Political Hotsheet
June 15, 2009 5:58 PM

Obama Faces Gay Groups' Growing Anger

(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
The anger from gay rights advocates toward President Obama is starting to boil over.

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."
Tags:
DOMA ,
Don't Ask Don't Tell ,
Gay ,
Defense Of Marriage Act ,
Barack Obama
Topics:
Gay Issues
Add a Comment See all 105 Comments
by impeachbhb June 16, 2009 8:55 AM EDT
You gay people believed him???
Reply to this comment
by AttentionDeficit June 16, 2009 6:37 AM EDT
Why is government in the marriage business?
Reply to this comment
by spiritwalk June 16, 2009 6:06 AM EDT
Obama is not guilty of going back on his word. All he promised was CHANGE and everyone interpreted that to mean what they wanted it to mean. People took sound bytes from the news and whatever commentary they were inclined to pick up, from both sides and assumed positions that Obama never took.

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.
Reply to this comment
by spiritwalk June 16, 2009 11:37 AM EDT
The government is in the marriage business because marriage is business and always has been.

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.
by gkgmd June 16, 2009 3:34 AM EDT
Homophobic disenfranchisement is repulsive, repugnant and nauseatingly wrong. It is sickening to see people continue to be a part of it. Don't associate yourself with this foul stench of irrationality and end up in a social fringe group--at least for the sake of your children. Look around you, it is becoming a repulsive position just like being a member of the Klu Klux Klan or Neo-Nazi Party. The Dark Ages continue to lift from society.
Reply to this comment
by gkgmd June 16, 2009 3:26 AM EDT
We won't. It is no different than Nazism, Klanship, Misogyny, or any other undeducated primitive form of paranoid hatred. It is wrong. The writing is on the wall and everyone sees it. The drumbeat is not going to lessen in strenth, everyone sees that. It is only going to get louder as we convert people away from immoral deluded brainwashed mindsets. I've seen the Mountain top and we will overcome.

Get your kids and grandkids ready for it and don't subject them to being in the social fringes
Reply to this comment
by Street_Law June 16, 2009 3:20 AM EDT
I can accept Obama's reluctance so long as gay factions do not demand exposure in Viagra and Cielas commercials to show how truly normal and loving such relationships are. We can only assume that erectile disfunction affects gays.

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.
Reply to this comment
by okayokayok June 16, 2009 3:16 AM EDT
I am new to this debate and its sickening to hear homosexuals compare themselves to blacks or African-Americans. Gays struggling for rights is an oxymoron. They are not struggling and their struggle has nothing to do with national security or civil rights. Gays simply want civil benefits.

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.
Reply to this comment
by gkgmd June 16, 2009 2:51 AM EDT
Get used to it folks! You are going to share. The writing is on the wall. Prepare your kids and don't teach 'em to be haters. It is no longer the "in" thing socially. Don't let your kids and grand kids be in shady social groups like the Klan or Neo-Nazi's. It is time to adapt. It is a priority look at the times.
Reply to this comment
by ameroseas1 June 16, 2009 2:45 AM EDT
Obama can only tackle what he considers a priority, and this does not rank up there. period.
Reply to this comment
by ameroseas1 June 16, 2009 2:42 AM EDT
Obama is president
Reply to this comment
by ameroseas1 June 16, 2009 2:40 AM EDT
Gay rights issues pretty much only surfaced during the primary, which is why Obama said what he said. During the general, those were not made a key issue. This is why Obama hasn't done anything. He was placating part of his base during the primary and then avoided the issue during the general to avoid offending the for example 55% of Californians who voted down same sex marriage.
Reply to this comment
by aubfmet June 16, 2009 1:05 AM EDT
They have got to learn to write shorter stories about this subject. I haven got the time to read long stories and then discover that they are going in the wrong direction.
Reply to this comment
by pepperwood2 June 16, 2009 1:02 AM EDT
Well now - Golleee do I detect a another blatant hostility & attack mode surfacing from our lovely gay folk towards Our President, Our Country & The Straight People that are supposed to be paying for their Life Style??

Reminds me of the Gay activists showing their true colors following the Miss USA Pageant towards Carrie Prejean. If I am mistaken please do not hesitate to respond in the usual vicious diatribe and prove my point. So Sad!

I'm proud that Our President has the courage to stand up for DOMA. He's going to be a Great President.
Reply to this comment
by gkgmd June 16, 2009 1:12 AM EDT
You guys are on the losing side in actuality. Look at the progress we've made in 20 years. Might as well get used to the idea of sharing marriage with us--at least your kids and grandkids need to have your help in getting them adjusted to the new culture.
by Yeah-Me June 16, 2009 12:52 AM EDT
by jankebenzone June 15, 2009 9:24 PM PDT
The anger from gay rights advocates toward President Obama is starting to boil over.

The "boiling' is just the precursor to the eternal frying when the gays face the wrath of God.
============================

And religious arguments should have no place in determining state/federal benefits and protections based from domestic partnerships/marriage.
Reply to this comment
by jankebenzone June 16, 2009 12:24 AM EDT
The anger from gay rights advocates toward President Obama is starting to boil over.

The "boiling' is just the precursor to the eternal frying when the gays face the wrath of God.
Reply to this comment
by gkgmd June 16, 2009 12:54 AM EDT
Burn, baby, burn! I can't wait to be there! Save me a place in line.
by gkgmd June 15, 2009 11:51 PM EDT
Sounds like you think propagation of your genetic material is more "tax-worthy" armyoftwelve. Is that your premise?
Reply to this comment
by armyoftwelve June 15, 2009 11:45 PM EDT
The gays and lesbians have no personal agenda
by saturn05 June 15, 2009 7:47 PM PDT

There's nothing altruistic about this crap. They are advocating for their own personal interests, period.
Now, when I raise money to support the local soup kitchen-THATS altruistic. No personal agenda there, no siree.
Reply to this comment
by armyoftwelve June 15, 2009 11:40 PM EDT
All the REAL issues this country is facing and some people think that Obama should waste time on this.....S-E-L-F-I-S-H!
Reply to this comment
by gkgmd June 15, 2009 11:34 PM EDT
SamuelRush

It doesn't fit because those suffering religiosity can't see how they repeat the same error over and over. Religiosity is the illness.
Reply to this comment
by saturn05 June 15, 2009 10:47 PM EDT
There is nothing controversial about same-sex marriage for those who understand human nature and that we are all here on the same earth trying to get along. The only controversial issue is that religious zealots try to shove down everyone's throat their personal agenda. The gays and lesbians have no personal agenda. If they have an agenda, it would be similar in thought to the black agenda. We are all equal and thus deserve human and civil rights. Can you imagine telling a black person they can't vote or get married or own property because of the color of their skin. Oh, wait a minute, they did have that happen to them. Can you just imagine what your ancestors would be thinking now? They would be turning over in their graves at the thought of inter-racial marriage and that blacks can demand the same rights at their job place, their living situation, and even public drinking fountains. It maybe apples and oranges to some people, but really it is not. Don't be ignorant and use the bible as an excuse for hating a particular group of people. I don't hate you for being spiteful and bigoted. You maybe, but I don't hate you for it since you have the constitutional right to your opinion. But when it comes to public law being made to exclude certain groups of people...blacks and homosexuals, it is wrong on so many levels. Just my opinion maybe, but I believe AI have the Constitution behind me, not a bible that is nothing but faith, no fact, just faith. I wqant our world to be run by fact and common sense, not on any one religion that divides even its own members on political issue. Be kind.
Reply to this comment
by SamuelRush June 15, 2009 10:50 PM EDT
While using the analogy of discrimination against blacks a convenient one, it doesn't fit very well. Blacks are a protected class protected by the Equal Protection Clause, homosexuals are not. The characteristics of being black and the history behind racial discrimination in this country is also much different
by debinok1 June 16, 2009 12:12 AM EDT
I agree Samuel. The history of racial discrimination was much different. Nobody is telling gays they cannot sit at the same counter as straight people. Nobody is sending them to the back of the bus. Nobody is forcing them to drink from a different fountain or attend a different school. They are not being denied the right to press charges against or testify against a straight person. BIG DIFFERENCE.
See all 105 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER