Election Day!

It's Election Day, but a rather boring one. There are two governor's races, in Virginia and New Jersey. Gay marriage is on the ballot on opposite corners of the country, in Maine and Washington. Given the paucity of actual data, but given the ravenous appetite of the media - and us deeply obsessed political junkies - there will be much analysis, much of it wasted. Is this good or bad for Obama? Kos is firmly of the opinion that it says next to nothing about Obama, and I agree. Like Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local." These candidates and ballot initiatives are being judged on their own merits. As will Obama in three years.

I haven't commented on these races much, but I have been following them. Chris Christie, the Republican and former US Attorney, won in New Jersey. This is not surprising. The current governor, Jon Corzine, is not terribly popular. I'm not plugged into New Jersey politics enough to really know why. Corzine, however, has the baggage of being a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, at a time when investment bankers are not making friends among the populace. One good thing about Obama's background as a community organizer: he didn't go the investment banking route, which he easily could have done. Christie suffered from some minor scandals, but they were minor - an inappropriate loan to a staffer, some traffic violations. If Corzine had been more popular, those might have done some damage. But my impression is that Christie came across as the lesser of two evils.

Bob McDonell, the Republican, won in Virginia. Again, not surprising - Virginia has been a Republican stronghold for a long time. It's somewhat surprising that Virginia has two Democratic senators. The one noteworthy development in this race happened when McDonell's old graduate thesis surfaced. He took some very conservative positions, and Democrats were hoping that would alienate moderates and women. But he immediately, and apparently effectively, distanced himself from those positions.

The one fascinating oddball race is in New York's 23rd CD, where a Conservative Party candidate is competing against a Democrat. The Republican bowed out after teabaggers and their ilk made it clear they wanted an ideologically hardcore candidate. Someone at The Albany Project is calling it for the Democrat, with 70% of the vote. Wow, that would be quite interesting. That would be a rather spectacular setback for the Republican party - the district has been GOP for 100 years. If the Democrat takes that, it will spark lots of good old-fashioned internecine warfare. Gotta love the prospect of that!

Lutherans Allow Gay and Lesbian Priests

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, of which I am a member, voted today to allow congregations to choose priests who are gay.

Way to go, Lutherans!

I'm a member of my Church Council, and attended a Synod Assembly in June, so I know how intense the debate over this is in the church. Conservatives are very upset about it, but liberals are thrilled. The church will undoubtedly lose some members over this, which is very unfortunate. There will be something of a schism.

But the far more important fact is that a very old wound has been healed, and much pain can now be put behind us. We aren't completely there yet: the ELCA still does not recognize gay marriages. But we can now say: Welcome one step closer to the center of the church, gay brothers and lesbian sisters.

Bill Clinton on DOMA and DADT

Bill Clinton is at Netroots Nation, the progressive activist conference. Good for him! I bet he's having a blast. Someone asked him about DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, anti-gay marriage legislation he signed) and DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell, the gays-in-the-military policy implemented at the beginning of his first term).

Clinton explained the politics that were going on at the time around gay rights issues, and it confirms what I have suspected, not only on this issue, but others as well: if Clinton did not advance a progressive agenda as much as some liberals would have liked (like, say, Ralph Nader), that was largely because he had to deal with a Republican Congress. If Clinton didn't make liberals happy, they should have been thankful that he was a firewall against much worse legislation being passed.

On DOMA, he makes a point I was not aware of: there was a real danger that Congress - both houses of which were, at the time, controlled by Republicans - was going to send a constitutional amendment to the states banning gay marriage. DOMA may be bad, but a constitutional amendment would have been infinitely worse, because it would have made gay marriage impossible in any state. So on gay marriage, Clinton may look like a bad guy for signing DOMA, but he was just making the best of a bad situation. Because if the Congress had sent that amendment to the states, it would have passed very quickly.

Gay Marriage in California: 2010 vs. 2012

The NY Times looks at the politics of gay marriage in California, particularly the question of whether the movement for marriage equality should focus on trying to change the law in 2010 or 2012. My feeling is very clear: wait until 2012. One major person involved, David Bohnett, put it well:

“The only thing worse than losing in 2008,” he added, “would be to lose again in 2010.”

Which might very well happen. Nothing much will have changed over those 2 years. The only reason to try again in 2010 is that many people are still seriously pissed off about losing in 2008. But anger is a dangerous motivating factor in politics. It's occasionally useful as well, but this debate is supposed to be about love and marriage and commitment, not beating conservatives.

There is no practical or political reason to try again in 2010, and some very good political and practical reasons why not to. There may not be enough money available, which would increase the likelihood of defeat. If this cause loses in 2010, it ain't gonna happen in 2012. And probably not 2014.

Conservatives are fighting gay marriage for many reasons, but one reason in particular is unique to this time period: this is one of the few culture-war issues where conservatives have won more victories than they have lost in the last few years. Conservatives have lost most other culture-ware battles: civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, abortion, separation of church and state, environmentalism, sex and marriage generally. Conservatives won the economic debate - sort of - when Soviet Union collapsed, but that's long past. About the only culture war issue conservatives have been winning consistently of late is about gun control.

As much as I would like to see gay marriage become legal in California, I don't think there's much chance of it happening in 2010. Time is on our side. That's good and bad. Good, because we know we will ultimately win. Bad, because the "ultimately" part requires patience.

Obama and gay rights: Stonewall edition

Frank Rich wrote about gay rights and Obama yesterday, the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. He confessed that he didn't hear anything about Stonewall when it happened, despite his personal interest in civil rights. I don't blame him; I don't think I heard about Stonewall at the very least until I was in college. Rich is frustrated with Obama's lack of action on gay rights, as many liberals are. He comes up with a couple of explanations, and favors this one:

But the most prevalent theory is that Obama, surrounded by Clinton White House alumni with painful memories, doesn’t want to risk gay issues upending his presidency, as they did his predecessor’s in 1993.

Undoubtedly. But I cannot figure out why Rich doesn't go just a little deeper, and look into the Congressional politics. It's really quite simple. There are a number of Democratic senators and representatives, primarily from the South, who absolutely do not want to vote on any gay issues this year. Claire McCaskill from Missouri, Kay Hagan from North Carolina, and Mark Warner from Virginia are probably in this group. I haven't checked out their positions on gay rights, but I would be very surprised if they are pushing for the repeal of either DOMA or DADT. For Obama to push for the repeal of DOMA right now would be a gift to certain Republicans, to say nothing of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. For some of those senators and congresspeople, voting for an expasion of gay rights, particularly gay marriage, might cost them enough votes to lose them an election. That's a very high price.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Obama is being very careful on the repeal of DOMA and DADT because he doesn't want to lose. If he pushes for a repeal of either, and it fails, there will not be another opportunity for at least five years.

Andrew Sullivan is, of course, passionate about this, but I also think he's a little blinded by his own passion. A couple of weeks ago, more frustrated than usual, he wrote

Of course these things can be done. If anyone high up in the Obama administration or the Pelosi-Reid Congress gave a damn, much would have been done.

No, they can't. There is still much work to be done, and there are still many people who are adamantly opposed to gay marriage. There has been amazing progress on gay rights just this year, but let's not forget that Prop. 8 passed in California last year. And it didn't just pass in California: it passed in Los Angeles County, one of the most liberal counties in the country.

Sullivan has a list of things that he thinks supporters of gay rights should do to pressure Obama and the Democrats. I think a much more fruitful approach would be to compile a list of minor things that Obama can do to support gay rights - a checklist, if you will, and then demand action on each of those. Many of them will not require Congressional action. Obama is already working through some of those, and they require a lot of work in the bureaucracy. There are two rationales for this approach. First, it gets a lot of things done. Second, it will lay the ground work for the more dramatic action of repealing DOMA and DADT by showing that gay rights can be expanded, and the politicians supporting such expansion can survive.

Obama losing ground on gay rights

I've been grudgingly supportive of some of Obama's positions on gay rights that I don't necessarily agree with. I can see why he's dragging his feet on repealing DADT, and I think he sees problems supporting gay marriage, because it will make him a lightning rod for homophobia, at a moment when he doesn't need another reason to piss off moderates and the right.

But he does owe his gay supporters, and he hasn't done much to repay them, or even much to advance the cause of gay rights. This is starting to disappoint.

The latest is a brief filed by the DoJ in a case in California. Andrew Sullivan, by far Obama's most articulate conservative gay supporter, is not happy. AmericaBlog rips the Administration's case to pieces.

A couple of thots, trying to square this with my admiration for Obama:

This is a brief written by someone in the DoJ. Obama quite probably didn't read it. I would be surprised if he were aware of it before today - the DoJ probably files briefs like this every day. In some sense, there is a principle that the civil service lawyers in the DoJ, not the political appointees, should be allowed to make the strongest case possible for the government. They do not care about the political consequences, and they shouldn't.

But this is policy by other means. The Obama DoJ can not make these arguments if they want to avoid the political headaches.

Even if the Obama administration wants to take a hands-off approach to letting the DoJ make the best argument the lawyers think they can, the administration should be prepared to deal with the fallout from the gay community. There are thousands of people who gave lots of time and money to Obama.

Now for some seriously counter-intuitive thinking: Maybe this is a tough-love move by the Obama administration. Maybe they are playing devil's advocate in public. Maybe they are saying to the gay community - OK, you want marriage, and repeal of DADT? Fight for it. Lay the groundwork. Provide us with some political cover.

This makes some sense, because the gay community did not do much fighting last fall over Prop 8. I got the feeling that many members of the gay community, and their liberal friends thot that gay rights in California were a done deal. I include myself in the latter group - I just about assumed that defeating Prop. 8 was a foregone conclusion - this is California in 2009, right?

I'm not sure the gay community realizes the stakes for the Obama administration. Obama won in 2008 because he won states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. If he is too closely associated with gay rights, he could easily lose those. And with them, the election.

If I sound schizophrenic on this issue, it's because I am. I am strongly supportive of gay rights, and I am strongly supportive of the Obama administration. I don't think Obama did the right thing with this brief in California, but I'm also not sure that Obama himself had much to do with it. But I do think he should do something about it. He needs to placate some very pissed off -and very legitimately pissed off - solid supporters.

Update: Laurence Tribe, the constitutional scholar at Harvard, is somewhat supportive of the Administration. He's paying attention to the details of this particular case. It's worth quoting him at length:

As someone who wants to see DOMA dismantled and invalidated, I would love it if this ninth circuit case would evaporate into the ether.

Even though I personally believe that DOMA is unconstitutional, I think that this particular lawsuit is very vulnerable; it’s not anywhere near as strong as the one that was brought in the federal district court in Massachusetts [a suit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders].

In an environment where the Supreme Court is still quite conservative, what makes a suit a strong one is that it finds a point of entry in which it’s possible to invalidate a law in a number of its applications by using more of a scalpel that might appeal to five justices rather than a bludgeon that will almost certainly ask more of the court than it is willing to do.

What’s strong about the Massachusetts case is that these are concrete situations of people who are legally married under the laws of states like Massachusetts or Vermont, and who are being discriminated against by the federal government with respect to federal benefits simply because they are same-sex couples. There’s no other difference between them and other couples in that state, and the court could agree with that without accepting any of the broader theories advanced in the [Smelt] lawsuit in the central district of California, which is basically a bet-the-farm lawsuit that almost dares a conservative Supreme Court to slap it down.

A strategic Justice Department interested in a litigation strategy that has some realistic chance of success certainly would not have taken [the Smelt] case as the one in which the constitutional vulnerabilities of DOMA should be explored.

He also understands the political reality, and sympathizes with gay groups. But he also understands the legal reality, and how it intersects with the political reality. This was not a good case for challenging DOMA. The disappointment of gay rights groups is an example of what I call the "magic wand" theory of social change. That's the idea that a president can arrive at the White House, start waving a magic wand, and voila! solve all the problems of the world. Doesn't work like that, folks. Again, Tribe is worth quoting at length:

The important point here is that the solicitor general traditionally seeks to dismiss lawsuits against federal laws whenever there is a plausible basis to do it. A lot of the outcry about the administration’s position doesn’t take that institutional reality into account.

It doesn’t surprise me very much because I understand the frustration of some of the groups. They have lived under the burden of DOMA, of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” for a long time, and they understandably hoped that this would be an administration that would side with them on these issues.

And I think the frustration of having to wait so long for a progressive and intelligent president who, nonetheless, occasionally does some things that people find disappointing on matters that cut deeply into where they live -- it’s understandable that would lead to some strong reactions in this case.

The other problem is that this is vastly more important to gay rights groups than it is to Obama. Whether or not a gay person can get married has a major impact on their lives. It has a much greater and more immediate impact than, say, whether or not there is peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. But peace in the Middle East is vastly more important to Obama than whether or not a couple million Americans can get married. It is also far more immediate for Obama; he has a chance to achieve peace in the Middle East right now, and he can't afford to let this chance slip away. Gay marriage is an issue that will be around for a long time. And the odds of repealing DOMA in the next year are, honestly, slim to none. Not while there are still something like 40 states with anti-gay marriage laws on their books.

Gay marriage in DC, Marion Barry, and Ta-Nehisi Coates

The City Council of Washington, DC, has voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. I wasn't going to blog about this, despite the fact that I have lived in DC three times and I love it, because gay marriage news is coming out (pun intended) fast and furious these days, and I have to be somewhat selective. But Ta-Nehisi Coates has a great post about Marion Barry's vote in opposition. Fascinating comments. Several people pointed out the irony of a man caught on tape smoking crack trying to take some kind of moral high ground. Coates is relatively new to The Atlantic, but he's becoming one of my go-to bloggers, because he's a liberal who occasionally tries to slap some sense into liberals, particularly on civil rights issues. He's also the only blogger I read who can discourse extensively on the history of rap and hip-hop. Very refreshing.

I think the vote in DC may be a breakthrough in gay-black relations. I have my fingers crossed. The tension between African-Americans, particularly in churches, and gays has been a simmering source of tension. This will bring it out in the open (so to speak). One possible consequence may be that African-American gays and lesbians may be encouraged to come out of the closet, and force members of their community to confront their fears and issues around homosexuality.

It's also an opportunity for Obama to take a stand on this issue. He's been avoiding gay issues, which is understandable, given what else is on his plate. He is presumably a little reluctant to spend some political capital on this issue right now. There are a couple of reason for that. 1, he doesn't need to - incredible progress is being made without any help from him. If you had said two years - or even a year or even six months ago - that we would have gay marriage in almost all states in New England by the summer of 2009, I would not have believed you. If you had said that gay marriage would be legal in Iowa before California, I would have thot you were insane. So Obama doesn't really need to do much. 2, he doesn't gain much by spending political capital on gay rights issues. He would piss off conservatives, although that wouldn't make much of a difference. He might alienate a few people in the middle of the road, which would be bad. But it wouldn't make much of a difference with liberals and most out gays and lesbians, because they already support him. Not much reason for him to do anything.

Other than the fact that moving forward on repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is the right thing to do. I expect Obama to be occasionally motivated by just doing the right thing.

This situation is just about ideal for Obama. He can make some kind of bland statement about how he supports expanding civil rights, and he hopes that Congress respects the District's rights to pass its own laws. He doesn't even have to support gay marriage outright. And then he can make it slightly personal about Marion Barry. Nothing big. Just make it clear that he doesn't agree with Marion Barry. Conservatives would love that. Judging by the comments in Coates' post, so would a fair number of African-Americans. Marion Barry is a demagogue and an embarrassment to everyone he is associated with. It is tragic that he is still on the DC City Council. Obama could score points with just about every point on the political spectrum just by shaking his head at the mention of the man's name.

Gay marriage passes in Vermont

It's now legal for same-sex couples to get married in Vermont. I'm linking to Andrew Sullivan, since he has been blogger #1 on this topic. Vermont is the first state to legalize gay marriage as a result of a vote of the legislature, rather than through a court decision. Props to those Vermonters! Ben and Jerry's all around!

The legislature overrode the Republican governor's veto. Two odd things there: first of all, the governor of Vermont is a Republican? Second, it's great that the legislature had enough votes to override him.

The Impact of Milk

The WaPo looks at the cultural impact that "Milk" has had. It hasn't made much money; $27 million at the box office.

But my feeling is that it has had, and, more importantly, will have, a dramatic impact. The article points out that it has had a great impact on the younger generation, providing them a glimpse of what the gay rights movement was like back in the day. Because, let's face it, this movie is better than anything that will ever show up in even the most progressive high school textbooks.

As for the impact on the straight population? I think it will be nothing but good, largely because it's such a sweet, positive movie. The scene where he picks up James Franco is one of the most wonderful seduction scenes you will ever see, because it's just so obviously love at first sight. Sean Penn plays Harvey Milk as just a peach of a guy, the kind of man anybody would love to have as their neighbor or coworker or brother-in-law or friend. He's smart, funny, honest, brave and compassionate. What's not to love?

But there is one simple fact about Harvey Milk that may be the most inspiring, and which he had no control over. He is an American, and his story is a quintessentially American story. It's a story about love and freedom. What could be more American?

Rick Warren and Obama

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, is giving the invocation at Obama's Inaugural. Many liberals are upset about this. Gays in particular aren't happy about it; Andrew Sullivan has been struggling with it all day.

I can obviously appreciate why many of my compadres are not pleased with this choice. I don't know much about Rick Warren, but I clearly disagree with him on a fair number of issues, particularly gay marriage.

The fact that this is coming in the wake of the passage of Prop. 8 has colored much of the reaction. If Prop. 8 had failed, the tone of the debate would be very different; triumphant liberals would be a lot less angry. There is still a great deal of unfocused anger lingering in the political air around the issue of gay marriage. Unfocused anger is the worst kind, because it means that whoever is carrying it around inside themselves is looking for an excuse to be angry at someone, for almost any reason. Obama gave people a reason to focus their anger both on Rick Warren, and on him. I'm not sure he was expecting quite this reaction, but I doubt he was surprised.

My reaction is simple: this is exactly what I was expecting from Barack Obama, and I'm fine with it. If you're outraged at Obama about this choice, get ready to be pissed off once a week or so for the next four to eight years.

Barack is the President-elect of the United States of America. Emphasis on United. He is not the President-elect of the Liberal States of America or the Democratic States of America. If anyone missed Obama's emphasis on reaching out to people he disagreed with, then they weren't listening. This has been his message since that historic keynote address in 2004. Lee Stranahan put it well today in the Huffpost:

There's something bigger at play here and you can't say Obama didn't warn you. He talked about reaching out, about expanding our politics and that crazy bastard actually meant it. Nobody on the left or right quite knows what to make of it. We want to cram Obama into our old, divisive, two toned ideological and political frame and if he doesn't fit, we'll attack him too. Attacking is what we're used to doing.

But in the long run this new politics benefits us all. Ironically, it benefits the minorities and marginalized and ill-treated the most. I know this may be hard for many to see right now but the truth is that this sort of symbol is what America needs. Not seeing just Warren on stage or just Lowery but seeing both of them of there at once.

Obama said it in the abstract time and again during the campaign. Now he's showing us. Seeing the things that Pastor Rick Warren and Reverend Joseph Lowery have in common is more important than seeing the things that separate them. America needs to see that. It's a step down the road where a majority of us see the things that straight Americans in love want are the same things that gay Americans in love want, too.

I think part of the problem that many liberals have is that they are used to Bush, who used occasions like this for the exact opposite reasons that Obama is using them. If Bush invited someone to give the invocation at his inaugural, you knew darn well that he was sending a message that he agreed with that person's politics, and he was using the occasion to send the message that he considered that person's politics correct and superior to anyone who disagreed with him.

Obama has listened to Rick Warren. He knows him personally. He believes that he is a good man, with whom he has many disagreements. He is not sending a message that this is a man who the rest of us must agree with. He is sending a message that the rest of us should respect, listen to, and engage him in dialogue, not despite the fact that we disagree with him, but precisely because we disagree with him.

Joseph Lowery, the "dean of the civil rights movement," is also going to be at the Inaugural, giving the benediction. I'm not sure what the difference is between the benediction and invocation, but they both sound very important.

I found out that Lowery was going to be giving the benediction when I read the second-to-last paragraph of this NY Times article. I don't know much more about Lowery than I do about Warren, except that the former founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King, Jr.

But the fact there has been far more emphasis on Rick Warren than on Joseph Lowery says something unfortunate about the debate. The fact that someone of Joseph Lowery's stature is part of this celebration is something that liberals should be very happy about. Concentrating on Warren slights Lowery, at a moment that is the culmination of what Dr. Rev. Joseph Lowery has been fighting for his entire life.

By far the stupidest comment of the day on this controversy came from the normally very astute Kos:

If we shut up, [Obama]'ll take the path of least resistance. And that path of least resistance is kowtowing to the conservative media, the clueless punditocracy, and bigots like Warren.

I understand what Kos means: it's up to liberals to keep the pressure on Obama to fight for equality for gays and lesbians (and all other sexual minorities).

But I can't believe that Kos actually used the phrase "path of least resistance" and "Barack Obama" in the same sentence. There are many things that can be said about Barack Obama. But taking the past of least resistance is really not his style. Really, really not his style. I do believe that this is a man who enjoys a good challenge. Like, say, running for President.

Obama has pissed off lots of liberals with this move. I'm glad that he did. This will make things more interesting. Overcoming this anger will be a challenge for Obama. Which is exactly what he wants, and which is exactly what I want him to have.

No Gays for a Day

Joel Stein, the laziest, but occasionally most inspired newspaper columnist in America, hits it out of the park today. In response to the passage of Prop. 8, he is proposing a "No Gays for a Day" day, sort of like the the day without a Mexican thing a couple of years ago. It's an incredibly simple idea: everyone gay will take the day off of work, to highlight how many gay people there are in this country, and what life would be like without them.

I love it. I think it's a great idea. It's very funny, which any protest movement could use. It's going to be on December 5th, which is my mother's birthday. Mom will be supportive.

The opportunities for camp are just wonderful. What's Ellen going to do? I can see her spending several days leading up to this talking about it, and then running a rerun on the day of, and then spending a day or two afterwards talking about it. Maybe she could go on Oprah's show.

A brilliant opportunity for gay people to take themselves seriously and not seriously at the same time. Take a vacation to protest! Laughing and crying at the same time.

Many, many people will not get the joke. But for those of us who do, it could be a great tonic. Make that a vodka and tonic.

Gay marriage - gotta love the visuals!

Barbara Davidson / Los Angeles Times
Tori and Kate Kuykendall, who have been together five years, inaugurate their new marriage with a kiss. With them at the ceremony in a park in West Hollywood is their 5-month-old daughter, Zadie.

The LA Times has a nice slideshow of gay and lesbian couples getting married on the first full day of legalized gay marriage in California. Gotta love it!

The image above was on the front page of the LA Times this morning. I think it's a good call to post a picture of lesbians as opposed to gay men. One of the great unspoken aspects of this debate is the aesthetic angle. There are a number of objections to gay marriage; religious, cultural, moral. But behind many of those, I suspect, is a simple aversion, on the part of straight men, to men kissing other men. Straight guys do not, of course, mind women kissing other women. No problem there! But guys kissing other guys is just not a pleasant sight for most straight guys. I have to admit that I include myself in this group. As much as I support my gay friends, I find the idea of kissing another guy uncomfortable, even just looking at a picture of guys kissing. Hugging, no problem. Kissing, not a great idea. I'm not sure why that is.

So I hope the LA Times keeps publishing pictures of pretty women in gorgeous gowns kissing.

Gay marriage in California

Marriage between two people of the same sex is now officially legal in the State of California. I didn't think this was going to happen until after Arnold left office, but the California Supreme Court surprised me. The next step is defeating an amendment to the California constitution that will appear on the ballot in November. I am cautiously optimistic. I think the effect of seeing people who are incredibly happy will change some minds. And I'm not even sure that that many minds need to be changed. Some polls that I have seen indicate that a majority of Californians support gay marriage. But it is by no means a sure thing.

Gay marriage legal in California!

The California Supreme Court ruled today that marriage between same-sex couples is legal in California. I can't write much right now, but for completely obsessive coverage, go read Andrew Sullivan.