The Advocate July/Aug 2022
Subscribe To
The Advocate
Scroll To Top

View From Washington

View From Washington

For the last four years I have been proud to be part of a team at The Advocate that helped document an unimaginably historic time in the fight for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality – what a younger generation refers to as “queer rights” even as the term tweaks the ears of an older generation of activists.

From covering the opening salvo in the primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Iowa to relocating to Washington, D.C., to become part of the White House press corps, I have witnessed what has felt to me like a coming-of-age story in a movement for the basic dignity and humanity of a people.

In many ways I was simply the beneficiary of so many who have come before me — people who have written and reported, protested and been arrested, and lost their loves, their livelihoods, and their lives in a struggle to simply be known and be seen without being criminalized or disgraced.

And to some extent, the journey of the passage of “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal epitomizes just how far this movement has come and how far it has yet to go.

It is my firm belief based on all the information I’ve been privy to that in the early days of the Obama administration, many top White House aides saw a battle over repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” as a political liability — an entanglement that would be a moral victory, to be sure, but a Pyrrhic one just the same.

Even after President Obama fought to keep those prophetic 32 words in his 2010 State of the Union address, the administration hoped to delay the vote until after the Pentagon report came out on December 1 — safely after the midterms and a virtual guarantee that no vote would take place until 2011.

During the G-20 summit in June of last year, the president said something that confirmed my belief about the advice he was getting behind closed doors on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” During a Q&A with reporters, he noted that he was going after both repeal and health care reform in spite of the fact that people said they were both bad politics.

“One of the interesting things that's happened over the last 18 months as president is for some reason people keep on being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do,” Obama said. “So I say I’m going to reform our health care system and people think, well, gosh, that's not smart politics, maybe we should hold off. Or I say, we’re going to move forward on “don't ask, don't tell,” and somehow people say, well, why are you doing that, I’m not sure that's good politics.”

I marveled at that off-the-cuff remark, believing it to be an unusually
candid insight into the chatter with which he was surrounded. Remember
for a second just how insular the White House is — the president doesn’t
just randomly talk to folks. The “people” he talks to are either his
advisers or other politicians and, apparently, those people were
questioning whether pushing for repeal was a smart political move.

VICTORY FOUND DADT X390 (MCPHERSON) | ADVOCATE.COMOnly
creatures of Washington filled with stale notions of an issue that had
proved to be a political pariah 17 years ago could question the wisdom
of doing something that consistently polled at around 70% and was
supported by a solid majority of independents and conservatives alike,
not to mention the fact that it was quite simply, in the president’s own
words, “the right thing to do.”

In fact, the repeal provision
was originally attached to the defense authorization bill specifically
because no one — including our congressional allies in the fight — ever
believed it could pass on its own merits. Pro-repeal legislators like
Rep. Patrick Murphy and Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as senators Carl Levin
and Joe Lieberman pushed to make it part of the defense funding bill in
spite of White House and Pentagon objections to a pre-report vote.
Successfully attaching the measure to a “must-pass” bill was the silver
bullet, or so we thought.

No one ever imagined that a defense
funding bill that’s usually completed by the summer or fall at the
latest would be pushed off until the lame-duck session — effectively
dooming a strategy that once seemed a sure thing.

And then the
unthinkable happened: a confluence of factors conspired to make “don’t ask,
don’t tell” repeal operable all on its own. Even as the administration
labored to keep the issue out of the headlines prior to the midterms, a
federal judge declared the law unconstitutional in mid October, creating
an unprecedented maelstrom at the Defense Department as senior officials
were forced to issue new regulations several times in the course of a
single week.

The other conspirator in the destiny of repeal was
the Pentagon report that ultimately highlighted an overwhelmingly
positive survey of service members’ attitudes about their lesbian and
gay counterparts. For the vast majority of the troops, gays were a
nonissue. Even many LGBT advocates — having been burned so often by
the government and the failed promises of politicians — were shocked by
the nature of the report.

Those two factors — the courts and the
report — made a true believer of Defense secretary Robert Gates. He
went from authoring a leaked memo to Rep. Ike Skelton in the spring of
2010 that nearly killed repeal to imploring and darn near begging
Congress to pass the measure during the lame-duck.

“My greatest
fear,” Gates said repeatedly, “is that we have to be told that this law
will be overturned by a court and we will be forced to implement it
without any time for information or training or any of the other
efforts that need to be undertaken to prepare us for such a change.”

It
was a remarkable twist of fate — a measure that no one wanted to deal
with, that seemed a nuisance, and that would never pass without some
legislative jujitsu was suddenly viable in its own right.

The
president needed repeal to restore his progressive credibility, the Defense secretary wanted it in order to retain some control over a process that
would almost surely be imposed on the department by the courts. And a survey of
unprecedented scope proved what LGBT advocates had been saying all along — Washington was woefully behind the times on this issue.

None of this is to say that President Obama and his administration don’t
deserve credit for finally ending the discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Had he not
included it in his State of the Union address, it would have never even been on
the map in 2010. And absent the Pentagon’s report — a deliverable that
the president insisted on — Robert Gates and the military's top brass might never
have believed repeal was doable in the midst of two wars.

But I
can also tell you, as sure as I am sitting here writing this column,
that the way this unfolded was not according to anyone’s original plan.

“Don’t
ask, don’t tell” repeal ultimately prevailed through a miraculous Hail
Mary pass of a stand-alone bill because it was actually past its prime. It
just took the revelations of a survey and the prodding of a court to
push Washington past its own political homophobia.

Ironically,
what many of the president’s key advisers had originally tagged as a stumbling
block has now become his one pristine win for the progressive base. Tax
cuts went to everyone, including the richest segment of our country, in a
move that some believe will establish the rates as a permanent fixture
that shreds the middle-class fabric of this nation. The opportunity that
was health care reform was lost to the lack of a public option. Wall
Street reform was a sham in the eyes of many liberals. Key environmental
legislation and immigration reform never got off the ground, though the
heroic efforts of youth activists put the DREAM Act in play.

In
fact, repealing the gay ban marks the one place where Obama didn’t
compromise the ideals of his progressive base. The question now is
whether the lessons of the repeal battle will dawn a new day in the
national fight for equality.

Will politicians and especially
President Obama and his aides begin to fixate on the upsides of making
strides toward equality for all LGBT Americans instead of obsessing
about the downsides of battles lost years ago? In history we are taught
that nations often prosecute the last war they were in rather than
fighting the battle that’s unfolding before their very eyes. But great
leaders — those who change the course of history — are willing to turn
away from the tangibles of the past to train their eyes on the
potential of an amorphous but illimitable future.

Much is left to
be done. Transgender individuals especially are at risk of
chronic unemployment without a means of recourse for wrongful termination. Gay binational couples are still torn apart by the
cruelty of a system that fails to view their families as legal
entities. And simply put, our nation’s laws continue to value the humanity of
certain citizens while debasing that of others according to the
expressions of their love.

As a mainstream reporter who began working a gay beat five years ago, I
have struggled with whether to say the movement or our movement, should I
write they or we — was I covering this cause or was I part of it? I had
always considered myself a journalist, but over the course of reporting
many stories, I undoubtedly became an activist. In my book, journalists
have always been activists who advocate for truth and fairness, but in
this case, my measure of truth and fairness was rooted in the fact that I
was reporting for a constituency in search of justice. This measure did
not obligate me to give equal time in my stories to antigay forces; it
only called me to use every tool at my disposal to give readers my
best estimation of what I thought was really happening.

When I
went back home for the holidays in 2009 and reassessed the year, I was
struck by how very little progress had been made on LGBT issues by this
president and the 111th Congress despite all the advantages they had and the
promises they made. With the midterms already looming, it seemed as
though I was watching the opportunity of lifetime — one that those before me
had literally given their lives for — being squandered. At that point, I
decided that I would no longer attempt to walk a line of objectivity in
my weekly columns, that it was incumbent upon me to say exactly what I
believed to be true given my unique vantage point to the inner workings
of Washington. I didn’t want to walk away from this job wondering what
if
I had been more candid, what if I had let more people know what I was
seeing and how I interpreted that input.

I have always viewed my
work as a collective effort, and I owe a debt of gratitude to The
Advocate
for moving me to Washington when I asked to go. But equally as
important, I would especially like to thank my readers for making me relevant.

Like every good lesbian who’s lived in the San Francisco Bay area for a
time, I have found the writings of Audre Lorde to be some of the most
transformative and inspirational of my life. But the following sentiment
in particular has informed my work as a journalist more than perhaps
any other I have carried with me:

"This is why the work is so
important. Its power doesn't lie in the me that lives in the words so
much as in the heart's blood pumping behind the eye that is reading, the
muscle behind the desire that is sparked by the word — hope as a living
state that propels us, open-eyed and fearful into all the battles of
our lives. And some of those battles we do not win.

"But some we do."


It
is with a hint of sadness that I write these last few words, for I view
them as both a final chapter in my time with The Advocate and a
symbolic end to a journey I began 15 years ago as a journalist proper.

But I will continue to write into a new space at EqualityMatters.org that better suits the landscape of my own evolution.

Onward.

Tags: World, World

From our Sponsors

READER COMMENTS ()
    Watch Now: Pride Today
    Trending Stories & News

    Get the latest updates about monkeypox. Click here.