He's saying "be patient," I'm hearing "piss off"

When Barack Obama invited mega-church evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, I was annoyed in a generalized way, but I wasn't upset with the then-president-elect. When Obama said he was going to be the president of all Americans, I didn't just believe what he said, I believed in what he meant. After eight years of President Bush founding his political fortunes on being the president of only those his administration considered real Americans, we're more than ready for a government that understands that being "for the people" actually includes those people who didn't vote for you.

But some of that good feeling is beginning to fade.

We've had quite a few appointments of gays and lesbians to high levels in the federal government -- all good news (particularly at OPM), but appointing gay people in government isn't exactly groundbreaking. Clinton did it; even Bush did it on occasion. I wasn't among those carping at the lack of a cabinet-level appointment -- it would have been nice, but that's not what drove my support for Obama.

What drove my support, at least as far as gay issues, was the expectation that we would finally see some movement on some longstanding gay issues, namely the most transformative action that could be taken that also enjoys exceedingly broad public support: repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But from even before the inauguration we've been getting signals that caution must prevail, that the Pentagon must be consulted, that righting a wrong against gays isn't the thing to do this early in an administration, that there's a lot on the plate right now for a man who once boasted of the need for a president to multitask.

In short, we've been getting the runaround.

Now, a couple days after Defense Secretary Robert Gates shoved DADT even more firmly to the bottom of the Obama to-do list, comes word that retired NFL coach and vocal activist against marriage equality Tony Dungy -- he prominently worked to pass an Indiana state constitutional amendment banning marriage for gay and lesbian couples -- will be added to the White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Unlike the Warren invocation, this is an appointment to a council that's expected to have impact on policy.

In general, I'd think the representation of an anti-gay, anti-marrige religious activist would be within the bounds of action for a president who wants to be the president of all Americans. Anti-gay, evangelical Christians are Americans, too. But with what I'm seeing in the past few weeks, I'm having my first nagging suspicions that some people in the Obama administration don't consider me to be one.

Comments

[KevinQC]

Does any of this really surprise you?

[Sean Bugg]

Bob, I think it's a little disingenuous to claim that under Obama it's all Congress's fault, but back in the 1990s it was all Clinton's fault. It's a law today because Congress passed it then, and Congress would have passed it then even if Clinton had issued an executive order.

More broadly, yes, I'm disappointed in Congress as well. On this issue too many of them act like scared little children afraid that the men in uniforms and medals are going to raise their voices at them. But the argument that "it's all up to Congress" applies to pretty much everything, be it ENDA or DADT or hate crimes or DOMA. Obama has a role to play in moving this forward, if he chooses to play it, and given that one of his roles is to be the civilian head of the military, his role on DADT is actually even more important and relevant.

Anyway, I haven't tossed up my hands and declared the Obama administration an EPIC FAIL. Gay issues weren't actually my top issue during the campaign -- rule of law and ending a corrupt, venal government that used illegal, extraconstitutional means to abduct and torture its own citizens and unilaterally rescind basic constitutional rights were more my concern. Overall, I'm pretty happy with Obama. It's as a gay man that I'm beginning to get annoyed by all the hurry-up-and-wait on DADT.

[Bob Summersgill]

Shouldn't your disappointment be with the Congress? Obama could push them to repeal DADT, but, thanks to Clinton, it is a law, and not just a policy that is at the discretion of the President to repeal on his own. As far as I can tell, DADT is only number three on the list of gay bills, after Hate Crimes and ENDA. HC seems to be the only one with a shot of passing this year.

Yes, Obama could be doing more. But he never made gay rights a priority in his campaign. He was mostly right on the issues, but the economy, the wars, the environment, health care, and a host of other things were clearly more important to him during the campaign.

He'll sign those bills if they get to him, but it is up to the Congress to pass them.

[Wait]

Didn't President Obama name an openly-gay man to this same panel? I think its worth mentioning that if you are going to mention this. Leaving that piece of information out taints the views of a reader who is less-than-informed.