Obama Faces Gay Groups' Growing Anger
(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
On Monday, Joe Solmonese, the president of the establishment gay rights group The Human Rights Campaign, sent an angry letter to the president objecting to the decision by the Obama Justice Department to file a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act.
"I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours," Solmonese wrote. "I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you."
The Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, mandates (1) that the federal government not recognize same-sex marriages and (2) that states not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
Mr. Obama vowed to repeal DOMA as a presidential candidate but he has not taken any action to do so since becoming president. The Justice Department brief calls the legislation a "valid exercise of Congress' power" and says it is "reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage."
"The government does not state why denying us basic protections promotes anyone else's marriage, nor why, while our heterosexual neighbors' marriages should be promoted, our own must be discouraged," Solmonese writes in his letter.
He goes onto single out a portion of the brief referencing a case involving "marriage of uncle to niece" to support the Justice position.
"I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones," he writes.
After the brief was filed, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that while the president has said he is committed to repealing DOMA, "until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."
But the president, who is wary of opening up a fight over social issues that could endanger his ambitious agenda on health care and other issues, has not asked Congress to do so. And as blogger and gay rights advocate John Aravosis points out, Justice has chosen not to defend laws in the past, undercutting the implication that the department had no choice but to do so.
As CBSNews.com reported earlier this month, the president has also declined to take action on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military, despite campaign promises to do so. While the administration has suggested it is working with the military to repeal the policy responsibly, the Pentagon says there have not been any serious discussions along those lines.
Many of the staffers in the Obama White House also served under President Bill Clinton, and they remember well how much political capital taking on gay rights cost Clinton early in his administration. But while gay rights advocates signaled sympathy to those concerns early in the Obama administration, their patience appears to be running out. (The picture above comes from a gay rights rally late last month.)
It should be noted that there do appear to be efforts on behalf of gay Americans in the works: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he is looking to pass hate crimes legislation before the August recess, and the extension of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees is said to be on the way. But these are widely viewed as significant but relatively minor potential victories, and are not likely to quiet the growing anger among gay advocates if they do go through.
To do that, the president would likely need to take action on either DOMA or "don't ask, don't tell." And that probably won't happen anytime soon. On Sunday, John Berry, who is director of Office of Personnel Management and the highest-ranking gay official under Mr. Obama, told The Advocate that the administration plans to take action on both DOMA and "don't ask," as well as an employment nondiscrimination bill, "before the sun sets on this administration."
Asked if that timeframe included a second term, Berry said, "I say this in a broad sense -- our goal is to get this done on this administration's watch."
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- Obama prom pictures surface 130 Comments
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 156 Comments
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 283 Comments
- Now, some unions upset over Obamacare
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave 131 Comments
- Rand Paul uses 2016 bully pulpit to push Obama on drones
Keith Olberman would come out with a liberal comment about how Obama would CHANGE things on gay marriage for the betterment of the gay community and Ann Coulter would come out with a conservative comment on how Obama would CHANGE things on gay marriage for the detriment of family values and everyone assume that was what Obama said. He didn?t say it, THEY DID!
Obama had association with Wright and Ayers and because they were radicals Olberman and Coulter went off on their opposing diatribes on how Obama was a radical. Obama never said that he agreed with the philosophy or agenda of either man. The commentators did and everyone assume that Obama had said.
Barbara Streisand held a fund raiser for Obama; obvious conclusion, since everyone in Hollywood is gay then Obama will oppose the DOMA. Guilt by association and the guilt is yours for making that association.
It was all about tweets and twitters, sound bytes and comments and not about actually listening to what was actually being said.
Obama and his wife said in their family interview that they were not in favor of gay marriage. Yet, everyone came to believe that he would be more liberal on the subject than McCain who had a gay daughter.
Obama only said that he would reevaluate the detainee situation. Yet everyone came to believe that he would be more liberal on torturing prisoners than McCain who had been tortured as a prisoner of war.
You bought into the hype. Not the hype of the political candidates, but the hype of the networks and the commentators who, for different reasons, put across their interpretation because it was good polarizing media.
Worse is yet to come. As newspapers fold and more and more the twitters and the blogs become the method of putting out information the more that this will happen. You will no longer hear about a party?s manifesto, but 140 characters of comment passed through the ether like a game of telephone.
Marriage started out as a busness arraignment to unit the lands and fortunes of families and tribes. More often than not the couples never even met before the marriage. It was about money and power.
The nobles and the rich were getting married for thousands of years to seal contracts before anyone thought of bringing love into the picture.
Why do you think they came to use the terms legitimate and illegitimate for children? It was to determine who was the legitimate heir to the fortune
The nobles and the rich were getting married for thousands of years to seal contracts before anyone thought of bringing love into the picture. Yet, the original idea of money and property is still the over riding issue.
In ancient times if someone wanted to get rid of a marriage partner armies were sdispatched to take back their property. Now instead of soldiers with swords they send lawyers with writs. They still lay seige to castles and hold children hostage until they gain their share of the kingdom, so nothing has really changed, except the fallacy that it all began about love.
If you wonder why the government is involved in the marriage business then get divorced. The IRS will let you know when they swoop in to make sure that the govenment gets it share of the spoils.
Get your kids and grandkids ready for it and don't subject them to being in the social fringes
Also homosexuals might demand as expicit sexual depictions on television as do their heterosexual conterparts do. Here again it should help the general public appreciate they are really no different than any other couple.
Come on now guys, why don't you really come out of the closet once and for all.
For all sense and purposes, will someone please explain what is the legal definition of "gay" at the state level and the federal level? I cannot find one. And, how can you prove someone is 100% gay as opposed to 50% gay or even 5% gay? Can two gay people produce a heterosexual child? I mean you're getting into some really strange legal precedent here.
I understand the argument the genitals form before the brain, but the U.S. Constitution makes specific mention of homosexuality nor does it specifically mention marriage. That means marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.
Moreover, why is there a distinction between lesbian and gay? The U.S. Constitution did not define these terms.
"To assist an assembly to accomplish in the best possible manner the work for which it was designed, it is necessary to restrain the individual somewhat, as the right of an individual, in any community, to do what he pleases, is incompatible with the interests of the whole. Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty."
There are many things people are denied on a daily basis. Gays feel they are an exception.
At what point do you stop and say, "okay. enough is enough. no one is dying here."
Exactly what would happen if you couldn't marry? Oh, you wouldn't be permitted to transfer property and be able to do hospital visits for a sick spouse. Those are the benefits of being married. These are not enumerated civil rights.