HeatherN challenges the notion that President Obama can be considered The First Gay President, as Newsweek has titled him.
Same-sex marriage has been in the news a lot lately. North Carolina voted to ban it, along with civil partnerships, and a day later Obama held an interview where he voiced his personal support for same-sex marriage. Although I am frustrated at the limits of the support Obama gave, I also understand that it is a pretty big symbolic victory, particularly considering the fact that we’re right in the middle of election season. I also understand those people who are heaping praise on Obama and are unwilling to criticize his statement as perhaps not going far enough. I get it.
What I do not get is the new Newsweek cover and the article by Andrew Sullivan declaring that Obama is the “first gay President.” Obama is the first black President, except that actually apparently Clinton was first given that title. And that, right there, illustrates the problem with tossing around such titles. It implies that no actual gay man (or in Clinton’s case, no actual black man) will be able to become President within our lifetimes. It implies that the flack Obama is getting for supporting same-sex marriage is somehow equitable to the crap a gay man would have to put up with while trying to run for President. Similarly, when Clinton was called the “first black President,” it implied that his situation was somehow similar to the situation a black man (such as Obama) would be in when he tried to run for President.
I understand these labels are meant as praise, but really they just seem to be attempts at grabbing media attention. And I suppose that by writing this I’m just giving them what they want.
What do you think about Newsweek’s cover? Is there an element of irony to calling Clinton ‘The First Black President’ and Obama ‘The First Gay President’? Does this sort of thing help or harm social progress?
See Newsweek’s alternative options for this week on their Tumblr page, including an image of the White House flying a rainbow flag.
As for Obama, I think it’s an example of blurring the lines between bringing part of an oppressed group and being an ally.
I think it’s definitely problematic. Toni Morrison popularized the notion that Clinton was “our first black president,” (although Chris Rock said it first) and she wasn’t exactly talking about his record: “African-American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all… Read more »
Media today has a poor grasp of American history sometimes. It’s hard to prove conclusively, but James Buchanan was probably the first gay president. (They didn’t use the term “gay” back then, of course, and he wasn’t exactly out and proud, but there is some historical consensus that he preferred sex with men to sex with women.) His homosexuality was one of those secrets that in DC politics is well-kept and well-known at the same time.
No “openly gay” president so far, that’s true.
Here’s a pretty good article about why this label is so problematic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/no-president-obama-is-not_b_1524125.html?ref=gay-voices
What a load of crap. Because he supports gay rights does not make him any more gay than me. And I am purely hetero.
Also, do some research on a past US president named James Buchanan.
When are we going to realise everyone has a right to choose their life partner? If you love someone, be with them.
Ha! – it might be, if someone other than Mark Simpson wrote it 🙂
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2012/05/15/the-perfect-mandate-obama-and-becks-and-the-media/
Ah so I assume it’s meant as somewhat tongue in cheek, then?
Hi both
well I think Mr Simpson was being a bit ‘tongue in cheek’ about Obama. But his underlying point is deadly serious – Obama, like all ‘metrosexual’ men (and women) takes himself as his own love object. It does not matter if he is gay, straight, bi, he is everything to himself. He is his own ‘first lady’ because he adores himself and admires himself as a president (or anyone) might admire the first lady.
Right, well, if he was serious about that, then it is a huge generalization. Metro men aren’t necessarily narcissistic or whatever. Being ‘metro’ just means taking care with one’s appearance, and for men looking a bit less masculine than the norm.
A fellow called Mark Simpson wrote the following about Obama: “A well-dressed mixed-race, poly¬glot male who makes the Free World wait on his gym visit every morn¬ing. A man whose looks are reg¬u¬larly praised – par¬tic¬u¬larly by male jour¬nal¬ists. A man who won the Demo¬c¬ra¬tic nom¬i¬na¬tion in part because he was much pret¬tier than his more expe¬ri-enced female oppo¬nent. His wife Michelle is very attrac¬tive too, of course – but in some ways Obama is the first US Pres¬i¬dent to be his own First Lady.” So according to Mr. Simpson, he is not the fist gay President – rather, the… Read more »
Well, that’s extremely gender essentialist and heteronormative.
I haven’t read the Newsweek article…however I do know that with Clinton, the phrase was used as more than just indicating that he had pro-civil rights policies, and I know that the Obama cover was referencing Clinton. Clinton was called “the first black president” in reference to how his life was apparently similar to African-Americans and the struggles he’d faced in his life. Part of why Obama was given this label was, certainly, due to the fact that he supports same-sex marriage. But he’s not being called “pro-gay” he’s being called the “first gay” president. That phrase, particularly when coupled… Read more »
I was under the impression that, in both instances, the term had to do with policies rather than any larger implication about one’s chances of being elected.
As a comparison, many news sources will refer to the “small business candidate” as a synonym for the “pro-small-business candidate” or alternatively “the candidate that is supported by small businesses.”
As a result, this probably was not meant to have any bearing on how soon we will have a credible, non-hetero president; this was just a comment on the policies that Barrack Obama supports.