and at the same time be "profoundly optimistic."
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u5rAtM_uZIu9tPUGC4aO0zWtkUIUKLAwAZ8XLzEvJ1h5kJwApQG2x3LlcKJxEKJL7IdnhztIfvXEK9lkSbOIFpANwPXNAGR7Ck6hVpHuBlj222e0coeIGH4xqJxVVU0D2QTq_GYWfqlXuLzUx-b79U=s0-d)
