Project Queer

Culhane: Gay rights vs. health care

I’m sure many of you are as sick as I am over Tuesday’s vote on DADT.  I’m frustrated over the political maneuvering of Harry Reid, and furious at the shameless pandering of (the hollow carapace that used to contain) John McCain, but mostly annoyed that the “Fierce Advocate” for our rights was unable to find a way to enact a law favored by almost 80% of Americans.

But folks, it’s not going to get any better. Obama will continue to be given a pass by most of our straight “allies.”

In case you’re not upset enough over the vote, here’s a depressing little vignette from last weekend that makes the point:
 
 “Which would you rather have, gay rights or health care?”
 
This question was put to me at a dinner party this past Saturday evening by a colleague who specializes in constitutional law. Little did she realize that her provocative question would set me off on a tirade that would reach operatic heights in the wake of the DADT vote.
 
The most obvious problem with the question is that it assumes a false choice: Obama could only do one or the other, and we got (so-so) health care. But that’s just not true – he could and should have done both. Not only did Mr. “Change is Coming to America” campaign on several gay rights issues – repeal of DOMA and DADT, hate crimes law, and ENDA, to name the most visible – he had, for a time, a filibuster-proof  majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the House. And clear and consistent majorities of Americans support these initiatives – even, if the latest polls from both CNN and the Associated Press are to be credited, marriage equality.
 
A robust Presidential commitment to any of these bills would have greatly increased the chances of their passage. But as I write this, only hate crimes, the least useful (and most controversial) of the slate has been enacted. Prospects for the others range from shaky (DADT, which may yet fall in the lame-duck session) to highly doubtful (ENDA) to non-existent (DOMA repeal).
 
The other problem with the question is that it’s divisive, implicitly calling for pitting one interest group against another, and inviting the listener to participate in this “are you selfish?” game. But injustices and inequalities are linked, crossing lines of race, gender, sexual orientation, and economic injustice.
 
In the latest episode of Mad Men, the ruthlessly ambitious (yet somehow sympathetic) Peggy is taken to task and aback by a would-be suitor over her ad agency’s work for a firm that supports racist policies. In the show’s mid-60’s setting, this was the topic du jour; and it’s quickly evident that Peggy, constantly tacking windward to survive as a copy writer in this male-dominated world, hasn’t given the matter much thought. But she’s quick, and turns the question around – Why, she asks her inquisitor, aren’t you worried about women’s rights issues?

But in deriding her drinking companion for his narrow view of inequality, Peggy shows herself similarly incapable of understanding others’ oppression – she’s not at all concerned about the agency’s morally sketchy clientele.
 
We should be capable of a more nuanced and interconnected view of injustice. Health care reform, by helping those in poverty gain access to needed care and treatment, also helps many of the most marginalized in the LGBT community – including homeless queer youth and transgendered folks. So to that extent, health care is pro-LGBT legislation. We should acknowledge and welcome these steps.
 
Flipping the issue, gay rights laws would serve social justice functions not just for the LGBT community, but for the larger society.

DADT is the obvious example, because abolishing this archaic policy would increase military readiness and reduce the costs associated with training troops who are then let go just because they’re gay – or might be, since the evidence in some of these cases is laughably weak.
 
Marriage equality can also be predicted to create positive social consequences, increasing the “family capital” and therefore helping both the children of gay couples and the broader society, by cementing and supporting a family unit that will be likely to draw on public funds.  And – perhaps more importantly – every legal and social step towards equality provides useful lessons for everyone on our common humanity and shared values.
 
The real problem, I suspect, is that many of our like-minded straight allies just don’t see LGBT rights as high on the list of “must-do” items.

 “It’ll happen sooner or later,” they think, “so why worry?” Or, at least, why push it ahead of other items?

 In this sense, many progressives have more in common than they’d like to think with folks like Rev. James Meeks of Chicago, who’s publicly considering running for mayor. He claims to be “too busy” to worry about gay issues, and says that he might get to them if he were “sitting around bored with nothing to do.”  Meeks would like to scale back gay rights, not expand them, but in at bottom the impulse is the same as the “what’s the hurry?” school of thought: Ignore them, and maybe they’ll go away.
 
But we’re not going anywhere.

John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things at: http://wordinedgewise.org.