Skip to Content

Obama's No-Risk Drive-By On Gay Marriage

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

The president's announcement favoring the right of same sex couples to marry is long overdue and better than nothing. But it doesn't make him a fearless warrior for human rights, any more than Henry Kissinger's Nobel Peace Prize makes him Mahatma Gandhi.

Obama's No-Risk Drive-By On Gay Marriage

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

Marriage is a legal and human right that same sex couples and their families need, want and deserve. “

President Obama's belated declaration in favor of same sex marriage was not an act of political courage. Courage is risky and the president put nothing on the line he could lose. It wasn't about leadership, because Barack Obama arrived after and not before most of his party and most of the country. Barack Obama did a presidential drive-by, a mock-assault in which he rolled by and sprayed a clip full of rhetorical blanks in the general direction of the foes of equal rights at no risk to himself and without targeting anything in particular.

Think about it. If this had been a Republican president, say Reagan or Bush, making the opposite announcement, it would have been accompanied with a fistful of new executive branch regulations, a couple new bills for introduction in Congress, and a proposed constitutional amendment. Almost a week later, Obama is finally suggesting that repeal of the odious Defense of Marriage Act would be a good idea. But don't wait up for his people in Congress to introduce it.

Make no mistake, Obama's announcement is better than nothing. Marriage is a legal and human right that same sex couples and their families need, want and deserve. Without it, same sex partners can't visit each other in hospitals, can't get medical coverage for spouses, cannot make emergency medical decisions for each other and their survivors and children are not guaranteed access to joint assets, pensions or survivors benefits when one partner dies, and they have no access to divorce courts when coiuples break up.

This is crucially important because divorce courts are the only legal proceedings where the objective is equitable distribution of assets along with the best interests of children. Without access to divorce court the high earner in a same sex couple can pocket the lion's share of assets and walk away. Child support? If gay couples can't legally adopt or marry, don't count on it.

The president's announcement satisfied a constituency that was mostly his already, and that makes significant campaign contributions as well. Some of his other supporters might grumble, but none of them will bolt. ”

Obama's belated announcement on gay marriage is good. It's just not all that good. Marriage is the overwhelming priority of well-off white gays. But the rest of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community have other pressing issues.

If you're a gay teenager, your big problem might be having a place to live and attend school, how to stay out of the juvenile system after your parents kick you out or after your school turns a blind eye when you get beat down. If you're a gay or transgender adult, you might live in fear that your landlord or boss will discover your identity and fire or evict you. If you're gay or transgender and homeless, there are shelter and agencies who simply won't deal with you, and if you're in the custody of adult or juvenile correctional institutions, you've got special problems as well.

The president's announcement satisfied a constituency that was mostly his already, and that makes significant campaign contributions as well. Some of his other supporters might grumble, but none of them will bolt. So politically, it was a no-risk, no-lose proposition, and it gives staunch Obamaphiles still another halo, this one in rainbow colors, to hang on the head of their shining black prince.

So while the president's announcement in favor of gay marriage really IS a good thing, it doesn't make him a fearless warrior for human rights any more than his tainted Nobel Peace Prize made him Martin Luther King. After all, Henry Kissinger F.W. DeKlerk have those too.

For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Bruce Dixon. Find us on the web at www.blackagendareport.com.

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, and a member of the state committee of the Georgia Green Party. Contact him at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com.

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialise correctly.

Share this

Comments

Barely Good

If you are POTUS and say you're in favor of something, but also say you are leaving it up to the states, are you really in favor of it?

"Without it, same sex

"Without it, same sex partners can't visit each other in hospitals, . . ."

Huh?  A marriage certificate is required to visit someone in a hospital?

While this marriage issue is of importance to a small percentage of the population, it is another diversion from bigger issues.  As usual, the powers that be (including the co-opted media who love to have an easy issue dropped into lap so they don't have to do any real work) dwell on a God, Guns,or Gays ado as opposed to pressing problems such as unemployment, war, and assorted other mayhem and despair.  The president deserves no kudos for his "coming out" in support of gay marriage because he has failed to come out and do a damn thing about the shitload of real problems facing this nation.  Rather, he has exacerbated said problems and created a few more headaches as well.  Again, Obomber comes off as the (undeserving) hero. 

Side note:  Black folks just can't catch a break from their Cult Leader in Chief.  If it ain't the anti-Castro Cubans, it's the Zionists, Wall Street, war profiteers, and now, the gays.  Everybody gets help from Obama except for the one group that pledges their undying loyalty to his sorry ass. 

Well Noted & Said Beverly...

Seems all Dims [IE: Obama & Slick Willie] have to do to be called 'liberal' is say they're pro 'gay' marriage & abortion- no matter how anti working class [IE: NAFTA & RTTT- which is an assault on teachers who are up-to 80% women], anti-poor people, pro- war / US Imperialism / MIISC, pro- Prison Industrial Complex / mass incarceration, etc- their policies actually are. Obama has NO constituency more loyal to him than Black folks- yet he has no problem ending DADT & supporting 'gay' marriage, but hardly even mentions Black & poor people!

___________________________________________________________

Main-stream feminists groups IE: NOW & FMA are seemingly tickled pink over Obama 'coming out' for 'gay' marriage- [& their pro-abortion positions are well known]. But RE: the NCLB & RTTT assault on teachers [whose ranks are up-to 80% women] & their unions- it seems that NOW & FMA have NO [official] position. Nor do they seem to have one for this aggregious case RE a Black woman:

In FL, where Zimmerman is using FL's 'Stand Your Ground' law for his defense [excuse] in gunning-down an un-armed Trayvon Martin, apparently that law doesn't apply to Black Women 'Standing Their Ground' vs an attacker In Their Own Home- even though NO-One was even shot- let alone killed! Marissa Alexander's husband [on whom she sought a restraining order] flew into a violent rage and tried to strangle her. She  fled to her car, but forgot her keys. She grabbed pistol from the garage and returned to the house to get them. When her husband came after her again, she fired -- into the ceiling. The warning shot made him back off. No one was hurt- YET she got 20yrs mandatory for aggravated assault!!! By comparison- even if Z-man is convicted for 2nd murder RE Trayvon it's likely he'll get no more than 20 - 30yrs! 

Why is it that NOW & FMA are seemingly MIA / AWOL on all these issues- which seemingly primarily affect Black & Brown women??? When do these poly-trickal groups take on women's issues not merely because it suits their narrow / rigid political agenda- But because it's the Right Thing to DO??!!

lol.

"This is crucially important because divorce courts are the only legal proceedings where the objective is equitable distribution of assets along with the best interests of children. Without access to divorce court the high earner in a same sex couple can pocket the lion's share of assets and walk away."

I don't know if that's wrong or not if you don't have any children.

Seen alot of guys at the job get left destitute, their homes confiscated, alimony payments, and having to work like slaves to make ends meet.

I don't know, I might be exaggerating a little bit when I say "destitute" lol..

The one thing that will cost him nothing

I laughed out loud when I heard this in the news.

The one thing he could do that won`t cost him a dime...

It wouldn't be wise of him to

It wouldn't be wise of him to get deeper in this battle, same sex marriage is a sensitive matter these days and him declaring his position should just be enough. We need to be more open minded and more tolerant. I recently took the courage to watch a gay live sex cam, it's really didn't scared me at all, I don't understand why there's so much attention on same sex couples.

Former President Bill Clinton

Former President Bill Clinton told the Supreme Court that he now believes DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) to be unconstitutional, in spite of the fact that he signed the act into legislation. Defense of Marriage Act declines federal recognition of same-sex unions by identifying marriage as a valid organization only between opposite-sex couples.



Dr. Radut | ba_radio