Jane Lynch on Obama

A picture of actor Jane Lynch

I love me some Jane Lynch. And she does not love President Obama right now. From a recent interview with The Guardian:

“Shouldn’t there be safeguards against the majority voting on the rights of a minority?” Lynch wonders. “If people voted on civil rights in the 60s, it would have never happened. It took somebody like Lyndon Johnson going, ‘F all of you! I’m going to do this.’” She pauses for a moment, then says, “Obama won’t do it. He’s a huge disappointment to me.”

Via Gaytheists.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

9 Comments

  1. dawn_of_the_bread
    Posted January 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    To answer her question, there is and it’s called the constitution. Brown vs board of education etc. But it was drafted a couple of hundred years ago so it’s not ideal for LGBT rights, in which case your best bet is probably trying to change the culture. Which is what feminism’s all about!

  2. LindseyLou
    Posted January 20, 2010 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I love Jane Lynch, too, and I understand her frustration, but when I first saw these comments a few days ago I had to sigh. To me, she sounds like just another celebrity talking about something she doesn’t really understand.
    Sure, she has a right to be disappointed that Obama didn’t throw more WH support behind same sex marriage measures in the state election, or that he hasn’t directed the IRS to recognize same sex marriages in states where it is legal. But it’s just unfair to be disappointed in Obama because the states are voting on these issues.
    Obama’s the executive head of the federal government, and domestic relations is one of the last bastions of states’ rights. First off, he’s not a legislator. Second, it’s tough (or impossible) to get any kind of federal jurisdiction to legislate in that area. Lynch mentions Johnson and the Civil Rights Act, but that wasn’t easy, either. The first attempts got shot down for lack of jurisdiction. Our current Civil Rights Act is based upon the Commerce Clause which, however broad it may be, doesn’t reach to state domestic relations.
    Like I said, I’m in total agreement with her on it being completely wrong that civil rights are being left up to the voters, but unfortunately, that’s how our system of government has left it. It’s just not fair to be disappointed with ONE guy who really can’t do much about it anyway. Personally, it is the American people who have been a huge disappointment to me on this issue.

  3. bifemmefatale
    Posted January 20, 2010 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Obama may not be able to amend the Constitution on his own, but he hasn’t been leadng by being vocal about marriage equality either. And the one thing he could do for queers all by himself, suspending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? He hasn’t done shit but make excuses.
    I’m with Jane.

  4. Alice
    Posted January 20, 2010 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    What this sentiment boils down to is the idea that society’s problem can be solved if we just gave enough power to the right people, with the implication that it is presently in the hands of the wrong people, and that we should simply take it from them for ourselves. Problem solved. That the existence of such power in the hands of anyone is itself a social problem is completely ignored. She’s too focused on the injustice of how the states regulate interpersonal relationships that she takes for granted that they do so at all.
    The solution to abuses by state governments is not to give more power to the Federal government, but less to the states. We should be trying to get our respective states out of marriage rather than getting the Federal government in, which would help lower the role of politics in everybody’s life, rather than simply transferring it one step up the chain in a way that is is hoped will further our own social agenda.
    Reducing government power is a lot harder than just getting the right politician in office (though obviously that has also proven harder than a lot of people thought!), but it is the only way to make genuine, long-term progress for human freedom and dignity.

  5. Becca B
    Posted January 20, 2010 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    I’m an out lesbian living in the Bible Belt South. I’m sorry, but if Obama just up and declared full rights for gays, there would be riots and people would die. If some KKK guys got curious and wanted to find some gay people to lynch, it wouldn’t be long before my name came up.
    I’m fine with this whole culture changing slowly thing, thanks.

  6. aleks
    Posted January 20, 2010 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    “Shouldn’t there be safeguards against the majority voting on the rights of a minority?”
    Yes. In some cases there are. For example, the majority can no longer pass or sustain laws against gay sex. Unfortunately there isn’t currently a safeguard ensuring gay marriage nationwide.
    If people voted on civil rights in the 60s, it would have never happened. It took somebody like Lyndon Johnson going, ‘F all of you! I’m going to do this.’
    That’s how it happened? Congress didn’t vote on Civil rights? LBJ did it all by himself? Jr High Civics and High School U.S. History fail.

  7. LalaReina
    Posted January 20, 2010 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

    Her lack of knowledge is a huge disappointment to me.

  8. BurnTheVegan
    Posted January 20, 2010 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    While DODT was created for highly homophobic reasons, perhaps it has done some good in protecting gay soldiers. Gay people are, at least for the time being, going to be harassed in the army whether the policy exists or not; the policy, at least, allows gay people who want to serve to do so without fear of discrimination. While this may be stifling to some, others may have little or no problem concealing or downplaying their sexuality in order to serve in the military.
    I don’t necessarily agree with this, it’s just some food for thought.

  9. bifemmefatale
    Posted January 21, 2010 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    I have never heard a queer serviceperson take this position.
    “Gay people are, at least for the time being, going to be harassed in the army whether the policy exists or not; the policy, at least, allows gay people who want to serve to do so without fear of discrimination.”
    Read what you wrote again. You just said hate is going to happen no matter what the policy is, but the policy is now allowing soldiers to serve without discrimination. What?

182 queries. 0.560 seconds