Obama Administration files brief against Prop8

As we all hoped, the Obama Administration/DoJ has filed an amicus brief calling DOMA unconstitutional.  They do this in the context that separate is not equal, and say that offering the benefits of marriage (civil unions) without the name is not right.  If the Court went with this, it would affect not just CA but also 7 other states.

Fron the estimable Scotusblog:

In essence, the position of the federal government would simultaneously give some support to marriage equality while showing some respect for the rights of states to regulate that institution. What the brief endorsed is what has been called the “eight-state solution” — that is, if a state already recognizes for same-sex couples all the privileges and benefits that married couples have (as in the eight states that do so through “civil unions”) those states must go the final step and allow those couples to get married. The argument is that it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of legal equality when both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are entitled to the same marital benefits, but only the opposite-sex couples can get married. 

And

The brief recommended that the Court, for the first time, apply a tough constitutional standard that courts are to use in judging laws that treat gays and lesbians less favorably. That standard goes by the technical name “heightened scrutiny.” It means that such a law must serve an important government interest, and be effective in doing so. 

Applying that test to California and the other states that now withhold marriage itself from only one group of couples when all couples who share a committed relationship are entitled to the other benefits of marriage, the administration argued that this amounts to a form of discrimination based on sexual orientation and thus cannot stand.

The brief is here.  And just so you can enjoy it, this is the concluding paragraph.  (I've stripped the citations):

California’s extension of all of the substantive rights  and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8. It indicates that Proposition 8’s  withholding of the designation of marriage is not based  on an interest in promoting responsible procreation and  child-rearing—petitioners’ central claimed justification  for the initiative—but instead on impermissible prejudice. As the court of appeals observed,  that is not necessarily to say “that Proposition 8 is the  result of ill will on the part of the voters of California.”  ‘‘Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not  from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as  well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful,  rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism  to guard against people who appear to be different in  some respects from ourselves.”   Prejudice may not, however, be the basis  for differential treatment under the law.

Should Obama file a brief in Prop8 case?

NY Times Op/Ed

Now that Mr. Obama has declared that he believes denying gay people the right to wed is not only unfair and morally wrong but also legally unsupportable, the urgent question is how he will translate his words into action... 

The outcome of the Proposition 8 case is likely to affect the lives of gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans for years to come, even if the final disposition is not sweeping enough to wipe out all state laws currently banning same-sex marriage. A strong filing by the Justice Department, forthrightly declaring that denying the freedom to marry violates the Constitution, would put the full weight of the federal government on the side of justice and could influence the shape of the ruling. 

For the administration to be missing in action in this showdown risks conveying a message to the justices that it lacks confidence in the constitutional claims for ending gay people’s exclusion from marriage or that it believes Americans are not ready for a high court ruling making marriage equality the law of the land — impressions strikingly contradicted by legal precedent, the lessons of history and by the president’s own very powerful words.

Inaugural speech historic in support of LGBT rights (video Sunday)

Reactions to the Inaugural Speech

Frank Bruni in the NY Times:

Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall. The alliteration of that litany made it seem obvious and inevitable, a bit of poetry just there for the taking. Just waiting to happen.

But it has waited a long time. And President Obama’s use of it in his speech on Monday — his grouping of those three places and moments in one grand and musical sentence — was bold and beautiful and something to hear. It spoke volumes about the progress that gay Americans have made over the four years between his first inauguration and this one, his second. It also spoke volumes about the progress that continues to elude us….

Despite our strides, gay and lesbian couples even now can marry only in nine states and the District of Columbia. The federal government doesn’t recognize those weddings, meaning that in terms of taxes, military benefits and matters of immigration, it treats gays and lesbians differently than it treats other Americans. It relegates us to an inferior class.

The Supreme Court could soon change, or validate, that. There are relevant cases before it. For his part Obama could show less deference to states’ rights, be more insistent about what’s just and necessary coast-to-coast, and push for federal protections against employment discrimination when it comes to L.G.B.T. Americans. His actions over the next four years could fall wholly in line with Monday’s trailblazing words. My hope is real, and grateful, and patient.

History is made: President's inaugural speech supports LGBT rights

From the HuffPo:

President Obama made history today when he mentioned both the Stonewall uprising and gay and lesbian people being treated "like anyone else under the law" during his second inauguration speech. 

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths -- that all of us are created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall..." he said. 

He continued:

"It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

This the first time that a president has addressed gay rights during an inauguration speech.

Know Hope.

It's Official: President announces Pride Month

From the White House:

More remains to be done to ensure every single American is treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Moving forward, my Administration will continue its work to advance the rights of LGBT Americans. This month, as we reflect on how far we have come and how far we have yet to go, let us recall that the progress we have made is built on the words and deeds of ordinary Americans. Let us pay tribute to those who came before us, and those who continue their work today; and let us rededicate ourselves to a task that is unending ‑‑ the pursuit of a Nation where all are equal, and all have the full and unfettered opportunity to pursue happiness and live openly and freely. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2012 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.

If we left marriage to the Fed, there would be no married LGBT couples

Lots of people are complaining that Obama did not make a sweeping statement that the Fed should define marriage, rather than leave it to the states.  But what he did was very canny. From EJ Graff: 

Here's the truth: If we had national marriage laws, I would not be married right now.

The U.S. has only recently been able to break through and try out same-sex marriage, which is leading people to realize, albeit slowly, that it's no threat to anyone. But that's only been possible because our federalist marriage system allows each state to make its own decision. And because we have a federalist system, LGBT advocacy groups are able to challenge the one national marriage law that the U.S. has passed: the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
....
But getting people there requires time. Some parts of the country have been more willing than others to extend that gender-neutral, equal marriage philosophy to marriage's entrance requirements. And what all the DOMA lawsuits are saying to the federal courts is this: let the states decide. The federal government has no power to write marriage's rules, or to pick and choose which marriages it likes and which it doesn't. The federal government's only power is to apply its own decisions—on such things as pensions, health insurance, immigration, Social Security—to whatever marriages the states make.... 

More tactically, it would be terrible for Obama to talk about imposing same-sex marriage on states. The backlash would be horrifying—not just against same-sex marriage but against the imperiousness of the overeducated coastal elites. I get a little impatient with liberal straight folks who think that Doing The Right Thing is enough. I know I'm overcautious--I come from a different time--but there are still a lot of people who think it's disgusting to be queer, or even if they don't, just aren't there yet on opening marriage's doors. Those minds are more likely to open one at a time than if they feel their being dictated to by overeducated know-it-alls with no common sense. ... 

Law and culture change in tandem. The president's statement helps change the culture. ....The administration's actions are helping to change the law. If he gets re-elected, I believe we will see DOMA repealed before 2016, even with a Republican House.

A religious view of Obama's "evolution"

From Religion Dispatches:

President Obama’s historic statement on same-sex marriage was 122 words long, and “God” was not one of them. Nevertheless, it was an important religious statement that merits our attention—not just because it’s a slap in the face to the so-called Christian Right (neither Christian nor Right, as some of my progressive Christian friends like to say) but because of its own positive values.... 

But it is also a principled stand for a different variety of religious values. Rick Santorum believes that you have to choose between God and gay, between sexuality and religion. And although I’ve gotten in some trouble for saying so, I’ll repeat my view that Dan Savage did as well.... Savage’s view is fine as a personal religious ideology, but coming in a public statement from Gay Activist #1, it tells traditional religious people that there’s no space for them in an LGBT-inclusive world. Once again, it’s God vs. Gay, at least as that God is understood by traditionalists. 

Obama’s thoughtful statement sends a different message. It says that values like introspection, compassion, and justice support, rather than oppose, equality for LGBT people. We can interpret Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians ten ways from Sunday. But what we can’t ignore are the calls to justice and compassion. 

What, according to the statement, led Obama to this position? The right kind of thinking. Over time, he said, he has come to understand the truth of same-sex couples: that they are as capable of commitment, love, and sanctity as opposite-sex ones; and that it is an injustice to deny the benefits of marriage to gay people. Those are religious values, expressed in a personal way.... 

Is that not the same reasoning that applies in all anti-oppression work, whether regarding sexual minorities, gender minorities, racial minorities, or issues of class, immigration, and economic justice? 

Only 122 words, but we could teach this statement in Sunday school as an example of how we grow as human beings by opening ourselves to the truth of other people’s experiences, by opening our hearts, by revising our opinions. Usually it’s religion that tries to speak to politicians. But today, we saw the reverse.

On evolution

Being gay is being civically "other", always on the outside, looking in.  As blogger Barry Yeoman writes,

I attend a friend's heterosexual wedding; talk at a party with someone who volunteers with his son's Boy Scout troop; or receive an invitation to donate blood during a drive—and find myself viewing all those experiences as outside to my own. Then I generalize to other things, because it has become a habit. This is your world. It is not mine. 

This sense that many of these basic rituals are available to others but not to me can't help but alter my relationship to civitas. Self-identifying as American is predicated on some elemental expectations: I can bind my financial life to another's. I can volunteer my time to help foster our community's youth. I can volunteer my healthy blood to save a life. Take away these basic assumptions, and patriotism means very little. Funny, but I don't get angry when I think of this, or even sad. It just is. 

Multiply me by a few million, and think about how much civic energy is squandered as a result.

But yesterday, that changed.  Yesterday, the president said, yes, he supports marriage equality, and he does so because he's a Christian.  Andrew Sullivan describes it as "letting go of fear".   More than one has compared it to Harry Truman in 1948, an election year, who signed an unpopular order to integrate the military over the opposition of (you guessed it) the South.

I phoned the white house to say thanks and found myself tearing up.  E. J. Graff sums up my feelings pretty well. 

There's something very deep about having your government declare you a stranger to its laws, defining your love as outside all respectable recognition. For my president to stand up and say that I should belong fully to my nation, that my wife and I should be considered as fully married as my brother and his wife—well, it reopens and washes out some very deeply incised sense of exclusion...

Of course the battle is not yet won.  But Chris Geidner at Metroweekly argues that this is all of a piece with other recent moves by the Administration, part of that arc towards justice.  Nate Silver, uber meta-pollster, finds more support than opposition.  Rob Tisinai doesn't care about the calculated politics of it.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. It’s happened Obama can claim another civil rights first. He hasn’t just broken the color barrier — he’s opened the yellow brick road. He’s giving back, repaying the fighters and activists of previous generations who made his own election possible, so that now, somewhere, in a tiny little no-name corner of the nation, a bright and talented gay kid has suddenly realized: I can be president.

And as  Jonathan Rauch said,

The courts, as Obama, the former law professor, must be well aware, will take notice. Two big gay-rights cases--one challenging California's revocation of gay marriage, the other challenging the Defense of Marriage Act--are on their way toward the Supreme Court. With his switch from ambivalence to advocacy, Obama is sending a signal to the courts that the country is ready for gay marriage, giving them more cover to uphold it. Courts may not go by poll results, but they do like to stay within the mainstream. And Obama has just moved it.

Justice Kennedy, are you listening? 

Do you believe in evolution?

PResident Obama has "evolved" to recognize that LGBT citizens should be fully equally under the law.

Human rights for gay people: Thank you Mr President

Yesterday, something amazing happened.

The Secretary of State gave a long, powerful speech supporting the rights of gay people around the world.

From the LA TImes:

In a speech to mark Human Rights Day, which is celebrated Saturday, Clinton declared that protecting the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is "now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time" and compared it to the battles for women's rights, racial equality and religious freedom.

(Video and transcript here). Along with this, the Obama Administration has released a memo detailing its efforts.

Now, as you know I'm an advocate for marriage equality.

But many of our issues here in the US are "luxury" issues.  Gay people in many parts of the world don't have the luxury of marriage, or serving in the military. They are lacking even fundamental rights like life and liberty.  Gay people in many places, particularly but not exclusively Africa,  are at risk of violence, imprisonment, and even death simply for being who they are.

There are people here who advocate the same thing. They pop up in the comment threads of articles on line, they write hateful things on the pages of NOM's facebook, they buy NOM"s lies.  But they aren't the majority.  So they export their hate.

And now, the US is saying with the weight of officialdom, "Being gay is NOT a crime." Well done.


Update:  Rick Perry, presidential wanna-be, complains:  "Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money."

Andrew Sullivan fires back: "Not getting murdered is NOT a special right."

Good news on immigration: why it matters

The Obama Administration has made the sensible decision that people who are in the country without documents but aren't criminals should be lower priority for deportation.

This is particularly heartening for same-sex "transnational" couples. If they were straight, the citizen partner could sponsor the non-citizen partner for a green card. But thanks to DOMA, they aren't given that right, and there are lots of heartbreaking cases of people being ripped apart.

But with this new implementation policy, that should change. From the NY TImes:

The administration’s announcement also had an immediate impact on a case in Denver, where an immigration judge on Friday postponed the deportation of Sujey Pando, a lesbian from Mexico legally married in Iowa to an American from Colorado, Violeta Pando. Although federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages, administration officials said they would consider same-sex spouses as “family” in their review of deportation cases.

The judge, Mimi Tsankov, cited the flux in laws and policies affecting same-sex cases in delaying a decision on Sujey Pando’s deportation at least until January, said Lavi Soloway, a lawyer for the couple.

Our families are just as real, and our love just as important. It's good news that this will finally make a difference.

But what we really need is the elimination of DOMA, and as cases wend their way through the court system, I hope that will happen.

Evolve Already (video Sunday)

Barack Obama says he's "evolving" on marriage equality.

Well, those of us with real lives and real families can't live in the time frame of "evolution".

Evolve Already Mr President.

Obama Administration moves on Medicare

From the Washington Blade:

The Obama administration is set on Friday to issue policy guidance to states expanding their ability to offer same-sex couples the same protections afforded to straight couples when they receive long-term care under Medicaid, the Washington Blade has learned exclusively.

Under the new guidance, dated June 10, states have the option to allow healthy partners in a same-sex relationship to keep their homes while their partners are receiving support for long-term care under Medicaid, such as care in a nursing home.

Medicaid kicks in for a beneficiary to receive care after an individual depletes virtually all of their money. To pay for the beneficiary’s expenses under Medicaid, a state could impose a lein, or take possession, of a beneficiary’s home to pay for Medicaid expenses.

However, federal law prohibits imposing this lein if beneficiaries are married to someone of the opposite-sex who’s still living in their home. The new guidance, signed by Deputy Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Cindy Mann, clarifies that states can offer this protection to the healthy partner of a Medicaid recipient in a same-sex relationship.

So if you are lucky enough to live in a friendly state, you may be able to keep your house.

If in an unfriendly state, thanks to DOMA, not so much--regardless of your marital status.

It's a start, though.

Obama DoJ and the DOMA appeal

The president may coyly suggest that his feelings about marriage equality are "evolving", but his DoJ is still claiming rational government interest in DOMA, the so called defense of marriage act. They are appealing the Massachusetts federal district court that found it unconstitutional to deny legally married Massachusetts couples the federal benefits of marriage.

As Politico notes:

"There are some improvements in tone in the brief, but the bottom line is the government continues to oppose full equality for its gay citizens," said Equality Matters chief Richard Socarides in an e-mail. "And that is unacceptable."

From Chris Geidner at Poliglot:

Despite that "ongoing dialogue," the government asserts three reasons to justify DOMA's continued validity:

1. Congress Could Have Rationally Concluded That DOMA Promotes A Legitimate Interest in Preserving a National Status Quo at the Federal Level While States Engage in a Period of Evaluation of and Experience with Opening Marriage to Same-Sex Couples.

2. Congress Could Reasonably Conclude That DOMA Serves a Legitimate Federal Interest in Uniform Application of Federal Law Within and Across States During a Period When Important State Laws Differ.

3. Congress Could Reasonably Have Believed That by Maintaining the Status Quo, DOMA Serves the General Federal Interest of Respecting Policy Development among the States While Preserving the Authority of Each Sovereign to Choose its Own Course.

Although each is slightly different, these three "rationales" do read like different shades of the same argument, which is more or less that DOMA made sense -- or, is rational -- because the states hadn't reached a uniform decision.

BUT as I've noted before, the DoJ basically has to appeal this if it is to have any bearing outside of Massachusetts. And there are some interesting statements in the brief (see the original for the references)

This one is interesting because it undercuts the primary argument being used by the defenders of Prop8: gays can't procreate. The government is conceding that this argument is not rational.

[T]he government does not contend that DOMA serves a governmental interest in “responsible procreation and child- rearing.” As the government explained in district court, since the enactment of DOMA, many leading medical, psychological, and social welfare organizations have concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. The district court nonetheless addressed that rationale, and certain other rationales the government did not advance, and rejected them as irrational. The government does not challenge those specific aspects of the district court ruling on appeal.
p.50

This one is an admission that times are changing, and the way things are is harmful to gays and lesbians.

When DOMA was enacted, the institution of marriage had long been understood as a formal relationship between a man and a woman, and state and federal law had been built on that understanding. But our society is evolving, and as is well-established, the “science of government . . . is the science of experiment.” Over the years, the prevailing concept of marriage has been challenged as unfair to a significant element of the population. Recently there has been a growing recognition that the prevailing regime is harmful to gay and lesbian members of our society.

p51

This one points out the complications without DOMA.

Without DOMA, federal benefits would vary for same-sex couples from state to state. Couples in a state that allowed same-sex couples to marry would receive certain federal benefits, while couples in a state that did not authorize such marriages would not. Further, several states have created a civil union or domestic partnership regime that provides, under state law, virtually all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Under current federal law those partnerships – whether same-sex or opposite-sex – do not qualify as marriages. Given the differing treatment in the states of committed relationships between same-sex couples, Congress could have rationally concluded that a uniform federal definition was warranted. And while it may be preferable as a policy matter for Congress to have provided the same benefits to all married couples, the uniform path that Congress chose was permissible….

THe argument being that it's better to just lump the gays into disadvantage than try to figure out the inconsistencies from state to state.

Of course, the lunacy of this is notable in California, where the brief argues that it wouldn't be fair to have married gay couples have benefits that are no longer available to other gay couples.

….a uniform federal definition eliminates not only variations among the states, but variation in federal benefits for same-sex couples within the same state. As explained above, in California, same-sex couples married between June 2008 and November 2008 remain in recognized marriages in that state, but no more such marriages may be performed. Thus same-sex couples formally united during that period would benefit from federal laws regarding marriages, but other same-sex couples seeking to marry in the state would not. p.67

Stay tuned, we'll keep you posted.

LA Times Editorial: Obama and marriage

Entitled, Enough agonizing, Mr President:

[I]t's irrational, once same-sex couples are given the practical advantages of marriage, to deny them married status. Civil unions, while a vast improvement over the absence of any recognition of same-sex relationships, are almost by definition second-class arrangements.

The temptation is to think that Obama knows this, and that his reluctance to endorse marriage equality is more political than personal. When he ran for the presidency in 2008, it was the conventional wisdom that supporting gay marriage would be politically fatal. With shifts in public attitudes, that probably will not be the case in 2012. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 42% of adults now favor same-sex marriage, compared to 37% in 2009. The trend seems clear.

We'd prefer to think that such considerations wouldn't be uppermost in Obama's mind. What should determine his position is logic and the fact that same-sex couples across America, not just those in his circle, yearn for recognition of their relationships. Enough agonizing, Mr. President. Support marriage equality.

Comments from Obama about marriage

First, President Obama gave an interview to Kerry Eleveld of the Advocate, where he admitted his views on marriage are evolving.

The sentiment I expressed then is still where I am — which is, like a lot of people, I’m wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this. I have always firmly believed in having a robust civil union that provides the rights and benefits under the law that marriage does. I’ve wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples.

And squaring that circle is something that I have not done yet, but I’m continually asking myself this question, and I do think that — I will make this observation, that I notice there is a big generational difference. When you talk to people who are in their 20s, they don’t understand what the holdup is on this, regardless of their own sexual orientation. And obviously when you talk to older folks, then there’s greater resistance.

And so this is an issue that I’m still wrestling with, others are still wrestling with. What I know is that at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples.

Then, he made a similar comment to Jake Tapper of ABC news at a Press Conference.

With respect to the issue of whether gays and lesbians should be able to get married, I've spoken about this recently. As I've said, my feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions. And they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.

At this point, what I've said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have. And I think -- and I think that's the right thing to do. But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we're going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward.

Then, Vice President Biden commented that marriage equality is "inevitable":

Biden said there is "an inevitability for a national consensus on gay marriage."

"I think the country's evolving," he said. "And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with so-called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). He said he agreed with Obama that his position in gay marriage is "evolving."

However, this article in the WaPo points out that marriage will be a tough sell--right now, anyway.

Much more likely is some movement on DOMA, however, for those who ARE legally married. Expect resistance on that, too. The Right Wing is all for state's rights, except when they don't like the rights the states give.

Still, I'll take these comments by Pres Obama and VP Biden as a nice little lift for my Christmas!

DOMA leads to deportation

Legally married same sex spouses are treated differently under law. That was the basis of the cases in Massachusetts, which we have discussed previously. The Department of Justice is appealing the decision finding such different treatment unconstitutional.

If you have the misfortune to be of different nationalities, you can be deported or forced to live in exile. As Glenn Greenwald, a victim of this situation, notes, such treatment is inhumane.

Most people don't have careers that enable them to live outside of the U.S., and even for those who do, many are married to foreign nationals from countries which also do not provide immigration rights to same-sex couples. For the thousands of same-sex couples in that situation, the choices are grim indeed: they can choose (1) to live illegally in one country or the other, or (2) separate and live thousands of miles away -- for the indefinite future -- from the person with whom they want to share their lives. As the HRW Report put it: "thousands of U.S. citizens and their foreign same-sex partners face enormous hardships, separation and even exile because discriminatory U.S. immigration policies deprive these couples of the basic right to be together."

(Greenwald's partner is a Brazilian national and he spends much of his time in Brazil).

John Aravosis reminds us that enforcement of this viciousness is not required and in fact, the President has previously, by executive order, blocked similar deportation:

Mind you, the President decided to ignore a federal law requiring him to kick out the not-yet-American-citizen spouses of deceased Americans. They get to stay. But gay spouses? No such empathy from the Obama administration and the apologists. Suddenly it's all "we simply MUST obey the rule of law."

America: land of the brave, home of the free AS LONG AS they are straight.

DADT: It's almost over, and not in a good way

From the Advocate:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ....making an unusual break from his consistent calls for Congress to wait on repeal until the Pentagon delivers its study in December, voiced his support for Congressional action ....

In the meantime, the new head of the Marine Corps said he thought repeal would be risky while U.S. troops were engaged in two wars overseas.

And, craven to their core, the Dems in Congress will yet again toss the LGBT community overboard. The Wall Street Journal reports,

The drive in Congress to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy appears all but lost for the foreseeable future, with action unlikely this year and even less likely once Republicans take charge of the House in January.....Advocates on both sides believed the issue had a chance of coming up in this month's post-election session of Congress. Now that looks unlikely.

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it.

Just to top it off John Aravosis reports that one of the candidates for a new Sec'y Defense is Ike Skelton, a Democratic supporter, indeed one of the architects, of DADT.

Close your eyes while the bus rolls on over....if this is fierce advocating, I'd hate to see craven capitulation.

Why we're upset

In comments to a previous post, long-time e-friend JCF complains at the "gay cynicism" that sees the glass half empty. The Beltway insiders feel the same way. Last week, President Obama met with a few prominent bloggers. When questioned by Joe Sudbay (AmericaBlog) about LGBT issues, Mr Obama was somewhat aggrieved (my emphasis)

Let me go to the larger issue, though, Joe, about disillusionment and disappointment. I guess my attitude is that we have been as vocal, as supportive of the LGBT community as any President in history.

That's a pretty low bar, sir. I got robo-called by the Pro-Prop8 forces using your voice to oppose my right to marry. Your opposition was ... barely noticeable. Yes, you have done some good things--like your "it gets better" video. And you signed the Matthew Shepherd act on hate crimes. But on substantive change, you've been MIA. And your whole thing with Rick Warren and other gay bashers was a real slap in the face.

I’ve appointed more openly gay people to more positions in this government than any President in history.

Again, a pretty low bar. Appointing LGBT people to mid-range administrative jobs was ground-breaking in the Clinton administration. It would be shocking if you hadn't. And there are no high-ranking (cabinet level) LGBT people, and your advisors, like Valerie Jarrett, use terms like "gay lifestyle", which suggests that the inner circle is basically clueless.

We have moved forward on a whole range of issues that were directly under my control, including, for example, hospital visitation.

Yes, but nearly all of these have been rather tepid executive orders. For example, granting benefits to partners of gay federal employees sounded great on the news, but it turns out that didn't include health care or pensions, and in fact, it isn't clear that employees who are actually MARRIED to their partner (say, in Massachusetts) are even eligible. And you say that you support robust civil unions (not marriage) but there's been no progress there either.

On “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I have been as systematic and methodical in trying to move that agenda forward as I could be given my legal constraints, given that Congress had explicitly passed a law designed to tie my hands on the issue.

Actually, sir, no you haven't. You promised it would be repealed, in your state of the union address, but after that, you put no effort into it. First, let's think legislatively. The Defense Authorization Bill doesn't repeal DADT, it kicks the can down the road pending a Pentagon report. And even then, despite strong support in the polls and from the chair of the Joint Chiefs, the Republicans successfully filibustered, and you didn't expend any political capital in twisting arms to get support (or to prevent Harry Reid's political fiddling). In the executive branch, the new Marine Commandant is almost insubordinate in his opposition. The Pentagon is using very questionable means to "examine" the issue. Judicially, you continue to appeal this, even though there is considerable evidence that this support is NOT mandated in any way. Harry Truman racially integrated the military with an executive order. He didn't defend Jim Crow in court.

And so, I’ll be honest with you, I don’t think that the disillusionment is justified.

Mr President, there has been NO substantive change at the federal level, despite your promises. It's you who made those promises, sir.

Let's think of what's going on in Washington.
DADT (see above). Status: still in force, Obama administration appealing a Federal District Court decision that found it unconstitutional.

DPBO (Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act). Would give actual benefits to legal domestic partners of federal employees. Status: dead in the halls of Congress. Also, no clear whether married couples even eligible, because of

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Still in force, Obama administration appealing a Federal District Court decision that found section 3 unconstitutional. This section forbids federal recognition of legal same sex couples and enshrines in federal law an official second-class status to LGBT people. Basically, it means my marriage legally evaporates when I leave this state.

ENDA: Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Stalled, because of right wing fears of transgendered people using restrooms. Thus, it remains legal to fire LGBT people simply for being (or appearing) LGBT.

UAFA: Uniting American Families Act. Immigration reform that would allow Americans to sponsor their legal gay partners who are citizens of other countries. not moving, because of rabid opposition from anti-gay forces including the Roman Catholic church, so that such couples will continue to be either separated or forced to live in exile.

Even in the "big ticket" bills that are not about "Teh Gay", we've been thrown under the bus. Coverage for same sex partners in the health care bill? Thrown out during the "sausage making" phase. WIth health care, with immigration, we are dispensible. For the greater good. Hold the door open for everyone else. then go sit ouside.

You're aggrieved Mr President? So are we. Movement on one thing, just one, would have made a difference. When you said there would be change, for once, we thought we would actually be part of the Big Fat American Family sitting at the table with everyone else. YOU are the one who made the promises. And now you have the audacity to scold us for believing you?

That doesn't mean I won't vote, or that I won't vote Democrat. But I will continue to hold you and your administration accountable for the promises that YOU made.