Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), speaking to rally attendees in Medford, Oregon on Saturday, took issue with how recent political campaigns have used wedge issues to divide the electorate, but have ultimately done little to make a real difference, especially when there are more important things to worry about.
“I mean, think about what these last few election cycles have been about,” the Senator said. “We argue about immigration, but we don’t try to solve the immigration problem. It’s an argument that is all about people’s passions instead of trying to figure it out.
“We argue about gay marriage. You know, in the meantime the planet is, you know, potentially being destroyed. We’ve got a war that is bankrupting us. And we’re going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that doesn’t make any sense.”
I have three responses to Obama:
1) It’s not an either-or choice. Caring passionately about equal marriage rights doesn’t preclude me from caring passionately about Iraq, or about the environment.
2) It’s too easy for heterosexuals to decide that equal legal rights for lesbians and gays is trivial. Obama has never been treated as a second-class citizen because of his choice of life partner. He doesn’t have to worry about whether the hospital will acknowlege him as a relative if Michelle is injured or sick. He doesn’t have to worry about his two girls receiving the message that their family is less legitimate and real than their peers’ families because of the sexes of their parents.
So of course he sees the issue as trivial. But that doesn’t mean it is.
3) Fuck you, Barack Obama. Seriously.
* * *
P.S. And a word to Clinton supporters: Try not to get smug over this. Clinton never has and never will lift a finger to support equal marriage rights for lesbians and gays, and she never will (until she retires from politics, a la Al Gore.) Clinton and Obama both suck on this regard.
But unless Obama clarifies his statement, I think he’s the suckier of the two.
UPDATE: By the way, an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment, which is worded so broadly that it would probably effect civil unions, just passed out of committee in the Pennsylvania Senate. Since both Clinton and Obama are very concerned with Pennsylvania right now, let’s see if either of them has the guts to speak out against this. I bet that neither of them will.
I don’t know, I can see the comment in another way. Given the context of the prior statement about immigration, he seems to be arguing against bickering over issues just to bicker and not to solve them. From this statement, I wouldn’t gather that he is somehow anti immigration or doesn’t think it’s worth dealing with, but rather, that no one really wants to handle it, they just like to manipulate the issue for votes. I can see the comment as trivializing gay marriage, but it would be a complete reversal of tone from the previous quote regarding immigration. Hopefully he’ll clarify.
Aaaagh, it really ticks me off too when someone tries to tell me what is trivial.
Now it could be that he means that war and ecology are more immediately-life-threatening issues and once we get a good start on these we can turn to stuff at home–I don’t know, I try to stay clear of politics. A sort of pick-your-battles, take-care-of-this-and-that-will-fall-into-place-or-at-least-be-easier setup. But I wouldn’t hold my hand in the fire to prove it. And I sure wouldn’t try to say it around someone who was being harmed or threatened by someone else just because of their private life. Let gays marry, they should be as miserable as the rest of us.
Somebody who’s more eloquent than me, please tell Obama to knock that crap off or he’s gonna lose some votes.
Seems to me the word “trivial” should be a big red flag for any reader, no matter who is using it.
He didn’t say gay marriage was trivial, any more than he said immigration was trivial. I think he was talking about the way it’s used (by Republicans!) as a wedge issue during elections. The way Republicans try to win elections by exploiting fear of gays is repugnant; it’s not anti-gay, or anti-gay marriage, to point that out.
I say this as a bisexual in a long-term same-sex relationship who does not think gay marriage is at all trivial.
Heh, ya think?
Amp, you argue this is insensitive on the grounds that “it’s not either/or”. Yes, gay marriage matters a great deal to some people, and I wouldn’t tell anyone they’re wrong to care about it. It certainly merits some public attention, and I don’t think Obama really believes it merits none. But the fact is that policy on gay marriage ultimately has a significant impact on the lives of a relatively small percentage of the populace, while global warming stands to have a significant impact on the vast majority of the human population.
There’s a finite amount of air time on news networks, a finite amount of space in newspapers, and, in a more general sense, a finite amount of attention span and energy in the human population. Don’t you think that it might be appropriate for those issues that will have the most net impact on society at large to receive the bulk of the time? Don’t you think it’s a little strange that an issue which ultimately doesn’t affect nearly as large a portion of the populace inspires a disproportionate amount of debate, relatively speaking?
I agree that this was not a statement of the importance or priority of the gay marriage or immigration issues, but the way that they’ve been framed (by Republicans) in the national conversation. It’s an argument against using contentious but important matters as talking points, political clubbing devices and litmus tests to divide the electorate and pander to simple prejudices, ignoring the very real people who are stake in the balance of the decisions made on these matters.
Remember that for all the othering and divisiveness and nastiness that’s been used in states that have marriage amendments on their ballots, the underlying effort had far less to do with “preserving the sanctity of (hetero) marriage” than in driving conservative voters to the polls to secure victories for Repub candidates. It’s nothing more than the nastiest sort of get-out-the-vote ploy, with the rights of citizens hanging in the balance.
That’s something that everyone who values an honest political discourse ought to be against, no matter what side of the aisle or what side of the issues they fall on.
Medford Oregon is the originating city of a group that called it self the Oregon Citizen’s Alliance. This group used to be extremely powerful in Oregon and was probably the first big, well-organized anti-gay group in the country. Medford has also been home to some especially horrific hate crimes. Ten years ago, Medford was NOT a good place for queers. I can’t say how much this has changed. But I want to note that Obama was talking to a group of people who have been subjected to anti-gay-vote-for-me hysteria for the last decade.
Secondly, I think it’s important to remember that the marriage of Obama’s parents violated the laws of several states. I don’t think he’s ever publicly made the comparison, but he’s got to be aware of it.
So, Amp, I don’t think your reading of this is how he meant it. I think he was talking to a group of people who have been told for years and years that het marriage is crumbling, the borders are crumbling, the culture wars etc etc etc, while there are actually pressing problems gaining on them. So it’s not telling queers to wait until we’re done with the real issues. It’s telling a bunch of homophobes that they HAVE real issues and if people in love get married, like gay folks, or Obama’s parents, the sky is not going to fall.
I think this is just another case of Obama pandering to the religious right and, basically, telling them he’ll allow them to continue to block gays from having the equal protection under the law while trying to placate democrats by relegating this to the trivial wedge issue that must wait for us to solve other problems.
I’m having a hard enough time trying to get my mother through her time in the ICU and getting information from the staff. I know how excruciatingly painful it’s been for me so I can’t even begin to imagine how much worse it would be for a gay person who’s been excluded from being able to care for and support their spouse through this sort of situation just because they’re gay. Marriage and the rights that come with it are not trivial therefore gay marriage is is an issue that must be addressed by allowing gay people to get married via the same legal means straight people get married.
I read that as him avoiding answering a question because he knows his answer isn’t what they want to hear.
But then I employ that tactic a lot myself.
Hey, I’m a young lesbian who is engaged, so to speak, to her partner, and I don’t think that gay marriage is the most pressing issue this nation is facing. Hospital visitation? Other rights? All very important to me. But…I think the same sex marriage debate has eclipsed so many other issues faced by queer people and others suffering from social injustices. You’re right that it isn’t either or. But my ideal situation, I believe, isn’t gay marriage, it’s a system in which the state awards civil unions to couples, gay and straight, and those are tied to all the rights previously associated with marriage. The state isn’t involved in the “marriage” aspect at all. That can be left to the churches/other religious institutions, or simply to the couples themselves. I also think there is some food for thought at the beyond marriage site. Now, this is probably not what Obama meant, but I’m not going to comment on that either since I didn’t see the context of the remark and only saw what you quoted above.
I’m bothered less by his priorities (we already knew Obama was against same-sex marriage) than by the conception of politics he’s promoting — specifically, his idea that “arguing” is opposed to “doing something.” He’s presenting government as a sort of technocracy where the goals and methods for getting there are obvious if we actually cared about it, so anybody who wants to debate or ‘make an issue’ of something is creating a distraction and probably just trying to score cheap political points. It seems great when you apply this thinking to conservatives’ issue-raising, but as soon as he applies it to progressives (e.g. those pushing for same-sex marriage) it doesn’t look so great.
Oh right, he’s said that it’s against his religion. Meh. Pandering to people who aren’t going to vote for you anyway?
Yeah, sorry, Amp, but I read his statement not as trivializing, but as recognizing that the Republicans have used “illegal immigration” and “gay marriage” as ways of driving their more bat shit crazy members to the polls. I don’t think he was slighting same-sex marriage; he was slighting the use of it as an Ever Present Danger OMG AAAAAGH! by the homophobic right wing rant machine. There really is no reason that the same-sex marriage movement of 2004 should have provoked the ballot measure backlash we saw later in November without the Santorum/Dobson contingent waving the red cape at fundies. Not when the war in Iraq had already deteriorated by that time.
That said, you’re right to point out that Clinton and Obama suck – as have most Democrats running for President this decade – when it comes to LGBT issues. They will avoid the Pennsylvania amendment like a steaming pile that it is. Who knows? Maybe they should. Could be a rope-a-dope.
Lastly, I’ll second Jasmine’s reservations about same-sex marriage. I think it’s important, and when I was in the LGBT press, everyone around me was excited by the Multnomah County marriage license decision in 2004 (many of my coworkers got married that first day.) But even then there was a sense that it was not the most important issue. In fact, there has been a lot of concern that “gay marriage” has sucked all the oxygen away from HIV/AIDs, employment discrimination, anti-gay violence, etc.
I always find that concern weird. The pro-civil union backlash against the anti-marriage backlash against Multnomah County’s marriage license decision pushed through both civil unions and state-wide ENDA, and civil unions are far more likely to be rescinded at the ballot box than ENDA. We almost passed ENDA at the national level last year and we almost certainly will next year.
Oddly, while Clinton and Obama both suck on marriage rights, both are explicit supporters of ENDA with protection of transexual and transgender people and based on gender identity. They have also both been active in the fight against AIDS, so it is really only the marriage question sucking up all the oxygen that makes it possible to say that they suck on LGBT issues.
My take on Obama’s statement is that I agree with those who say that he was saying that anti-marriage amendments are divisive, but I also think it is noteworthy that what he is saying is that the issue that anti-marriage amendments are fighting against (same sex marriage rights) are a much less important problem than global warming, etc. He is saying that we shouldn’t bother to fight against same sex marriage rights because the fight to “protect marriage” is not all that important. He is placing himself on the wrong side of the issue and saying it isn’t that important. I can’t imagine Clinton doing that. I think Clinton’s anti-marriage position is entirely political, but I think that saying what Obama said really requires that you actually believe the crappy position you are holding.
This political opera is getting to long and crazy. The “O” man was not saying those issues are “trivial”. He was looking at what was happening in the last elections. The Karl Rove book of politics was to “attack, attack, attack!” to get his boy Bush and the other republithugs in office. One way he did that was bring up same sex marriage. Not in a let’s talk about a solution, but to sacre the right leaning folk to come out in droves to vote for the republithugs and you see the results.
So the “O” man was saying this needs to stop and let’s start talking solutions. But, we need to see the whole context of the question and answer. These short sound bites are killing the political process.
Pingback: cecily.info - links for 2008-03-25
I agree with many others here. My perception of US politics is having elections based mostly or entirely on same-sex marriage, and I was pretty glad that Quebec and Canada sometimes you know, have debates about education, economy, budget, the national debt, instead – for an election.
Obama isn’t belittling being pro-gay-marriage. He’s belittling being anti-gay-marriage and homophobes’ preoccupation with the subject. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Phil, don’t trivialize rocket surgery. My mother had to work long hours performing triple bypass colo-rectal lobotomies on rockets to put me through college. You never wash that stink off – ever!
I am from Illinois. Senator Obama meant exactly what he said. He consistently trivialized lgbt marriage and other issues while in IL. During his Senate race he said things like I have to run downstate, too. and civil unions are good enough. He has been known to say that he wouldn’t vote to overturn DOMA. That’s my experience.
I am a Hillary Clinton supporter because I believe she is the most qualified and the most sensitive to human needs and rights.
And after all the nitpicking among Democrat(ic)s, the winner of the 2008 farce is: John McCain! Because everyone knows what he stands for – homophobia, bigotry, misogny and, most important of all, *pre-emptive warfare* God bless the U.S.A.
Fucking over-reaction, come on.
He’s saying the Republicans used the anti-gay sentiment in America to do some of the worst things to America in this century. He’s saying “look what you did by coming out to vote against gay marriage – you gave Bush the power to fuck this country up.”
He’s not playing down gay marriage – he’s playing down ANTI-gay-marriage.
Come on, people. Go beyond the first thought you have when you read something.
It is true that neither Obama nor Clinton are anywhere near a Kucinich on LGBT rights.
Having said that, Senator Obama is undoubtedly the suckier of the two remaining Dem candidates.
I’m offended that he refused to pose for a picture in 2004 with Gavin Newstrom–who, at the time, was one of the few outspoken allies (among elected officials). Now–when it is safer and self-serving–he’s all about advocating for LGBT folks.
Just by making an extra Obama logo with a rainbow [hello? separate is never equal, dumb ass] and flooding gay media, we’re supposed to vote for him?
He’s also chickenshit on being vocal on feminist issues like reproductive justice. I have a post on my blog on how he’s hiding stuff on his campaign web site.
“Hey, I’m a young lesbian who is engaged, so to speak, to her partner, and I don’t think that gay marriage is the most pressing issue this nation is facing. Hospital visitation? Other rights? All very important to me. But…I think the same sex marriage debate has eclipsed so many other issues faced by queer people and others suffering from social injustices. You’re right that it isn’t either or.”
I’m with Jasmine on this and I am in a similar position. Marriage equality matters to me for a lot of practical reasons, but less that global warming and pre-emptive wars for even deeper reasons.
If Obama is half as influenced by Rev. Wright as his detractors claim, then he is light years ahead of Hillary on gay rights issues. I don’t recall Hillary confronting homophobia in the African-American community on the scale that Rev. Wright has, for years.
“I am a Hillary Clinton supporter because I believe she is the most qualified and the most sensitive to human needs and rights.”
If DADT is part of the presidential experience she is claiming, then no she isn’t all that qualfied and sensitive to people’s civil rights. Support her if you like; just don’t expect her to return your loyalty.
Let’s face it – people who are in favor of gay marriage are going to vote Democratic in the next election, whether either Obama or Clinton come out in favor of it or not. So why should either of them alienate potential middle-of-the-road voters when doing so doesn’t buy them any votes?
I’ll certainly agree with your anger over the fact that Sen. Obama isn’t really driven by principles rather than expedience. I just hope it’s not excaberated by surprise. To listen to the media you’d think he was the Second Coming. Hah!
Hi Jeremy,
“He’s saying the Republicans used the anti-gay sentiment in America to do some of the worst things to America in this century. He’s saying “look what you did by coming out to vote against gay marriage – you gave Bush the power to fuck this country up.”
No, he’s saying that politicians IN GENERAL use wedge-issues to garner power but that these issues are really trivial when compared to other problems we face. He’s pulling the whole “post-partisan” theme that is pretty much the staple of campaign and he’s totally calling gay marriage a non-issue (and I suspect he doesn’t support it because it appears too radical; his support of civil unions in place seems nebulous).
…So I second Amp’s fuck you to Mr. Obama.
Let me revise my previous posting to say “To listen to some of the media …”
Yeah, I guess I’m with Obama in that I think it really IS trivial compared to other issues that we face.
I do like his positions and record on a number of gay rights issues. And, you know, there are other issues out there besides marriage and even besides “gay issues,” and many of those are important to me, too. Funny that. I get the impression that most of the people driving the gay marriage push are relatively affluent gay folks who already have it pretty good. That and “straight but not narrow” or gay but transphobic HRC staffers and the like. I’m not saying anyone here fits that description, of course.
“I get the impression that most of the people driving the gay marriage push are relatively affluent gay folks who already have it pretty good. ”
Yeah, they have it pretty good, so they should just shut up about equality. Marriage equality is totally trivial compared to the environment, so we should just stop talking about it… They should be happy with second-class citizenship, at least they are relatively comfortable. (sarcasm) …. BTW, there are many poor queer folks who would really benefit from the security of marriage-rights; in fact, they likely need it more.
You know, I said they’re the ones driving the push for it; I didn’t say anything about who would benefit more. It might be debatable, but, I DO wonder, if low-income folks are going to be the main beneficiaries here, then why do you suppose the “Beyond Marriage” statement was put out by Queers for Economic Justice whereas all the marriage equality rhetoric comes from orgs like the HRC and so on? I think the marriage movement is also a PR nightmare because it adds to this whole bizarre “affluent gays” stereotype.
Marriage equality is a pretty narrow thing to focus your drive for equality on. It’s also kind of needlessly divisive; surely a good number of people out there who have a problem applying the word marriage to gay people could get behind a movement that gives everyone getting “married” the option of civil unions through the govt and leaves marriage to churches, etc. And another upside of such a movement might be that it could potentially recognize and give economic stability to other kinds of relationships.
Straw man. Obama isn’t saying we shouldn’t care about equal marriage rights. He’s saying we should be discussing other things with our limited amount of discussion time. That doesn’t mean we can’t care about them. In other words, it is an either-or.
Straw man, again. He didn’t say that it was trivial. He said that we should be discussing other things.
Finally, a well-reasoned, erudite argument.
Look, if you want to take issue with what Obama actually said, then by all means do so. There is an actual, reasonable counter-argument to what he said: for those who believe that equal marriage rights are more important than the war/economy/environment, it’s reasonable to argue that we SHOULD be talking about equal marriage rights. Or if somebody thinks that gay marriage has been getting stiffed on the press coverage, or is more important than its place in the national debate, then they should be arguing that we should be discussing it more.
But, for a lot of people, its importance doesn’t rise to that level. And by “a lot of people”, I’m not just talking straight people: I suspect that quite a few gays (some of whom have commented in this thread) who might be unemployed, or have kids in Iraq, or who think they might get sick some day and be unable to pay for treatment, might reasonably consider that these issues have a greater impact on their lives than the (entirely non-trivial) question of how long it takes before the government recognizes their marriages.
The knife cuts both ways on this one, too. I suspect that a lot of the anti-equality right wing, who may feel strongly that marriage is a privelege for straights only, might nonetheless feel that the economy, war, environment, and health care have a bigger impact on their life than the (once again entirely non-trivial) question of whether their own marriages are sullied/nullified/whatever because the government recognizes same-sex marriage. (Or whatever anti- argument it is that they feel is important to them; I don’t know, they never made any sense to me.)
It is entirely reasonable for these people to press for debate on the issues that affect them most, and it is entirely reasonable for Obama to encourage them to do so.
Sorry, Amp, I think you really dropped the ball on this one.
I’m always suspicious of arguments based on “Why are we talking about this when we should be talking about that?” There’s time and space to consider all issues. Now, if the various candidates want to downplay discussion of a given issue because they think it’ll cost them more votes than it’ll gain, that’s a different discussion. What would you propose would be the attitude of the independent/centrist/undecided voters towards this issue? Which candidate or candidates are likely to cost themselves more votes than they gain by taking a position on this one way or another?
Dude, Obama is not talking about “limited time” or any such thing.
He’s talking (in context) about how certain politically charged issues, like gay marriage, divide us when they are ultimately not consequential —
Which is bs, probably aimed at getting him votes from the center (“reaching across the aisle” etc). Marriage equality should be a topic of discussion – That doesn’t mean that he can’t have other parts to his platform that he gives more precedence, at all. But saying that we shouldn’t be arguing for it is just wrong…