Connect with us

What America’s Top LGBT Leaders Think Obama Must Do Next

Published

on

Barack Obama‘s win of a second term was achieved not in spite of his support of the LGBT community but in part because of it. The question now is what President Obama should do next in his second term to move the civil rights of people in our community “forward.” I asked 10 of America’s top LGBT leaders what they are thinking. From GLAAD to HRC to GetEQUAL, leaders from some of the most active organizations, along with independent and grassroots activists and opinion shapers, shared with me their thoughts and plans for “Obama 2.0.”

The good news? A tremendous amount of expectations overlap, which translates into a more united LGBT front that hopefully can speak louder and work together even more effectively.

LGBT leaders want the president to sign an executive order banning employment discrimination against LGBT people working in the federal government and working for government contractors — the executive order President Obama refused to sign earlier this year. And they want ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, passed, and DOMA, the ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriages, repealed. Perhaps the biggest surprise I heard — albeit one absolutely on-target — is their repeated demand for a resolution of sequestration, the impending financial “fiscal cliff,” fears of which brought the stock market to its knees the day after Obama won reelection. And, finally, as I’ve been advocating for years, many want to build coalitions with other social justice movements.

Given the success of what our opponents, like NOM’s Maggie Gallagher, are now calling “the Obama electorate” (which is, in reality, just who America has become), coalition building seems perhaps our greatest opportunity for furthering the momentum this week’s elections created.

“The huge victories that the LGBT community achieved — on ballot initiatives, in the election of Tammy Baldwin to the Senate, in the increase of our LGBT caucus in the House, and in the reelection of a president who stands with us on marriage equality — must be seen in concert with the powerful statement that the American electorate has just made about women’s equality and women’s dignity,” Tobias Barrington Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, tells me.

“The LGBT community and women are natural political allies, fighting to secure equal citizenship through overcoming gender stereotypes and to eliminate sexual shame and repression as forces in American public policy,” added Wolff, who served as chief advisor and spokesperson on LGBT issues for the Obama for America 2007-2008 presidential campaign. “Coalition building has always been an indispensable component of success for LGBT rights, and this election has made clear the importance of a strong and active coalition with women.”

The LGBT community under Barack Obama’s presidency has achieved historic successes, and on Election Day, those successes grew exponentially. After Obama’s May 9 declaration of support for same-sex marriage, voters this week elected, for the first time ever, to expand the institution of civil marriage to same-sex couples in three states, and in a fourth state voters decided that writing anti-gay discrimination into their constitution — permanently banning same-sex marriage — was a step too far. Voters also tossed out a virulently anti-gay mayor in Troy, Mich., but refused to fire an Iowa Supreme Court judge who, in a unanimous decision, had ruled that a ban on marriage equality was unconstitutional.

Remember that just four short years ago, Californians decided that Prop 8 was a good idea. Think how far we’ve come.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Tb60nFeJsNc%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

Believing that “we could see tremendous forward movement in the years to come, something really incredible,” civil rights attorney and LGBT activist Yetta Kurland notes that “change in public opinion is not in a vacuum. It has happened because of efforts from all directions, not just the grassroots efforts of organizations like Marriage Equality USA but significantly because of President Obama coming out in favor of marriage equality, the DNC officially putting it on their platform and other institutions like the NAACP taking an official position in support of marriage equality.”

So what does that “tremendous forward movement” for the LGBT community actually look like? Although this week’s news is great, the fact is that we’re still living under DOMA. We’re still hoping for marriage in 41 states. We still have no ENDA. We can still be fired in 29 states for being lesbian, gay or bisexual, and in 34 states for being transgender.

The LGBT leaders I talked to weren’t shy or complacent in their demands. In fact, they seemed more energized, more disciplined, more motivated, clearer and more mature than ever, not just in their goals but in their strategies, and in their expectations of a president who won a clear mandate, in part thanks to their efforts.

“Obama should express the full-throated, fearless support for total equality for gay and transgender people that we expect from a historic leader,” Herndon Graddick, president of GLAAD, tells me. “No more rhetorical tinkering at the edges of the issue. Lukewarm support for full human dignity of all our citizens shouldn’t be an issue one is only convinced of by one’s teenage children. Obama should demonstrate conviction and make it clear routinely that LGBT people deserve full equality in every aspect of American life, and take every concrete step within his power to make it so. History will remember him for doing anything less.”

Unburdened by the need to get reelected, this president has been given the mandate to move the progressive agenda forward, not just for LGBT people but for all people.

Mitt Romney, it turns out, wasn’t the only one with a five-point plan. Civil rights activist and bestselling author David Mixner has one, too — but it’s a lot more credible:

  1. Appointments to the Supreme Court
  2. Repeal of DOMA
  3. Passage of ENDA
  4. LGBT cabinet member and other appointments
  5. More focus on transgender rights

Mixner, a political activist since the 1960s, worked to elect Bill Clinton but broke with him when “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) became President Clinton’s official policy. He’s been working, and fighting, for our community ever since.

Obama’s repeal of Clinton’s military service “compromise” was just one of the many goals we’ve been successful in achieving over the past four years, because we held President Obama’s feet to the fire. When it looked like repeal of DADT wasn’t going to happen, it took GetEQUAL’s repeated civil disobedience acts — chaining themselves to the White House fence — to force the issue into the public’s attention, and, frankly, to anger the president so much that he was forced into action.

“We only have about six months to prove to Congress and to President Obama and his administration that we will not rest until we are equal, with no caveats, no excuses and no exceptions,” GetEQUAL chair Tanya Domi says of Obama’s second term, adding, “We will continue to pressure and press President Obama to sign an executive order for employment nondiscrimination for LGBT people in the federal government, as part of a broader agenda.”

The president’s refusal to sign that executive order has been a hard pill for the LGBT community and our leaders to swallow.

“First and foremost,” says Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president for communications and marketing, Obama must sign “an executive order on nondiscrimination with respect to federal contractors. That’s the most high-profile of the issues.”

But it’s far from the only one.

Sainz is quick to note that because “the Obama administration is the first pro-equality one in history, we have literally dozens of unfulfilled needs.” He adds, “We’ll be looking to get them done in the next four years.”

Just as an executive order for ENDA is a goal shared by practically every group I talked with, the belief that death has come to “the age-old moniker that gay issues were politically toxic,” as GetEQUAL tells me, is also shared by many, it seems, including Freedom to Marry’s founder and president Evan Wolfson.

“When we set out to pave a pathway for President Obama’s historic announcement of support — and rallied the Democrats around a freedom-to-marry plank for the party platform — naysayers pushed back, saying it was unrealistic, that it would hurt Obama. But Freedom to Marry made it happen, and we are seeing the opposite effect: victories in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and potentially Washington state, in addition to the resounding reelection of President Obama, the first sitting president to support the freedom to marry.” (Washington voters have since approved marriage equality.)

Wolfson, often called the father of the same-sex marriage movement, believes “these wins give us further momentum” and is working “on the roadmap to create the environment for a positive Supreme Court ruling.”

In fact, on many fronts, the Supreme Court is the ultimate prize.

President Obama won the right to name new — and hopefully progressive, not just left-leaning — justices to the nation’s highest court, cementing for a generation a far less conservative bench. In making those nominations, he should remember who put him back in the White House. At least 5 percent of those who voted for Obama were lesbian, gay or bisexual. Without us, he might not have won the popular vote.

With DOMA and Prop 8 cases likely headed to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community stands poised to be rid of those two atrocities. “It’s now hard to believe that SCOTUS will not end Prop 8 and rule DOMA unconstitutional in the near future,” Dr. Dana Beyer, executive director of Gender Rights Maryland says, adding, “I expect the Supreme Court will do the right thing this coming session.”

As much as the court may claim otherwise, it is a political body and can’t help but be aware of the overall temperature of the American populace. Marriage equality, now the law in nine states plus D.C., including three states in which voters themselves chose equality, offers the court, for the first time ever, an opportunity to extend equality to same-sex couples without credible accusations of being an “activist” body, as conservatives erroneously branded it after it ruled in favor of Obamacare.

And now that Obamacare is safe from the “on day one” proclamations Mitt Romney made — promising to repeal it — LGBT people should remember that a President Romney would have allowed states to take away hospital visitation rights protections, rights Obama enacted and separately codified into law through Obamacare.

Gay or straight, at the end of the day, what we’re fighting for are the same protections that other Americans have as their birthright. At the top of that list are protections for our families, including the “the 1 million parents in this country who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and the 2 million children they are raising,”  Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council, tells me.

“I would hope his reelection would give President Obama the feeling that he has the winds of change at his back and embolden him to force a divisive Congress to take action on several critical issues for our families, including the freedom to marry for all Americans (Respect for Marriage Act), the elimination of discrimination in foster care and adoption (Every Child Deserves a Family Act), fairness in employment (Employment Non Discrimination Act), and safe schools (Student Non Discrimination and Safe Schools Improvement Acts),” Chrisler says.

Not that anyone needed proof, but the LGBT community is just like everyone else — and we’re not one-issue voters. We’re fighting for the right to marry and the right to not get fired for who we are, but we’re also existing in the same economy as every other American.

“So where do we go from here? We resolve the sequestration problem, and while we’re doing that, we focus on jobs by strongly encouraging the president to fulfill his promise to issue an executive order covering LGBT persons in the federal contractor workspace (trans and gender-nonconforming gay persons are already covered under EO 11246, but confirmation never hurt anyone),” Dr. Beyer says.

Beyer isn’t the only one mentioning sequestration, aka the 2011 Budget Control Act that will, as of Jan. 2, 2013, impose $1.2 trillion in federal cuts over 10 years to defense and non-defense spending. HRC’s Sainz is equally concerned, and rightly so, because sequestration of course affects LGBT people, too. In fact, Sainz puts it at the top of Obama’s “to do” list.

“First and foremost will be the devastating cuts that could come the way of our community because of sequestration,” Sainz tells me. “No one has paid attention to this, but our community should rightly move into high gear on this issue.”

The fact is that LGBT leaders have expanded their focus and, like the president himself, recognize that civil rights issues are economic issues, and so they’re focused on jobs, employment protection and fiscal policies — and that really takes the wind out of the sails of both the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, the two gay Republican groups who claim that their existence is necessary because of their focus on the economy but who have proved not only embarrassing to the LGBT community but have actually helped move the GOP to the right on LGBT issues.

So what’s left?

The Victory Fund, which focuses on electing LGBT leaders to public office, notes that the Obama administration has appointed over 250 “openly LGBT professionals to full-time and advisory positions in the executive branch, more than all known LGBT appointments of other presidential administrations combined.”

To David Mixner’s point, award-winning veteran journalist Karen Ocamb, news editor for the Los Angeles-based Frontiers magazine and editor of LGBT POV, reminds me, “Since 1992, we’ve been talking about how the president’s cabinet should reflect America. I think this election shows it’s time for us to be in that room, too.”

Why not the first  openly LGBT cabinet secretary?

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

on

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.