Scroll To Top
World

What Obama's
Victory Means for the LGBT Community

What Obama's
Victory Means for the LGBT Community

Obama_winsx390

In 1968, U Street in the northwest quadrant of Washington, D.C., was on fire and a focal point of racial tension. Forty years later it was a scene of a racially diverse celebration of Barack Obama's election as president of the United States of America. But what does this excitement mean for our country? Will it translate into anything for the LGBT community?

In 1968, U Street in the northwest quadrant of Washington, D.C., was on fire and a focal point of racial tension. Forty years later it was a scene of a racially diverse celebration of Barack Obama's election as president of the United States of America.

I even walked the streets amid the celebration with members of a delegation from Sweden who came to witness our historic election. They were as excited as I was, though I failed to see the tears in their eyes that streamed down my face.

But what does this excitement mean for our country? Will it translate into anything for the LGBT community? After all, Barack Obama is the first president-elect to mention gays in his victory speech. On the heels of major defeats on ballot initiatives in Arkansas, Florida, Arizona, and most disappointing, California, the preceding question is of even more importance than we could have previously imagined.

While the ballot initiatives provide us with a heartbreaking setback, there are a few positive developments for our community in this election. In New York State, Democrats won a majority in the state senate, where the previous Republican majority refused to take up the marriage bill shepherded through the lower chamber by Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell. Conventional wisdom is that marriage will now be achieved through legislative action and signed by equality-minded governor David Paterson.

In Connecticut, following the mostly unexpected state supreme court decision granting civil marriage equality, we were faced with the quixotic possibility of a constitutional convention. Every 20 years voters in the Constitution State can be asked whether to call a convention to consider changes to its constitution. While this is rarely even considered, this year opponents of marriage equality launched a last-minute push to attempt to make this vote a referendum on the expansion of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The voters of Connecticut overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional convention, leaving no chance to overturn the supreme court decision.

Democrats also increased their majorities in the U.S. Congress. Though the House had passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (a noninclusive version, lacking coverage for gender identity) and an inclusive hate-crimes law, they were both held up in the Senate. The expanded majority should make it much easier for our advocacy organizations to finally pass the first major piece of legislation that would begin the long-awaited process of achieving civil equality.

Making legislative achievements at the federal level is crucial. Once progress is made, it will be easier to achieve more victories legislatively. Our elected officials suffer from a fear of all things gay, largely as a result of our opponents' efforts. After they realize that the bogeyman of politics won't come after them for acting in the spirit and best traditions of our nation, we will be able to count on them for further support.

Of course, it certainly helps to have a president who will sign equality-granting legislation. But that's not the big reason we can celebrate President-elect Barack Obama.

We stood on a precipice of not achieving full equality for decades. Had John McCain been elected president, he would certainly have appointed U.S. Supreme Court justices who would have led us to an insurmountable 2-7 deficit on the high court. Thankfully, that possibility has been averted.

We need at least two terms of a friendly president in order to reach the magical 5-4 division of the court to win equality and be named a protected class in America, much as the California supreme court did in its superbly written opinion. Obama sent a signal last week in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams when discussing possible appointments to the Supreme Court:

"And so my criteria, for example, would be -- if a justice tells me that they only believe the strict letter of the Constitution -- that means that they possibly don't mean -- believe in -- a right to privacy that may not be perfectly enumerated in the Constitution but, you know, that I think is there.

"I mean, the -- the right to marry who you please isn't in the Constitution. But I think all of us assume that if a state decided to pass a law saying, 'Brian, you can't marry the woman you love,' that you'd think that was unconstitutional. Well, where does that come from? I think it comes from a right to privacy -- that may not be listed in the Constitution but is implied by the structure of the Constitution."

This gives us reason to believe that Obama understands the need to have equality-minded justices on the Supreme Court and that this fundamental belief he is seeking in his future nominees means they will count in our column.

Why is this important? It's important because our politicians lack the courage to do what is right and extend the rights afforded to all other Americans to us. While this would be the preferred method of achieving equality, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

In the end, our rights will come down to the Supreme Court. So while our losses in this election are very emotional defeats, the election of Obama ensures that the big prize is still within sight. For that, we can find solace in our losses and allow ourselves to enjoy the history we have just lived.

Advocate Channel - The Pride StoreOut / Advocate Magazine - Fellow Travelers & Jamie Lee Curtis

From our Sponsors

Most Popular

Latest Stories

Lane Hudson