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.
