Can the Democrats use the lame-duck session to make good on all their promises to the LGBT community? If not, then maybe we should start looking for candidates who will keep their promises
Hardy Haberman | Flagging Left
Do you hear that quacking sound? Nope it’s not the AFLAC duck, but a lame-duck Congress.
During this session, members who have been ousted can take their parting shots and actually try to do some of the things they promised before the previous election.
You would think that would be as easy as duck soup. Heck, what have they got to lose?
Well, that remains to be seen. When Congress returns on Monday, Nov. 15, they will have a lot of work to do. Much of it is related to spending. During the last session, not a single spending measure passed — which means that if the government is not going to shut down, a stop-gap measure will have to be enacted.
Then there is the matter of those Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire. These affect mainly the wealthiest Americans, and you can bet the GOP won’t let these die without a fight.
The Democrats have a stake in it as well. There was a token: The $1,000-per-child tax credit that would be pared down to $500 and some relief on the “marriage penalty” that will make this a tough pill to swallow for the left.
On the health care front, there is a provision on Medicare that cuts what doctors are paid by 23 percent. That most likely will have to be fixed.
And on the Social Security front, there is a proposed one-time $250 payment to some seniors who didn’t get a cost-of-living adjustment this year. That measure didn’t fly in the previous session, and there is no telling what will happen to it now.
There is lots of unfinished business that was put on hold prior to the election when both parties were afraid to do anything that could be used as ammunition against them during the campaigns. Now the big question is, will Congress actually get down to business and do their job?
Your guess is a good as mine.
And then there is the “elephant in the room,” or more appropriately the “donkey in the room.”
That mythic creature consists of the LGBT issues that are still just empty promises. DADT, an unjust policy that even Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants repealed, may or may not get addressed, much less the Defense of Marriage Act or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Though some progress has been made on the human rights front, LGBT citizens are still second-class when it comes to employment discrimination, marriage and serving in the military.
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if the politicians put away their rhetoric and actually looked at the inequity caused by this institutionalized discrimination?
Wouldn’t it be nice if the president used some of his remaining political capital to actually push the reluctant Democrats to do the right thing?
So far, even though President Barack Obama has repeatedly said DADT will be ended “on his watch,” there doesn’t seem to be any effort beyond rhetoric toward this end. I am beginning to doubt whether he or Congress has the political will (read “balls”) to pick up the LGBT hot potato.
After expending so much energy on enacting health care reforms, and being incredibly unsuccessful in framing the issue before the GOP dubbed it “Obama Care,” I don’t know if any further measures will happen.
Now, we have to rely on the remaining Democrats and those who have lost their seats to use the brief time of this lame-duck session to take up our cause, when they have a whole year’s worth of bills log-jammed in Congress. Since many of these representatives are not coming back to Washington after Jan. 1, our leverage with them is limited.
What can we do? Well, aside from the fantasy of the GOP suddenly deciding to turn gay-friendly, something that would blunt one of the most effective weapons in their arsenal of fear-based tactics, we might do well to punt.
Punting in this case means trying some unorthodox tactics.
Though I am loathe to say it, that might include more lawsuits like the Log Cabin Republicans tried against DADT. While I am still a bit suspect of their real agenda, which I believe was to embarrass the Obama Administration, at least it’s a shot.
Left-wing LGBT groups are going after the Defense of Marriage Act at a national level with lawsuits. This tactic will likely hit the brick wall of the Bush-era-packed Supreme Court, but it’s worth a shot.
Frankly, I am tired of being patient, and if the lame-duck Congress doesn’t deliver on its many promises to the LGBT community, then we might have to start finding new candidates who are actually socially liberal.
Unfortunately, that will be a much tougher recipe than duck soup.
Hardy Haberman is a longtime local LGBT activist and a member of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas. His blog is at https://dungeondiary.blogspot.com.
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition November 12, 2010.
“Though I am loathe to say it, that might include more lawsuits like the Log Cabin Republicans tried against DADT. While I am still a bit suspect of their real agenda, which I believe was to embarrass the Obama Administration, at least it’s a shot.” —
Stellar conclusion, Hardy! Seems perfectly reasonable that LCR’s lawsuit FILED IN 2004–REPEAT, 2004–was a veiled tactic to embarrass President Obama. But maybe–just maybe–Log Cabin leadership was both prescient and shrewd to attack DADT with a multi-faceted strategy: 1) lobby Congress for repeal, 2) work with DoD in good faith, and 3) to seek repeal through the judicial branch as a “Plan B”, were the executive and legislative branches to fail. I think that might be a more likely explanation, that LCR had the foresight to anticipate that, no matter Rep and Dem, Congress and the President may not, as you accurately put, have the “balls” to expend “any effort beyond rhetoric”…as opposed to the idea they had the foresight to know that then-Senator Obama would be elected President 4 years later, therefore requiring a plan to discredit him.
Bottom line – I genuinely applaud your objectivity in questioning the fortitude of Democrat will on “our” collective issues and understand your frustration with the GOP establishment, but I also humbly request that you give Log Cabin Republicans the benefit of whatever doubt you formed in the past. You may find that you have a stronger ally in them for gay issues than those who would purport to champion them. If you don’t believe me, just look at it through the lens of your own standard: examine action…versus rhetoric.
Yea I blew it on the date when I researched it, so I apologize for that conjecture. I still have a problem with the LCR, but I will give them props for the lawsuit. The problem is the courts are so stacked with conservatives I don’t think there is a chance. I hope they prove me wrong.
As far as the Dems are concerned, they have performed better than the GOP in our favor, but it has only been incremental. I am tired of incremental, I want equality now.
Thanks for your comments, keeps me honest.
Hardy, thanks for being both open and responsive to my feedback. One more thing – I glanced at your blog last week and saw the question surrounding why LCR’s emergency appeal to reinstate the injunction against DADT went to Justice Kennedy, whom you note is one of the more conservative on the bench.
1) You are quite correct – he was appointed by Reagan and is generally thought of as a conservative. However, my understanding is that, ever since Justice O’Connor stepped down, Kennedy has been the swing vote on the court. Consider that he wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence vs. Texas, so I think we can at least presume he’s not biased about gay rights in general despite being conservative.
2) The reason the appeal went to Justice Kennedy is because it has to – all emergency appeals stemming from the 9th Circuit go directly to Kennedy. Apparently, each Circuit Court has a Supreme Court Justice aligned to it for appeals such as the one LCR filed.
Anyway, thanks again for keeping an open mind. Hope we make some real progress in the coming weeks. If it has to be “incremental”, let’s at least hope for a huge increment through the repeal of DADT.
re: we might have to start finding new candidates who are actually socially liberal.
I’m tempted to say “Welcome to the LP, Mr. Haberman”…
https://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/11/05/the-libertarian-view-fiscally-conservative-and-socially-liberal/
… but you might run into a roadblock with the fiscally conservative half of the LP platform.
The political wing of liberty, the LP, is not to everyone’s taste but if one still cannot label themselves a small l libertarian, we are forced to ask “Which part of freedom are you struggling with?”
Either way, no libertarian will argue with your right to hold any position you wish (libertarians are of every stripe and color). Where libertarians head butt with others politically is when they prove themselves not only conservative or not only liberal but also authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a view that should only be a part of past history. Man’s natural state is freedom. Enjoy it.