I must admit that the idea that Barack Obama is our first gay president (or, more accurately, the “first gay president,” as without the quotes it’s tabloid fodder) is somewhat bizarre to me. Yes, I know it’s a riff on the idea that Bill Clinton was called the “first black president,” but that made sense because it captured something about Clinton, namely that Clinton was comfortably multicultural in terms of his personality that was genuinely unusual in a president at that time. Clinton was technically just as white as, I don’t know, Dwight Eisenhower, but Ike didn’t socialize with black people, didn’t listen to their music, and didn’t make an effort to understand them. Clinton demonstrably did all these things, and his personality reflected it, so the term is somewhat illuminating. Setting aside the little fact that we’ve almost certainly already had a gay president (and probably more than one, if you do the math), I’m not quite sure what to make of applying the label to Obama. For one thing, I’m not wild about connoting Obama with a closeted, secret identity, which is essentially what the right always accuses him of (even if the intent here is hardly negative). But more importantly, while there are some groups of gay men that have group identities I’ve never really thought there was a single gay identity, just gay people, most of whom just live normal lives indistinguishable from straights like me, aside from in their choice of romantic partners. If you think the same way, then a gay president is a completely jejune concept.* And it’s true that Obama has a pretty great record on gay rights, but that doesn’t go to identity. Was Lyndon Johnson our first black president? By this logic he’d have to be, even though that’s a pretty laughable idea.

Also, I just find these sorts of distinctions passe. Who cares? Obama winning the election was historic, but his race hasn’t had any impact on how he would govern that I can tell, compared to Biden or Clinton or anyone else. I’ve heard people argue that his complex racial identity makes him more receptive to compromise and conciliation, but that’s highly speculative. Democrats just tend to want to meet Republicans halfway all the time anyway, no matter what the issue is. The notion that having a president of color would change politics was a complete flop, just as having an out gay president undoubtedly would be (and we will eventually have one, I’m quite sure). The past few years have made me jaded to such distinctions. I don’t really care about identity anymore, let’s just see how they govern.

*Admittedly, there is no single black identity, or Irish identity, or evangelical Christian identity either. These groups all have common histories and culture, but there are large breaks in all these communities, and certainly you’ll always find individuals that buck the trends.