Barack Obama, or the Incomplete Revolution
Published in Libération
(France) on 5 November 2008
by Louis-Georges Tin (link to original)
(France) on 5 November 2008
by Louis-Georges Tin (link to original)
Translated from
by Joe Fiorill.
Edited by Jessica Tesoriero.
Who said, recently, on MTV, Marriage is between a man and a woman? Was it John McCain? Sarah Palin? No. Certainly, both of them are opposed to gay marriage and might have said the same thing. But it happens that the answer is Barack Obama.
Barack Obama has now been elected. An immense hope is of course on the rise in the worldhope of more equitable relations between blacks and whites, between the rich and the poor and between countries of the North and of the South, as well. It will of course be hard to fulfill all these expectations, but there is a broad new perspective opening up. But for homosexual couples, what can be hoped for?
For now, the situation is bleak. In California, unfortunately, Proposition 8 passed. Marriage of same-sex couples, which was allowed, is now forbidden. In Arizona, gay marriage was already impossible; now, that impossibility is inscribed in the Constitution. Ditto in Florida, where marriage will be defined in the Constitution as being necessarily the union of a man and a woman; moreover, all alternative solutions (any civil unions or domestic partnerships whatsoever) will also be banned. Finally, in Arkansas, where gay marriage was already banned, citizens have also rejected adoption by same-sex couples. In short, just when the struggle against racism seems to advance, the struggle for gay and lesbian rights regresses.
Beyond those four states, what attitude will the new president have in general toward marriage of same-sex couples? Barack Obamas position on the subject remains fairly ambiguous. Last weekend on MTV, he reaffirmed the traditional view of one-man, one-woman marriage, even as he criticized Proposition 8, which sought to forbid gay marriage in California:
I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about.
In short, he is against gay marriage, but he is against those who are against it. Clear, right?
Barack Obama was a civil rights activist in his youth; he is more sensitive than others to the issue of human rights. Certainly realpolitik did allow for taking a position in favor of total equality between gays and heterosexuals, and no one should harbor illusions about his actions in this area in the coming years. Nevertheless, a few historical reminders might be indulged here. It must be reiterated that marriage, located at the heart of society, has not been spared by discriminatory logic at work throughout history.
The Black Code, which organized slavery in the French colonies, forbade marriage between blacks and whites. Was it racism? I think so.
The Nuremberg laws, which protected German honor and blood, forbade marriage between Jews and Germans. Was it anti-Semitism? I think so.
In numerous countries around the world, laws and customs forbade women to marry as they wished. Was it sexism? I think so.
In the United States and in numerous other countries in the world, there are laws that forbid marriage of same-sex couples. Is it homophobia?
Nevertheless, President Obama sent an important signal of openness in the speech he gave in Chicago after his electoral victory. He did not hesitate to mention gays and straights together. Indeed, he said that this election was the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. It was the first time in the history of the United States that a president included in his victory speech the words gay and straight in this way. It has already been said that the gay issue is political; it should be said again that the straight issue is no less political.
Maybe it is a political sign that Barack Obama wanted to say these words before the whole world. Maybe in spite of everything his intention is to move equality between gays and straights forward. But can President Obama take to its conclusion the symbolic revolution that his election on Nov. 4, 2008, constitutes?
We would like in any case that in this area, he demonstrate his slogan: Yes, we can."
Barack Obama has now been elected. An immense hope is of course on the rise in the worldhope of more equitable relations between blacks and whites, between the rich and the poor and between countries of the North and of the South, as well. It will of course be hard to fulfill all these expectations, but there is a broad new perspective opening up. But for homosexual couples, what can be hoped for?
For now, the situation is bleak. In California, unfortunately, Proposition 8 passed. Marriage of same-sex couples, which was allowed, is now forbidden. In Arizona, gay marriage was already impossible; now, that impossibility is inscribed in the Constitution. Ditto in Florida, where marriage will be defined in the Constitution as being necessarily the union of a man and a woman; moreover, all alternative solutions (any civil unions or domestic partnerships whatsoever) will also be banned. Finally, in Arkansas, where gay marriage was already banned, citizens have also rejected adoption by same-sex couples. In short, just when the struggle against racism seems to advance, the struggle for gay and lesbian rights regresses.
Beyond those four states, what attitude will the new president have in general toward marriage of same-sex couples? Barack Obamas position on the subject remains fairly ambiguous. Last weekend on MTV, he reaffirmed the traditional view of one-man, one-woman marriage, even as he criticized Proposition 8, which sought to forbid gay marriage in California:
I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about.
In short, he is against gay marriage, but he is against those who are against it. Clear, right?
Barack Obama was a civil rights activist in his youth; he is more sensitive than others to the issue of human rights. Certainly realpolitik did allow for taking a position in favor of total equality between gays and heterosexuals, and no one should harbor illusions about his actions in this area in the coming years. Nevertheless, a few historical reminders might be indulged here. It must be reiterated that marriage, located at the heart of society, has not been spared by discriminatory logic at work throughout history.
The Black Code, which organized slavery in the French colonies, forbade marriage between blacks and whites. Was it racism? I think so.
The Nuremberg laws, which protected German honor and blood, forbade marriage between Jews and Germans. Was it anti-Semitism? I think so.
In numerous countries around the world, laws and customs forbade women to marry as they wished. Was it sexism? I think so.
In the United States and in numerous other countries in the world, there are laws that forbid marriage of same-sex couples. Is it homophobia?
Nevertheless, President Obama sent an important signal of openness in the speech he gave in Chicago after his electoral victory. He did not hesitate to mention gays and straights together. Indeed, he said that this election was the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. It was the first time in the history of the United States that a president included in his victory speech the words gay and straight in this way. It has already been said that the gay issue is political; it should be said again that the straight issue is no less political.
Maybe it is a political sign that Barack Obama wanted to say these words before the whole world. Maybe in spite of everything his intention is to move equality between gays and straights forward. But can President Obama take to its conclusion the symbolic revolution that his election on Nov. 4, 2008, constitutes?
We would like in any case that in this area, he demonstrate his slogan: Yes, we can."
Previous article![]( "Good News from America")
