The First Gay President

[pixy0stix]

It won't be nearly as controversial as Time magazine's breastfeeding cover, but Newsweek's May 21 issue declares Barack Obama the country's "first gay president."

The accompanying cover story was written by Andrew Sullivan, the popular--and openly gay--political blogger. The magazine even gives the commander-in-chief a rainbow halo.

Obama, Sullivan writes, "had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family."

The full cover story is not yet online, but in a blog post published earlier this week, Sullivan wrote that Obama's support of gay marriage brought him to tears:

I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how calculated it is. What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn't know what to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.

So let me simply say: I think of all the gay kids out there who now know they have their president on their side. I think of Maurice Sendak, who just died, whose decades-long relationship was never given the respect it deserved. I think of the centuries and decades in which gay people found it impossible to believe that marriage and inclusion in their own families was possible for them, so crushed were they by the weight of social and religious pressure. I think of all those in the plague years shut out of hospital rooms, thrown out of apartments, written out of wills, treated like human garbage because they loved another human being. I think of Frank Kameny. I think of the gay parents who now feel their president is behind their sacrifices and their love for their children.

The interview changes no laws; it has no tangible effect. But it reaffirms for me the integrity of this man we are immensely lucky to have in the White House. Obama's journey on this has been like that of many other Americans, when faced with the actual reality of gay lives and gay relationships. Yes, there was politics in a lot of it. But not all of it. I was in the room long before the 2008 primaries when Obama spoke to the mother of a gay son about marriage equality. He said he was for equality, but not marriage. Five years later, he sees--as we all see--that you cannot have one without the other. But even then, you knew he saw that woman's son as his equal as a citizen. It was a moment--way off the record at the time--that clinched my support for him.

Today Obama did more than make a logical step. He let go of fear. He is clearly prepared to let the political chips fall as they may. That's why we elected him.

The New Yorker, which is also out with a cover story on gay marriage, took a bit more subtle approach with its May 21 issue.
"It's a celebratory moment for our country, and that's what I tried to capture," Bob Staake, the artist behind the New Yorker cover, said. "I don't especially like those rainbow colors, but they are what they are—I had to use them."

He added: "I wanted to celebrate the bravery of the President's statement—a statement long overdue—but all the more appreciated in this political year. We are on the right side of history."

news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newsweek-obama-first-gay-president-144158226.html

[emilyj]

I hate the Newsweek cover. All over Facebook tonight I saw references to Obama's "Gaylo". That's not what this is about. It diminishes the importance and significance of Obama's statement.

[Kristinmo]

I hate the Newsweek cover. I hate the caption, it's not true and makes no sense. I also hate the halo. While I am glad he came out in support of gay marriage, he is not doing enough to be portrayed as a savior.

I do like the New Yorker version.

[ChillyMcFreeze]

That's analogy's a stretch, Andrew Sullivan. I agree, it completely distorts the President's message and will probably just dissolve the GOP talking heads into a pool of 14-year-old boyness.

[copzgirl1171]

Sofa King stupid. It is a way to sell more rags. It's a shame that is what Newsweek is these days.

[KateAggie]

May 14, 2012 7:29:26 GMT -5 @copzgirl1171 said:

Sofa King stupid. It is a way to sell more rags. It's a shame that is what Newsweek is these days.

I agree. I used to have a subscription in college. Now it's almost unreadable.

[wawa]

I am totally turned off by this. Ick.

Though it does remind me of Bill Clinton as the "first black president."

ETA: Just to be 100% clear - I am turned off by the cover and caption and the stupid fucking "gaylo" not by the idea of a gay president.

[emmybean]

May 13, 2012 23:55:02 GMT -5 @crackhabit said:

The Newsweek cover headline tubs me the wrong way. Misleading. Takes away from the actual importance of Onama's statement.

Absolutely. It actually pisses me off. The title and the graphic are just...not appropriate for what Obama actually said.

[lyssbobiss, Command, B613]

Newsweek, really? You are supposed to be an unbiased news magazine, NOT US weekly with stories of politicos. What a fucking pile of horseshit. I hate the cover. Way to make the issue even more divisive, guys.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 8:29:48 GMT -5 wawa said:

I am totally turned off by this. Ick.

Though it does remind me of Bill Clinton as the "first black president."

ETA: Just to be 100% clear - I am turned off by the cover and caption and the stupid fucking "gaylo" not by the idea of a gay president.

This is what I thought of, too.

[racegrrl714]

May 14, 2012 8:47:17 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Newsweek should have used the Obama on a white stallion wielding rainbow swords instead. Would have been better than this pile of crap.

LOL Yes. This. Now that would have been awesome.
I think both covers are ridiculous and the Newsweek one pisses me the hell off. And I agree with the poster who said they were happy he said what he said, but that Obama isn't even doing NEARLY ENOUGH to be heralded as such an "angel to the geighs".

[KateAggie]

May 14, 2012 9:04:37 GMT -5 racegrrl714 said:

May 14, 2012 8:47:17 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Newsweek should have used the Obama on a white stallion wielding rainbow swords instead. Would have been better than this pile of crap.

LOL Yes. This. Now that would have been awesome.
I think both covers are ridiculous and the Newsweek one pisses me the hell off. And I agree with the poster who said they were happy he said what he said, but that [glow=red,2,300][glow=red,2,300]Obama isn't even doing NEARLY ENOUGH to be heralded as such an[/glow] "angel to the geighs";[/glow].

Can we talk about this? 'Cause from where I'm sitting, Obama's announcement is great, in that he's the first Prez to openly support gay marriage from a personal standpoint, but not so great, since he still thinks the states should decide. It seems to me that what he's really done is encourage the far right to come to the polls, and possibly turned off some of his supporters. All for what? So states like NC can still say, nope, not in MY state.

I know most are holding out hope that he'll do more if he's reelected (the only positive to a 2nd term for me ;D), but I could see this harming his reelection bid.

[racegrrl714]

May 14, 2012 9:52:51 GMT -5 KateAggie said:

May 14, 2012 9:04:37 GMT -5 racegrrl714 said:

LOL Yes. This. Now that would have been awesome.
I think both covers are ridiculous and the Newsweek one pisses me the hell off. And I agree with the poster who said they were happy he said what he said, but that [glow=red,2,300][glow=red,2,300]Obama isn't even doing NEARLY ENOUGH to be heralded as such an[/glow] "angel to the geighs";[/glow].

Can we talk about this? 'Cause from where I'm sitting, Obama's announcement is great, in that he's the first Prez to openly support gay marriage from a personal standpoint, but not so great, since he still thinks the states should decide. It seems to me that what he's really done is encourage the far right to come to the polls, and possibly turned off some of his supporters. All for what? So states like NC can still say, nope, not in MY state.

I know most are holding out hope that he'll do more if he's reelected (the only positive to a 2nd term for me ;D), but I could see this harming his reelection bid.

You pretty much nailed exactly how I feel, KA. I felt like it was too little too late, for one thing. If he'd have come out before the NC vote in support of gay marriage, I'd have been more impressed. I also think his comments are going to end up just inviting these backwards states to enact more backwards laws, because hey, it's up to the states. I'm not really waiting with baited breath that he'll change that position if elected a second time, either.

[dylanite]

I think his position actually enhances his chances to be reelected since it forced Romney into being a contrarian at the expense of the times as they are understood.

Also (not that I'm an avid Newsweek reader), what else has Newsweek done to warrant Cops' et al's opinions that they, to paraphrase, aren't what they used to be? I don't recall anyone talking about them in the past few years really. Or, maybe, ever (oh ya, unflattering Palin cover?).

[pamela]

I don't understand why he thinks this is the one issue that should be left up to the states. If you really believe it, own up to it and make it happen. This is just trying to ride the fence and make certain groups happy.

And it seems to be backfiring. Supporters of gay marriage see through it that it's a worthless proclamation and opponents are pissed he said it at all.

[dylanite]

May 14, 2012 10:35:02 GMT -5 pamela said:

I don't understand why he thinks this is the one issue that should be left up to the states. If you really believe it, own up to it and make it happen. This is just trying to ride the fence and make certain groups happy.

And it seems to be backfiring. Supporters of gay marriage see through it that it's a worthless proclamation and opponents are pissed he said it at all.

I'm thinking it's safer for him to 'say' he wants to leave it up to the states. Kinda pandering to both sides so he doesn't infuriate certain extremes.

[heyjude]

Yuck.

[marie427]

May 14, 2012 10:39:18 GMT -5 dylanite said:

May 14, 2012 10:35:02 GMT -5 pamela said:

I don't understand why he thinks this is the one issue that should be left up to the states. If you really believe it, own up to it and make it happen. This is just trying to ride the fence and make certain groups happy.

And it seems to be backfiring. Supporters of gay marriage see through it that it's a worthless proclamation and opponents are pissed he said it at all.

I'm thinking it's safer for him to 'say' he wants to leave it up to the states. Kinda pandering to both sides so he doesn't infuriate certain extremes.

Exactly. I'll hold out hope that if he's re-elected, he'll say "FUCK YOU BIGOT STATES" and say that states shouldn't be voting on people's rights. I mean, that would be really flip-floppy and I'd roll my eyes at first because it would have been nice for him to go all the way and say this now, but I'll chalk this up to political pandering during an election year.

[msmerymac]

May 14, 2012 10:35:02 GMT -5 pamela said:

I don't understand why he thinks this is the one issue that should be left up to the states. If you really believe it, own up to it and make it happen. This is just trying to ride the fence and make certain groups happy.

And it seems to be backfiring. Supporters of gay marriage see through it that it's a worthless proclamation and opponents are pissed he said it at all.

He also said he thought it should be left to the states as is "traditional." Uh, no. TRADITIONALLY, before DOMA, states didn't get to decide whose marriage they accepted. If you were married in Nebraska, your marriage was valid in Florida. Similarly, if you were legally married in Ireland, for the most part, your marriage would be valid in Canada (this sort of depends on the country). Same-sex marriage threw all of that out the window. Yeah, traditionally, I guess, it's common for states to not recognize gay marriage. Not ALL marriage.

I also think the cover totally discounts the important of straight allies to the movement. Obama is a straight man who supports gay marriage. That's just as important (if not more - given the number of straight men in the US vs. the LGBT population) as having a president who is actually openly gay. If only ALL of our presidents from now on could be pro LGBT rights!

[thejackpot]

This cover is awful. No matter his stance, a halo should be reserved for well, shucks angels. He is a man and just as most men he will fall short of expectations. To paint him as the angel of same-sex equality is a bit of a stretch. No matter what he does there will be people who are disappointed/want more and people who feel that he shouldn't do anything.

[pamela]

May 14, 2012 11:11:07 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I also think the cover totally discounts the important of straight allies to the movement. Obama is a straight man who supports gay marriage. That's just as important (if not more - given the number of straight men in the US vs. the LGBT population) as having a president who is actually openly gay. If only ALL of our presidents from now on could be pro LGBT rights!

I think this is also part of what is really bugging me about the title. So because he supports it, he's "gay". That just sounds wrong. When I first saw the title I think my gut reaction was that it was actually written by someone who opposed gay marriage because it just read so wrong.

[whitewolf]

The New Yorker cover with the rainbow WH pillars is cool.

The other cover is silly looking. And although I'm gleeful about Obama's endorsement, he was a real pansy about getting there, so I'd hardly liken him to a guardian angel of gays or a patron saint of the gay cause.

[basilosaurus]

May 14, 2012 10:35:02 GMT -5 pamela said:

And it seems to be backfiring. Supporters of gay marriage see through it that it's a worthless proclamation and opponents are pissed he said it at all.

I'm not so sure I agree, at least anecdotally.

A few days ago, we were on a train from London, and the couple next to us was discussing Obama and David Cameron since Obama's speech pushed Cameron to respond on the issue. It was front page news (and Cameron moved further right in response). Since I'd been out of the news loop for a few days I hadn't heard anything since Biden's comment.

So, of course I interrupted and asked for an update, and we had a great conversation on the similarities and differences between the US and UK. This (lesbian) couple was thrilled that Obama made such a moving speech and pulled it up on their blackberry for me to listen to. I was not as moved, as the content was sort of halting and not that profound, but I could place myself in the perspective of someone who's never heard an endorsement like that from such a high level leader and who is seeking it in their own country.

Sure, the cynical side of me says it's a pander, but what a great one it is. Very few politicians in our country have ever made any statement that supportive of gay marriage, and for the top guy to do so is symbolically very powerful.

As for the cover, it's shitty. I like the New Yorker one, but not newsekk.

[curmudgeon]

May 14, 2012 11:23:22 GMT -5 pamela said:

When I first saw the title I think my gut reaction was that it was actually written by someone who opposed gay marriage because it just read so wrong.

That is exactly what I thought. I actually had to re-read because I could not see how this weirdness could be praising him for supporting gay marriage.