In
previous post I made an accusation saying that Obama wasn’t doing too much as
far as supporting gay rights. I have to admit that I was wrong to say that because
I didn’t do much research into that particular angle. In the process of doing
more research into this topic I found a published document from The Hill
newspaper. Amie Parnes talks about how Obama has always supported gay rights
but didn’t actually do anything about it until his second term.
Gay rights activists--some of whom donated vast sums of money to Obama's two presidential campaigns--say they were also disappointed by the president's efforts in the first couple of years of the administration. They felt as though the White House dragged its feet on repealing "don't ask, don't tell," which banned gays from serving openly in the military, and on other issues.
It’s understandable that when Obama does something of
this magnitude there’s going to be a mass resistance. Obama has made it clear
in his campaigning and inauguration address that he will put more into assuring
gay rights. But he shouldn’t be just starting this term; his opposition will
only get stronger and his loyalty and standings will only get questioned. Obama
accepted these funds from the LGBT and other supporters and while public office
holders get lobbied all the time; this was something that was expected of him
before. Now that he’s into his second term Obama is being more consistent in
his support of gay rights and he has,
offered an immigration proposal that would give the same benefits to heterosexual and same-sex couples, called on the Boy Scouts to open its membership to gays, and seen the Pentagon announce it would offer certain benefits to same-sex couples.
For
a second term, it’s possible to say Obama is starting off with a bang.
Works
Cited
Parnes,
Amie. "President all in for gay rights." Hill 7 Feb. 2013: 1.
Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.
You know what is interesting about all of this? When someone donates money to a cause, that doesn't mean that the politician or group the money goes to is obligated to then vote by way of whomever sent in the money. This would be so risky: it's what's called "buying an election," and unfortunately it happens all the time.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I think the reality is that Obama probably supported gay rights much earlier than he let on, but it was the "temperature" of the American public that determined when he felt he could say so. What would be worse: having someone elected into office simply because they don't support gay rights? That candidate was McCain. Think of the issue in terms of political realities and not in terms of being fully honest. Politicans can never be fully honest for a variety of reasons. I wish it were different, but it isn't.
How about a post showing the change in mood/understandings/laws for gay rights in the U.S. or in the world over the last 50 years? That would be some amazing bouts of research.
I liked how you corrected yourself. I am happy that President Obama has helped the LGBT community and is continuing helping with same sex marriages.
ReplyDelete