Obama: does he or doesn't he?

From the Washington Post, in an article entitled Don't Trust Obama on Gay Marriage:

Obama's history on the issue does have a complicating twist. On a 1996 Illinois Senate race questionnaire, Obama (or more likely a staffer) wrote, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Liberals take from this revelation the assumption that Obama's apparent flip was insincere.

But there is nothing in his record since he became a national political figure that should give them any reason to think he will revert to his supposedly pro-gay-marriage position. And if Obama actually does believe in same-sex marriage, that makes his public opposition to it worse than it would be if he were genuinely opposed. How is it in any way reassuring to liberals to suppose that a politician agrees with them while selling them down the river? Even if Obama's apparent flip isn't genuine, he nonetheless acts as if it were, rendering his supposedly silent support worthless in tangible political terms. Whatever he "really" thinks, Obama's stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.

For some time, liberal politicians have taken a largely wink-and-nod approach to gay issues. They've done so with the excuse that the culture must catch up before any progress can be made (an excuse that conveniently doesn't apply to other liberal interest groups, such as unions and trial lawyers, that do very well when Democrats are in power). Obama paid tribute to this timeworn tactic recently when he told gay activists at the White House: "I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, but by the promises my administration keeps. By the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

Talking about "feelings" is a cuddly liberal pastime, and Obama's promise conjures up the phrase that Clinton famously entered into our political lexicon when he told an angry AIDS activist, "I feel your pain." Maybe now, when it comes to same-sex marriage, he finally does. But it would be nice to have a sitting president whose feelings translate into action.

Update: there's an excellent article in the Advocate about Obama. And it makes the very very good point that he's not going to do anything for us if we're not prepared to do it ourselves, meaning the hard work of activism.

If the wingnuts' voices are the only ones They hear, if the wingnuts are the only ones protesting and vocal, then don't be surprised if we don't get anything. We must be tireless in writing and promoting the cause TO THE POLITICIANS. And our families and allies too.

Why the GLBT community is mad at Obama

This comment from Daily Kos user craigkg enumerates the numerous mis-steps of the Obama administration with respect to the GLBT community. Let's just look at the recent ones:

*The Windy City Times revealed it had found a 1996 candidate questionnaire from Obama's run for the Illinois state Senate in which then Prof Obama stated his unequivocal support for same sex marriage meaning that his position on the issue has devolved from one of full equality to one of opposing equality opting for a segregationist institution instead.

*After the Iowa Supreme Court decision, the Obama White House released a statement on the ruling reiterating Obama's opposition to marriage equality and failed to even use the word "equal" at all. After a mini-blogosphere storm started to form, a "corrected" release was sent out changing the clause "he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law" to "he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

*After Vermont successfully overrode Gov Douglas' veto of the marriage equality bill and after Maine and New Hampshire's bills were signed into law, the White House's response was: " "

*The White House started deleting pro-GLBT language on the White House website. The outcry over the removal of the items prompted some of the material to be put back, but with much weaker, softer language forcing yet another revision of the language to placate the outrage.

*While appoint some GLBT persons to his administration, none of the appointments have been very high positions, the highest being the Director of Personnel Management. Obama passed on selecting an openly GLBT nominee to the Supreme Court and none of his other judicial appointments have been GLBT meaning there is still but one GLBT judge out of approximately 860 federal judgeships (0.12%).

*Obama has passed up several high profile opportunities to suspend separations under Don't Ask, Don't Tell when the discharges of 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao, Lt. Dan Choi and Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach became publicly notable. GLBT servicemembers continue to be discharged at a rate of approximately two per day.

*The Obama administration successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to deny a hearing on Lt. Col. Fehrehbach's challenge to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

*Obama's DOJ files an incendiary brief in a challenge to DOMA that relies on analogies to incest and pedophilia (or more correctly ebophilia) and goes well beyond what was necessary to secure that the petition in question is not granted a writ of certiorari.

Add to that a publicity stunt over "benefits" for gay employees that doesn't even include health care. The pattern here is one where he actually doesn't support our families or our equality. What happened to the guy I elected?

Update craigkg turned his original comment into a longer diary post at Daily Kos.

UpdateWockner reviews the "gay tsunami" that hit Obama

Debunking conservative talking points on DOMA

Equality Matters gives us a useful resource for the inevitable lies about what Obama's DOMA decision really means. Please visit their page for the details including quotes and citations, but here are some highlights.

The Talking Point: Obama Is Refusing To Enforce The Law...The Facts: Obama And The DoJ Will Continue To Enforce DOMA, Despite Not Defending It In Court. ...

The Talking Point: Refusing To Defend DOMA Is Unconstitutional And Unprecedented...The Facts: Legal Precedent Exists For Refusing To Defend Unconstitutional Laws In Court. ...President George W. Bush Did The Same Thing When He Was President....As did President Bill Clinton....And President George H. W. Bush....Also, President Ronald Reagan...

The Talking Point: Obama Is Flip-Flopping In Order To Appease His Base...The Facts: Obama Has Been In Favor Of Repealing DOMA Since Before He Was Even Elected. ...

The Talking Point: Obama Wants To Force States To Recognize Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriage...The Facts: Holder Only Dropped The Defense Of Section 3 Of DOMA. The suits currently challenging DOMA in the courts are specific to Section 3 of the law. Section 3 has to do with federal recognition of same-sex marriages already approved by the states....

The Talking Point: Obama Is Ignoring The Will Of The People... The Facts: Americans Are Evenly Divided On Marriage Equality. A poll released by the Associated Press in August of 2010 found that a narrow majority of Americans now supports federal recognition of married same-sex couples. 52% of respondents were in favor of marriage equality, with 46% opposed. ......

The Talking Point: Obama Is Wading Into Social Issues When He Should Be Focusing On The Economy....The Facts: Obama Was Legally Required To Take A Stand On The DOMA Lawsuits By March 11. ...

Go Away till 2012: a cynical liberal leader.

Kerry Eldveld of the Advocate alooks at the Obama Administration's recent pushback against the left. (Emphasis mine)

....marriage equality — a subject the administration would clearly harpoon if it could.

I get the distinct feeling that the White House hopes it can simply duck the marriage question straight through 2012, and I’d also bet dollars to doughnuts it won’t be able to. What became clear to me while interviewing attendees of the August 6 meeting was that while the friendly audience may have cut the administration some slack on legislative items like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, the one place advocates unapologetically stood their ground was on marriage equality.....

Make no mistake, this is an issue that the president’s chief advisers have misjudged from day one. They underestimated how angry people were that candidate Barack Obama wasn’t more vocal in his opposition to Proposition 8; they dismissed the devastation felt by millions of queers who poured their hearts into electing Obama only to watch Prop. 8 proponent Rick Warren give the invocation at the inauguration; they remained silent in 2009 as gay Mainers fought to preserve their right to love, marry, and build a life with their partner; and then David Axelrod reassured the nation two weeks ago that the president still opposes granting the freedom to marry to all Americans.....

Read the whole thing.

Then, in a New Republic Op/Ed on the CBS news site, Richard Just draws an unflattering comparison:

In the fall of 1912, as his campaign for president entered its final stage, Woodrow Wilson was speaking in Brooklyn when he was asked for his opinion on women’s suffrage. ... he responded by insisting that it was "not a question that is dealt with by the national government at all." The woman who had asked the question was apparently displeased by this blatant dodge. "I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Wilson," she retorted......

An evasive stance on a controversial civil rights issue from a liberal president; an insistence that the issue is primarily local, rather than national, in character; a complete failure of sincerity, nerve, and will: If these things sound familiar in 2010, it is because Barack Obama is taking exactly the same approach on gay marriage.

Obama has said that he wants to restore American moral leadership in the world. But how can he claim the mantle of moral leadership when we are being outpaced by so many countries and so many foreign leaders on one of the central civil rights issues of our time?

....Obama's stance seems to be a way of conveying to the country that he knows a lot of people still aren’t completely comfortable admitting gays and lesbians as full participants in American life, and that this is OK because he isn’t either. It is about the most cynical gesture you can imagine from an allegedly liberal leader-and we deserve better. I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Obama.

Be sure to read that one too.

More flip-flops than the discount bin at Target...

Time has a column about the flip-flops on marriage equality from the Obama Administration.

[A]s I have pointed out before, Obama loves to raise political donations; he has plainly begun to worry about his standing among the rich homosexuals who used to fawn over him. As the New York Times' Adam Nagourney first reported, the California legal brief was one reason that a prominent gay supporter of Obama's went to the Oval Office in late June to express, for 15 full minutes, the gay community's deep disappointment.

And so this week we get a new legal brief from the Obama Administration in the California case, this one denuded of the execrable incest defense. This time.... Obama flip-flops again - now back to his campaign position. (It must be dizzying to work in the White House these days.) Now the Administration says it opposes DOMA and wants it overturned - but that tradition dictates that it defend the law. And that is why, the White House said in a statement, "the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to [DOMA], as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged." ....

Legalistically speaking, the tradition argument is true, but it's yet another Obama dodge.....As Eugene Volokh of UCLA told me Aug. 18, there is nothing in the constitution or the law that would have prevented the Department of Justice from sitting on the sidelines in the DOMA case.

Nothing except politics. Obama's triangulation between left and right has become excruciatingly obvious on this issue, and he's not quite as deft a politician as Bill Clinton at keeping his left flank at bay. I wouldn't be surprised if, next summer at the 32nd Fire Island Pines fundraiser for Lambda, I hear booing when the President's name is mentioned.

Or as the Advocate put it:

Frank Rich scolds Obama

Writing in last Sunday's NY TImes, Frank Rich takes Obama to task:

[T]he changes aren’t coming as fast as many gay Americans would like, and as our Bill of Rights would demand. Especially in Washington. Despite Barack Obama’s pledges as a candidate and president, there is no discernible movement on repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy or the Defense of Marriage Act. Both seem more cruelly discriminatory by the day......

The Democrats do have the votes to advance the gay civil rights legislation Obama has promised to sign. And they have a serious responsibility to do so. Let’s not forget that “don’t ask” and DOMA both happened on Bill Clinton’s watch and with his approval. Indeed, in the 2008 campaign, Obama’s promise to repeal DOMA outright was a position meant to outflank Hillary Clinton, who favored only a partial revision.

So what’s stopping the Democrats from rectifying that legacy now? As Wolfson said to me last week, they lack “a towering national figure to make the moral case” for full gay civil rights.....

“This is a civil rights moment,” Wolfson said, “and Obama has not yet risen to it.” ..... Relegating fundamental constitutional rights to the bottom of the pile until some to-be-determined future seems like a shell game.

As Wolfson reminds us in his book “Why Marriage Matters,” Dr. King addressed such dawdling in 1963. “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait,’ ” King wrote. “It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ ”

The gay civil rights movement has fewer obstacles in its path than did Dr. King’s Herculean mission to overthrow the singular legacy of slavery. That makes it all the more shameful that it has fewer courageous allies in Washington than King did. If “American Idol” can sing out for change on Fox in prime time, it ill becomes Obama, of all presidents, to remain mute in the White House.

David Mixner: the time for Obama to speak is now

Democratic activist David Mixner calls on President Obama to speak out about Maine.

The time for President Obama to make clear that he opposes the ballot measure in that state is now. If he waits any longer, the Maggie Gallagher brigade against human rights will use his opposition to marriage to prove that he supports the proposition. During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite clear that he opposed all such measures, despite his opposition to marriage equality.

If the president doesn't want his own words to be used in a hate-filled campaign then he better speak up now. We all remember what happened in California. Even though Obama opposed Proposition 8, his profile on the initiative was very low. As a result, the YES on 8 folks did mass mailings using Obama's own words against marriage equality to imply that he supported the divisive measure. Many liberals and African-Americans were confused and voted "YES ON 8" as a result of those mailings and ads. Let's not let that happen again.

To avoid a reocurrence of that disaster, the president should immediately, strongly and unequivocally oppose the proposition in Maine. He should denounce the efforts of the right-wing to put human rights on the ballot to be voted upon as if it was just another measure for the voters. The president must not mince words or be tepid in his support or once again go into his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. We got that, Mr. President. Time to come down without clever political language for full equality for the LGBT community.

Whaddya think?

Yeah, me too.

::crickets::

Obama MIA?

Following up on my post of Monday, Richard Soccarides in the Wall Street Journal: (behind a firewall, so check out selections at Pam's House Blend)

Another of Mr. Obama's core campaign promises was that he would put an end to workplace discrimination, a key issue for gay Americans. To date, White House efforts to pass federal employment nondiscrimination legislation (known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) have been virtually nonexistent. The administration sent the acting chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to testify in support of the bill at a House hearing and called it a major accomplishment.

AmericaBlogGay provides more quotes;

Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice not only have chosen to aggressively defend the constitutionality of that law [DOMA], which bars recognition of same-sex marriages, but Justice Department lawyers actually cite it affirmatively to deny federal employee benefits like health insurance to same-sex couples. Where is the Civil Rights Division, which Mr. Holder has called the "crown jewel" of his department?

The absence of a position from the Justice Department in favor of expanding civil rights is as shocking as the absence of a coherent White House policy on gay issues. There is no senior policy person at the White House whose primary responsibility is gay rights. And there is no gay person in Mr. Obama's inner circle of advisers. That matters when trying to get attention for issues in an already overcrowded agenda, and the result is obvious.

And the sad thing is some of the strongest voices for marriage equality, from Ted Olson on down, are conservatives.

Mr. Obama entered office with greater immediate challenges confronting him than most. But after eight years of benign neglect (at best) from Washington, and a campaign in which Mr. Obama promised to be our champion, gay Americans had good reason to expect more from this president, and now are understandably frustrated.

In a telling development, the most significant and aggressive legal effort to promote gay equality today is being led by a conservative, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson. In federal court in San Francisco, together with co-counsel David Boies, he is prosecuting the most comprehensive and sophisticated legal attack on antigay marriage laws in history.

Update from The Advocate:

In a wide-ranging interview with LGBT journalists and bloggers Thursday, White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said President Barack Obama had chosen to take steps at the agency level to eliminate inequities for same-sex couples and gave no indication he would move toward supporting full marriage equality.

Asked if the president would go beyond incremental fixes to address a lack of marital rights for same-sex couples before 2012, Barnes noted that the president “has consistently called for the repeal of [the Defense of Marriage Act]” and used his “executive authority” to help provide more benefits to same-sex couples through federal agencies.

“That’s the course that he has identified, that’s the course that he has supported,” Barnes said.

The Advocate followed up with, “Just to reiterate, he still supports civil unions ... that’s a separate-but-equal institution — and I’m wondering if he’s at any point going to move to embracing full equality rather than these smaller steps.”

Barnes responded, “I understand what you’re saying, but that’s the course he has set forth.”

Fierce advocating.....riiiiiiigggghhhhht.

What's up with the white house?

As I've posted before, there are a lot of people becoming frustrated with the slow pace of GLBT rights federally. Obama, who promised to be our "fierce advocate", has proven to be a soggy supporter at best. He's been called out by Frank Rich and scolded by Andrew Sullivan for the "fierce urgency of whenever".

The White House wants credit for expanding the hate crimes legislation to include gay folks, but this is not and has not been one of our "major" issues. Our MAJOR concerns are repealing DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell), to allow our community to serve openly in the military, repealing DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), so our marriages and partnerships are eligible for federal recognition, and passing ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), so you can't be fired simply for being gay. This was all on the white house web site....which they quietly removed it, until a community outcry restored it. The gay community isfeeling that the White House wants us back in the closet, to be trotted out again when they need the money.

Now, we all know there are important, huge issues facing this president, and these are arguably more important than GLBT rights. Yes, we get that. And we aren't arguing that this be the front-and-center issue.

But look what's happened. Gay marriage advances in 5 more states, when Dick Cheney sort of supports gay marriage, and in return, we have the anti-gay marriage groups point to Obama standing in opposition... and we find out that (like the infamous quote pointing to John Kerry) , he was for it before he was against it. In fact, Obama's opposition to marriage equality is trumpeted by the other side, and is an albatross around our necks. Nothing is said about DOMA.

Meanwhile, high-profile military officers like linguist Lt Dan Choi and pilot Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach are dismissed in a time of war and there is no movement against DADT. The latest semi-scandal suggests that the tepid Human Rights Campaign has been co-opted to campaign AGAINST the repeal of DADT.

We're supposed to be content with the Hate Crimes act, when in fact, this White House had nothing to do with it. And frankly, we're so easily bought off, it wouldn't take much more than a few kind words, even without anything concret, for us to go back to the rear of the line, where everyone leaves us. Just a few crumbs of encouragement...

Are they being anti-gay? Or are they being incredibly subtle? I'm starting to wonder. Obama has a wrestler's way of using the opposition's weight against them. He doesn't take strong positions or spend political capital if he can avoid it, but co-opts the other side until the movement becomes inevitable. Is that what he's doing here? If so, then our ire as a community may be part of the gameplan, lulling the bad guys into a false sense of security.

Re. DADT, we have a lot of noise and anger about Choi and Fehrenbach . Then we hear the nominated secretary of the Army is a Republican Congressman --- more ire, until we learn he reportedly thinks everyone should be able to serve. Most Americans agree. Movement becomes inevitable....?

Re. DOMA, there are hearings in Congress to examine bi-national couples, who essentially become exiles because the American partner can't sponsor their partner. These are of course opposed by the bad guys, because they fear any weakening of DOMA. Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton is establishing policy that gives same sex partners the same rights and benefits regarding postings. Again, DOMA is tacitly under attack. Movement becomes inevitable?

Andrew Sullivan has coined the idea of Obama playing "rope-a-dope" with his political opponents, drawing them in before the knockout, making escape impossible. I'm not sure that's what is happening here, of course. But Obama's a smart politician. Our cause is still toxic to the middle he needs to woo. So it might....might..... be the case that he's actually facilitating some incremental movement without wanting to be seen to be doing anything.

And I guess time will tell.

DOMA defense worse than we think

While it can be argued that the DoJ has to defend DOMA, which (like it or not) is the law of the land right now, much of the fuss and bother over the DoJ's brief is in its savage depiction of gays and lesbians. It's every awful right-wing talking point. Just imagine what it will cost us in the political struggle to have THESE words thrown back at us as "Obama's DoJ says..."

John Culhane writes it's even worst than we think.

.... once that strategy matter is decided, there are all sorts of briefs one might write. The simplest, and least harmful, would have been to challenge the case on standing (since the plaintiffs hadn’t “applied” for federal benefits); to the extent a more substantive argument were thought advisable, a standard-issue argument about judicial deference would have sufficed. At the other end of the spectrum is the brief that was actually written.....The brief is a jaw-dropping assault on gays and lesbians. Instead of the kind of measured and careful response I was expecting (despite the jeremiads I was reading), I got a brief that seems to have been intended to set the course of judicial progress on gay rights back many years. I wish I were exaggerating.

Another lawyer at Lawdork:

Even if one argues, as I often have, that a government lawyer — from the Department of Justice to state attorneys general — must defend even those laws with which one disagrees*, such a lawyer needn’t overstate his or her case. The government lawyer defending a statute with which she disagrees needn’t add gratuitous demeaning statements into the legal brief she files.

Lawdork notes with some sarcasm in a related post,

It’s good to know that as Obama Department of Justice was putting the finishing touches on its pro-DOMA Motion to Dismiss in Smelt v. United States, it sent its highest-ranked openly gay Administration official to praise the President at an LGBT event at the DOJ....Although he didn’t realize, Berry’s question is best posed to the president or Holder themselves: “Where do you stand? Honoring love as precious and true wherever you find it, or with those who would demean or deny it?” In its DOMA filing, the Justice Department both demeaned LGBT people and denied our love.

Others are also gobsmacked. From The Independent Gay Forum:

It is gratuitously insulting to lesbians and gay men, referring (unnecessarily) to same-sex marriage as a “form” of marriage, approving of congressional comparisons between same-sex marriages and loving relationships between siblings, or grandparents and grandchildren, and arguing (with a straight face, I can only assume) that discrimination against same-sex couples is rational because it saves the federal government money. There are some respectable arguments in this motion, and this kind of disrespect is offensive.

Andrew Sullivan:

The deployment of arguments that refer to our relationships as equivalent to incest, that demand that we simply marry someone of the opposite sex if we want our civil rights, that implies federal recognition of our civil marriages would mean taxing some Americans to pay for something they abhor: this is simply salt in the wound, and it will be deployed and used by every far right gay-hater in the future, and cited as endorsed by the Obama administration.

The mainstream gay groups say (including ACLU, GLAD, Lambda Legal, NCLR, HRC and NGLTF)

When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.

The Justice department scrambled to defend themselves.

As it generally does with existing statute, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books,” said Justice Department spokesperson Tracy Schmaler. “As you know, the president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of DOMA, but until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it’s challenged.

The president, that "fierce advocate"? Sullivan again:

I also understand the need to defend existing law. But the zealous defense of DOMA - including repeating countless spurious and unnecessary slurs against gay people - need not be a lawyer's duty. It is a choice by his political superiors. It is not the fact of this brief, it is its contents and rhetoric that sting. They did not have to go this far.....The more I learn the clearer it is that this was a conscious decision by Obama's DOJ to use evey conceivable argument to kill any constitutional attack on DOMA. At the same time, they are clearly committed to doing nothing in the foreseeable future to enact any redress for those couples currently denied their civil rights. On top of this, they obviously did nothing to prepare gay couples or any gay leaders for this swipe at them. Why? Are relations that broken? Some judicious explanation ahead of time would surely have been in everyone's interest. But again, one gets the impression that for the Obama administration, gay people are a burden, a distraction and a bore.

This brief goes beyond narrow definitions and legal parsing. It's brutalizing. And for an administration that is supposed to be so on the ball, so talented, so on-message, it's hard to believe that no one reviewed this. Knowing how the GLBT community has been feeling, it's absolutely remarkable that a brief straight out of the Bush era got though with these kinds of arguments. So, I see several possibilities. (1) Sullivan is right, and the White House doesn't care. (2) it has made a calculating decision to make the GLBT community the whipping boy, to show the right-wingers in this quest for bi-partisanship that they can all agree on the icky gays, or (3) it is hoping this thing gets refute forcefully in court. But wouldn't possibility (3) be against legal ethics? Lawyers don't write briefs intending to lose. So sadly, regretfully, I can't see much likelihood in (3).

And this vicious hurtful brief was ironically released on June 12, the 42nd anniversary of Loving v. Virginia.

Update From Joe Sudbay

Yesterday, a Democratic President of the United States of America, in the year 2009, and an African-American child of inter-racial parents no less, gave his lawyers the go ahead to compare our marriages to incest on the same day that 42 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in his parents' favor in Loving v. Virginia. And these people, along with our President, are suggesting that the appropriate response is to shrug our shoulders and go home, since, after all, the law is the law?

Update from gay activist David Mixner:

You fully need to understand the ramifications of this brief: it undercuts every conceivable argument that the LGBT community would use to fight for the repeal of DOMA. Right-wing nut cases can now just simply quote horrible stuff from this hateful brief and proclaim loudly it was filed by the Obama Justice Department. The President and his team have not only undercut this community but have damaged his own ability to repeal this hideous law given to us by President Clinton. With Democratic friends like these, God helps us.

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? 

The Main Stream Media finally notices the DOMA brief

The news about the DOMA brief heated up the blogs, but didn't get much traction with the MSM until yesterday. There was a fair story from CBS on their website. Even the Wall Street Journal noticed the letter from HRC that I excerpted below. But the best one is the NY Times editorial.

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act,

...The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people....

The brief also maintains that the Defense of Marriage Act represents a “cautious policy of federal neutrality” — an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits — such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns — that heterosexual married couples receive.....

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution....

In times like these, issues like repealing the marriage act can seem like a distraction — or a political liability. But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.

Good Op/Ed.

Meanwhile, over on Rachel Maddow's show, former DNC chair Howard Dean explains the likely political fallout.

“The language in this brief is really offensive and it really is a terrible mistake,” said Dean. “I doubt very much the president knew this was coming. I don’t think for a minute this represents the president’s position. But he is now going to have to dig himself out of this, because people are really upset about this, not just in the gay and lesbian community, but in the community of people who are interested in equal rights,” he said.

Update: The LA Times joins in

On Sunday, the administration's top-ranking openly gay official offered a less-than-stellar prognosis for gay rights. Obama remains committed to banning employment discrimination against gays, along with repealing the marriage act and "don't ask, don't tell," said John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, and that will happen "before the sun sets on this administration." The implication was that much of this agenda might wait until a second term.

The gap between Obama and gay rights activists appears to be growing. True, the current federal lawsuits against the marriage act and Proposition 8 fail to recognize that a hasty march can be damaging to gay rights. The current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court makes it highly unlikely that such lawsuits will succeed, and adverse decisions could set the same-sex marriage movement back by years. From an ideological viewpoint, gays and lesbians are entitled to their rights now. But well-planned timing gives them the best chance of securing those rights soon. Obama, though, has shown a dishearteningly pragmatic willingness to allow the issue of gay rights to languish. The many Americans who support these rights expect better of him.

Why it matters: Visiting your loved ones in the hospital

One of the many reasons to advocate for marriage equality is the numerous examples of legal partners being denied hospital access, despite having domestic partnerships or registered powers of attorney.

Cases like this one, in Florida, where a woman died apart from her partner who was denied access

Or this one, in Washington, where a woman was told "get out, you don't belong here!" as her partner died.

So we have to be happy at some level that the President has issued a memorandum that everyone should have the right to have a loved one with them, regardless of status.

Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides -- whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.

And then mandates access. That's nice, isn't it?

Note sarcasm.

Of course, it's not limited to Teh Gay, so it may be a little more palatable to some. But if you think this means marriage equality somehow no longer matters? As Andrew Sullivan says,

I fear it's a way to tell gays they cannot marry. The Democrats will say: see, you can already have hospital visitation rights. Now please stop alienating people with all this civil rights talk. And the Human Rights Campaign can last a thousand years mediating these morsels of compassion from the executive branch. I favor the right to designate anyone in advance as your next of kin in hospital. But for gays, I favor merely the same rights as straights. Which means to say: no more and no less than civil marriage.

Update This WaPo article is very congratulatory. But wouldn't it have been more effective for them to say, "this is why we have to repeal DOMA?"

Kerry Eleveld in the Advocate writes,

But as I look at the list of advancements President Obama has made for LGBT Americans, I can’t escape noticing that nearly all of them fall under the heading “Too politically palatable to have a downside.”

It’s an ever-growing list of small, incremental steps toward equality that are most certainly positive but still fall far short of the campaign promises that Sen. Barack Obama ran on.....

The problem with these advances is that almost every one of them could essentially be swept away by the next administration. Just look at what kind of havoc Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has wreaked in Virginia in terms of rolling back discrimination protections for LGBT people. ...

President Obama has two glaring opportunities to create lasting change this year: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal. Passing either one of them would mark the single biggest advancement for LGBT equality in this nation's history, but that window of opportunity narrows with every passing day.

I unequivocally applaud the president's action, but I also never witnessed a campaign rally where Obama told a roaring crowd of supporters, “And as president, I will confer certain benefits on same-sex couples!”

I am a gay, married Californian whose marriage evaporates when I leave this state. When is our fierce advocate going to give me equal protection?

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.

Will the Obama White House step up?

Andrew Sullivan writes a strong piece in The Fierce Urgency of Whenever.

I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

I can't say I'm surprised. Disappointed, yes, but we knew it was coming, didn't we? We even knew it was coming when the Pro-Prop8 forces used Obama's voice, with only a very tepid response.

Washington politics is a lot like the end of Animal Farm. Everyone gets corrupted there. "No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Obama watch

Steve Hildebrand was Obama's deputy campaign director. He was recently interviewed by gay journalist Rex Wockner. A few choice quotes:

[Obama] reassured me that he will not disappoint the gay community during his time as president, that the promises he made during the campaign are promises he will fulfill, and he was very forthright about his commitment to equality. And, people will accuse me -- probably rightfully so -- that I'm a Kool-Aid drinker, that I believe in this guy, but I've been around a lot of very important politicians in my lifetime and I think this guy is different and I do trust him to do what is right. I also believe that he knows how to get things done, and that he will make a significant difference in a positive way in the lives of gay and lesbian Americans.

On how to make a difference:

I don't think our voices are as powerful as they should be. I think too many people in the gay community do not push their elected officials as hard as they should. If you had 20 gay people together in a room and asked how many of them actually have reached out and either called, e-mailed or sent a letter to their member of Congress over the last two months, I would say the vast, vast majority of them will have done nothing. My suggestion is that people need to become strong activists, that we need to multiply by hundreds the number of activists we have in the gay community. We need more voices, we need louder voices, and we need to tell politicians at every level we're not willing to take their excuses anymore......if people want things done, they should demand action from Congress, they should demand action from the president, they should demand action from their school boards, from their city council members, their mayors, their legislators, their governors, everybody. They should demand action within their churches.

Read the whole thing!

Meanwhile, President Obama sat down with the Catholic Press over the fourth of July. Let's listen in to what he said (from US News):

For the gay and lesbian community in this country, I think it's clear that they feel victimized in fairly powerful ways and they're often hurt by not just certain teachings of the Catholic Church, but the Christian faith generally. And as a Christian, I'm constantly wrestling with my faith and my solicitude and regard and concern for gays and lesbians.

The US News reporter thinks this will "effortlessly" appeal to social liberals because he's "struggling" to reconcile faith and equality. I don't think so. Uh, Mr President? Lots of Christians support gay rights from a place of faith. We've talked about that here, here, here and here. There are even (Gasp!) gay Christians. So you don't have to place your faith in opposition to our rights. They go hand in hand.

The Fierce Advocacy FlipFlop

The SF Chronicle published a story about Obama's "about-face on same sex marriage".

Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate in Chicago in February 1996 when he answered a questionnaire from a gay-oriented newspaper, Outlines, on gay rights issues. One of his answers was, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

So what happened?

The Windy City Times, which later acquired Outlines, said it interviewed Obama in 2004, when he was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate. In a January 2009 article recapping the interview, the newspaper quoted him as saying he no longer supported same-sex marriage "primarily just as a strategic issue," and not because he had changed his philosophy.

....Instead, he endorsed civil unions, a designation that did not exist in 1996.

Obama takes the same stance today - yes on equal rights and civil unions, no on same-sex marriage - but attributes the distinction to his religious convictions.

Yes, but the problem with that is that his associated denomination, the United Church of Christ, is pro-equality.

In 2005, the United Church of Christ's governing General Synod passed a resolution endorsing "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender." The church, with 1.1 million members, is the largest U.S. denomination to support same-sex marriage.

Is it entirely political expediency (news flash, I don't think the right wing could hate him any more than they already do)? Or is it truly that he can't abide by me being married?

Here's an example of his discomfort in an event in Florida:

Q: All right, I’m Hector and I’m a student at UT. (Applause.) And my question is, last night you talked about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and my question is what are you doing now to put in motion so that same-sex couples and homosexuals are treated as equal citizens of the United States, i.e., same-sex marriages and the thousand-plus benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy after marriage? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Look, as I said last night, my belief is, is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you’re obeying the law, if you’re following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are. (Applause.) I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples. So at the federal level, one of the things that we’re trying to do is to make sure that partnerships are recognized for purposes of benefits so that hospital visitation, for example, is something that is permitted; that Social Security benefits or pension benefits or others, that same-sex couples are recognized in all those circumstances.

I think that we’ve got to — we actually have an opportunity of passing a law that’s been introduced in Congress right now, and my hope is this year we can get it done, just for federal employees and federal workers. A lot of companies, on their own, some of the best-run companies have adopted these same practices. I think it’s the right thing to do and it makes sense for us to take a leadership role in ensuring that people are treated the same. (Applause.)

Look, if you are — regardless of your personal opinions, the notion that somebody who’s working really hard for 30 years can’t take their death benefits and transfer them to the person that they love the most in the world and who has supported them all their lives, that just doesn’t seem fair. It doesn’t seem right. (Applause.) And I think it’s the right thing to do.

Uh-huh. Not marriage.Not the 1000+ benefits of marriage. Separate. He's awkward about it. Does that mean he really favors marriage, but for expediency feels he can't say anything? Or as an intelligent man, he knows that using religious excuses to deny civil liberties is wrong? Or that he just feels "ick"?

Regardless, it's concerning that the White House now endorses an anti-GLBT democrat for senator in Indiana to replace Bayh next fall.

Ellsworth emerged as the favored candidate of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the White House ....Handsome, telegenic and with the sort of voting record during his two terms in the House that makes him a viable statewide candidate in conservative-minded Indiana

BUT with an abyssmal record on GLBT rights:

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest LGBT political organization, ranks Ellsworth as one of the ten worst Democratic Congress members when it comes to LGBT issues; he scored a meager 30 out of 100 possible points.

So, is it better to have a Democrat in congress voting against us, or a Republican? What about in the White House? What's wrong with this picture?

True conservatives

From Prop8TrialTracker:

The Indepdendent reports today that Michael Ashcroft, a former deputy chairman of the UK’s Conservative Party, has told Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron that he should stand up to those on the far right of his party who oppose marriage equality, arguing that to do otherwise would be even more politically damaging...

.... The poll found that 41 percent of respondents favored equal marriage rights, with 27 percent having no opinion. Thirty-one percent opposed marriage equality, but only 12 percent of that group said their vote would be affected by the issue.
....
That point stands in rather stark contradiction to American conservatives, who this week voted for a Republican party platform that is strongly anti-marriage equality and calls for a constitutional amendment banning marriages for gays and lesbians. In addition, the platform committee overwhelmingly (and, according to the Washington Post, noisily) voted down language that would have supported civil unions. Lord Ashcroft’s statements about “joiners and considerers” shows that on gay issues, the Republican party is becoming increasingly a small-tent operation, while in the UK, marriage equality has effectively ceased to be a partisan issue.

It has been pointed out many times that marriage equality is a deeply conservative belief.  The UK conservatives get that.  And it's yet more evidence that there are no conservatives left in the Republican party.  Andrew Sullivan writes passionately that the Republicans aren't conservative at all, but instead a religious populist association.  And just as I find Obama too conservative, Andrew finds him a true conservative.

That's why I have long been baffled as to why people said my preference over Obama was some kind of shift to the ideological left. Nope. Against a radical right, reckless, populist insurgency, Obama is the conservative option, dealing with emergent problems with pragmatic calm and modest innovation. He seeks as a good Oakeshottian would to reform the country's policies in order to regain the country's past virtues. What could possibly be more conservative than that? Or less conservative than the radical fusion of neoconservatism, theoconservatism and opportunism that is the alternative? 

For thinking conservatives of a classic variety, Obama is the best president since Clinton and the first Bush. We need him for the next four years if we are to avoid the catastrophes that always follow revolutionary ideology. Like another Iraq; or another Katrina; or another Lehman.

Obama's DoJ defends DOMA

We've been talking for sometime about whether Obama will do anything about DOMA.

Well, his DOJ will actively SUPPORT it. The DoJ has filed a brief defending DOMA in California, with every right-wing anti-gay talking point you would expect from a Bush Administration.

The SF Chronicle reports

This case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment ... on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married," the motion states. "Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions.

"It's a different case from a recent federal lawsuit by two unmarried gay couples in California who claim a civil right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on "whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.

"Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no," the motion states.

Americablog quotes the brief, which cites incest as a justification for denying marriage recognition. A big part of it claims DOMA is good for the federal budget, because if you deprive people of rights, it's cheaper. Now remember, this is OBAMA'S Department of Justice.

Likewise, Section 3 of DOMA merely clarifies that federal policy is to make certain benefits available only to those persons united in heterosexual marriage, as opposed to any other possible relationship defined by law, family, or affection. As a result, gay and lesbian individuals who unite in matrimony are denied no federal benefits to which they were entitled prior to their marriage; they remain eligible for every benefit they enjoyed beforehand. DOMA simply provides, in effect, that as a result of their same-sex marriage they will not become eligible for the set of benefits that Congress has reserved exclusively to those who are related by the bonds of heterosexual marriage. In short, then, the failure in this manner to recognize a certain subset of marriages that are recognized by a certain subset of States cannot be taken as an infringement on plaintiffs' rights, even if same-sex marriage were accepted as a fundamental right under the Constitution.

The whole brief is here. (This is not the high-profile case recently filed by Boies and Olson. This is an earlier case.)

I posted this originally at Daily Kos, where many commenters pointed out that the DoJ has to defend a legal statute. After all, one of the complaints about the Bush administration was their politicization of the DoJ, which is supposed to function independently. DOMA is legal, like it or not, until the spineless Congresscritters repeal it. But the language in the brief is incendiary. My marriage is not to be recognized for the same reason incestuous marriages are not recognized? It's vastly insulting. And there is a strong defense of DOMA for purely BUDGETARY reasons.

Which leads me back to a diary I wrote a few days ago. Is Obama really moving slowly on gay rights, or is he being very subtle? Is comparing our marriages to incest and supporting DOMA by citing the budget meant to be so ridiculous an argument that any sane person would dismiss it? I wish I knew.

Federal employee benefits: married people need not apply

Obama signed today a memorandum for partner benefits that federal employees already had. In his remarks, Obama says the right words:

I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it.

"I am also proud to announce my support for an important piece of legislation introduced in both Houses of Congress last month -- the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009. This legislation will extend to the same-sex partners of Federal employees the same benefits already enjoyed by the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. ....

"Extending equal benefits to the same-sex partners of Federal employees is the right thing to do. It is also sound economic policy. Many top employers in the private sector already offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees; those companies recognize that offering partner benefits helps them compete for and retain the brightest and most talented employees. The Federal Government is at a disadvantage on that score right now, and change is long overdue.

"As Americans, we are all affected when our promises of equality go unfulfilled. Through measures like the Presidential Memorandum I am issuing today and the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, we will advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded and continue to perfect our Union."

Meanwhile, Aravosis counters that DOMA did NOT prevent actual benefits (you know, like health care?)

Here's why: DOMA prohibits granting benefits based on marriage, it does not prohibit granting benefits overall. Thus, you define a standard that isn't marriage, such as domestic partnerships as defined by, say, the amount of time spent dating, living together, comingling funds, etc. Had Obama simply said we will give health benefits to the domestic partners, straight and gay, of all federal employees, and given a definition of domestic partner that does not include marriage of civil unions, he could have done it.

Interesting theory. THere is some support to this because Federal judges have found (although not by court ruling) that two gay justice department employees are entitled to health benefits; the rulings implied that since the employees weren't married, they could be eligible. Even if it's not true that Obama could have done it NOW, under DOMA and the pending DP act, it sounds like gay couples who legally married in their home states are the only ones that will be ineligible for proper benefits. Inotherwords, marriage will DEPRIVE people of benefits.

I'm afraid at this point, though, talk is cheap. An executive memo (that will expire when he leaves office) that gives people sick leave and long term care insurance, doesn't really count as significant movement. I am expecting some fierce advocating, here, that will make ALL Americans full citizens.

Update: The NY Times has an editorial.