It seems like Amy’s angry email to Obama about Change.gov’s lack of LGBT initiatives was actually effective. Obama’s Change.gov website now sports a huge gay rights section. Because of Amy, Obama will tackle our civil rights! I think it also helps that Amy made the Memphis protests happen in conjecture with the hundreds of thousands of other protesters across the country.
I’m pretty heartened by the information added to the LGBT issues section. Seriously, if he’s able to do half of these things, he’s done more for LGBT individuals than any president in our history. Because, you know, Bill Clinton was the worst president for the rights of LGBT people ever (DOMA, DADT). And if he accomplishes all of these things, we’re golden.
By the way, some people squibble about Obama’s support of civil unions over gay marriage. I agree that it’s awful that he supports separate but equal and won’t take a stand for our full rights with marriage. But I think Obama actually supports gay marriage.  He is making the politicallty safe maneuver of supporting full rights with civil unions and banking on the fact that 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 years from now the Supreme Court will declare that you can’t have to separate but equal institutions.
Anyway, the plan:
The Obama-Biden Plan
- Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
- Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
- Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
- Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
- Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
- Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
9 comments ↓
damn, i’m good!
i sent him a thank-you letter via the form on change.gov. i am hoping he has a cabinet-level appointment waiting for me: perhaps secretary of gay?
You know, I have a strange time with this hate crime legislation. I guess what I feel is that I support hate crime legislation… but I think it’s incomplete. I think, obviously, hate crime legislation should cover sexual assault and rape, and domestic violence. And, if you take a look at the victims, uh, most school shootings.
I’m a huge, unqualified fan of both #s 5 & 6.
I have such a hard time with Hate Crime laws… there is something about trying to figure out if a crime was fueled by hate that strikes me as almost science fiction-y. There is something about most violent crime being fueled by hate that resonates with me… But I understand the importance of punishing crimes that are meant to frighten and intimidate a larger group…
I think most discussion of hate crime legislation is overly simplistic. For example, someone saying “All crime is motivated by hate.” Perhaps all purely-violent, no-fiscal-benefit crime is motivated by hate, but I just don’t see it. Plus, being a member of the “tribe of women,” I honestly do feel like violent crimes against women should be hate crimes. I guess it’s this tricky thing of wanting to own the context (drag a black man to his death? that’s a lynching. kill your wife? that’s intimate partner violence)… I guess maybe it’s just that we need to label some things “hate crimes” in order to get Americans to own the context. I’d prefer history lessons to hate crime legislation.
That’s an interesting point about including women in hate crimes. From what I understand, the line for qualifying something as a “hate” crime is usually if the crime is intended to scare a group. Right?
Therefore beating your wife is not intended to scare all women. Or is the line just if the crime is motivated by hate? Or is the line for “hate” if the crime can be interpreted to intend to scare a group? Or is the line if the crime does legitimately scare a group of people?
I mostly agree with you about the context. But the problem I have is that it is just too tenuous and subjective…
Well, if I consult wikipedia, it says:
When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature found that:
Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes.
That’s just to clear up, that yes, according to the law, you’re right. And, to be honest, I should have used rape/sexual assault as my example if I was working in that definition. For example, the rape and murder of Mia Zapata, under that definition, could be called a hate crime — especially with regard to how it terrorized local women. I saw a similar trend recently with a serial rapist that was in the neighborhood of a blogger I read (I think he’s in Alberta).
Since I have an excuse, I’ll quote Wanda Sykes. In her 2006 HBO comedy special Sick & Tired, Sykes joked with the women in the audience, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our pussies were detachable? Just think about it. You get home from work, it’s getting a little dark outside, and you’re like, ‘I’d like to go for a jog … but it’s getting too dark, oh! I’ll just leave it at home!’”
So I can’t put a pin in how to tie in intimate partner violence for now, but I think stranger-rape (I hate to put it that way, but I’d like to not just call it “rape” since that sends the entirely erroneous message that “rape” means the rapist is a stranger) is a clear example of a hate crime.
Honestly, yeah, I don’t know. It is tenuous and subjective. But I think maybe we’d need less codification if people just knew more shit. I think we need to stop looking at bigotry (racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, cisgenderism, what am I forgetting?) as some sort of individual failing and more as just the water we drink and the air we breathe. We soak in white straight male supremacy, so it rubs off.
But then again, I’m a poet. I don’t come up with real solutions. I just write about shit.
[...] Queerty: By the way, some people squibble about Obama’s support of civil unions over gay marriage. I [...]
[...] conservative blogger, big pink elephant, linked to a blog post of mine from a few months ago where I stated: By the way, some people squibble about Obama’s [...]