Obama Offers Gays a Consolation Prize of Extended Benefits

Obama didn't have to defend DOMA.

Howard Dean protested on The Rachel Maddow Show that he doubts Obama himself was aware of the recently filed brief in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. But weeks ago, many new outlets, including my column on this site, covered the fact that the President has the legal right to refuse to defend clearly unconstitutional laws.

I have no doubt that President Obama was well aware of the brief filed in defense of DOMA. He also has indicated that his office intends to defend DOMA in subsequent legal challenges.

Despite this outrageous decision, in the great game of politics, Obama is attempting to silence the gay outcry by announcing the extension of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Dean went so far to suggest that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would appease the LGBT community.

Well, I hate to be the one to explain a rights struggle to the first Black President, but the equality movement is not a grab bag of rights. You don't get to reach in and see which prize you've won. Each of the rights discussed above - the right to benefits for your partner, the right to serve openly in the military and the right to access the same tax breaks and immigration privileges given to heterosexual couples - should be granted. Immediately. Granting one does not absolve trespass over the other rights.

Obama has made it clear that he will do only the minimum necessary to avoid a gay revolution. Gay rights are consistently moved to the bottom of the political barrel. He thinks extending benefits to a few federal employees is sufficient.

It's our job to let him know that is not enough.

Now is the time to pull the funding you have given to the DNC (like some of the most high profile gay leaders in this country). Now is the time to send a letter explaining why you won't be directing any future donations to the Obama administration no matter how many nice emails they send you. Now is the time to blog, argue and get angry.

If it takes national outrage to explain to Obama that rights aren't optional consolation prizes to be granted when his administration does something wrong, then we must deliver national outrage.

The signing of the presidential memo granting benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees will be at 5:45 pm today. The President is expected to make a few remarks.

Comments

[CornetMustich]

DOMA, DADT, more "war funding," bail outs for Wall St speculators....no national health program?

As Malcolm X once said, and I'm paraphrasing here, snakes can be white, as well as black.

It's time for marriage equality and fairness in America.

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
Washington, Connecticut USA

http://justicesofthepeace.blogspot.com

[PhilipB]

Dear Emma Ruby-Sachs,
I appreciate your post.
I have enjoyed reading all the comments.
I have to say that in reading certain comments there seem to be "code words" that reveal to me that this commentator cares not at all for equality, or not equality for Gays and Lesbians...
phrases like:
you people
selfish
panties in a bunch
throwing a fit
can always marry someone from the opposite sex
have to wait for ( all kinds of things...hell freezing over comes to mind)

I have to say laughed (gallows humor) at the absurdity of benefits without benefits. I did not laugh when my long time relationship with my partner( anniversary tomorrow! yay!) was equated with ( ah, bother I don't want to repeat it) I was disgusted by that.

The DNC has taken my support for granted for years, and i have e-mailed them to let them know that my equality is not something i am just sit around and wait for.
Thanks!

[LintLass]

I suspect the health plan isn't included in this benefits plan since Obama is presently trying to pass some health care for everyone, regardless of where they work. Doesn't really make the situation fair, but I can see not wanting to invest more in the old system right now.

[motodude]

If the Obama DOJ is going to use comparaisons like incest and child marrying in their DOMA defense briefs then gays should withhold all funding and votes from democrats. Hypocritical lip service from the white house is much worse than the open attacks from republicans.

[LintLass]

I still have to wonder who actually appoointed those DOJ people. Are they holdovers?

[GardenerNorCal]

I think instead of fighting for gay marriage we should fight to have all mention of marriage and benefits conferred on those married be removed from all law and civil codes as discriminatory.

[JumpDownTurnAround]

I could go for that!

[Silver123]

I agree completely.
Our society has changed -- marriage used to be between 2 unequal partners. Like it or not, those days are over.

[mykelb]

Teh government still purports to have a "rational basis" for regulating marriage (and that's what it is when you have to pay a fee to get a license, regulation). It claims that marriage is a stabilizing force in society (which is proven out by actuarial tables and statistics). However, if you look at other countries in Europe (where there are far less religionists), marriage for everyone is the order of the day and has not de-stabilized their society. So, for anyone who believes in logic, marriage equality in the U.S. should be a no brainer.

[superstition]

Marriage is a secular institution due to the 1st Amendment which secularizes our legal system completely. We cannot have theocratic laws.

Atheists can get married. There really is no fight if one looks at the 1st and 14th Amendments. The only thing it takes is for people to admit that gay people are .... gay. Gay people have same-sex marriages.

[thecrustybastard]

The Democrats don't exist to get you your gay rights. How much more clear do they have to make it?

The party exists to make money, and to consolidate and broker political power. The donations you withhold hurts them today, but the votes you give to others hurts them long-term.

Tiny percentages determine the outcome of elections. We are that tiny percentage. A small number of progressives, feeling burned by the DNC, voted Nader over Gore and that really hurt the DNC.

They evidently need another reminder.

[joemondo]

It wouldn't matter if he gave every gay federal employee a solid gold Cadillac. It's not compensation for the DOMA brief.

[superstition]

True.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Our fierce advocate needs a Primer on FIERCE

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/fierce2.jpg

[mykelb]

He has probably never met Ru Paul.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Examining my reaction to Obama's non benefit benfits to Fed employees
Maybe the anger was just the overwhelming emotion blocking the rest. Tonight the HURT and broken trust has come to the front.
Neither of those are going to dissipate the way anger will.
I feel Obama purposely chose to inflict pain with that brief, and did the supposed amends so badly and insufficiently to make them mocking and insulting.
I don't believe what Obama says to me. That is going to be significant when he wants my support on other issues, or other funding or votes.

[abmabardy]

I have to believe this extremely bright, seemingly goodhearted man will keep his promise to work for equality. I have to believe that because the alternative is just too miserable to process.

While it would be extraordinarily courageous and inexpressibly admirable to stand up at this time and say "Enough" regarding discrimination against the LGBT community, it would also be very risky. Obama has much to do, and I believe he has chosen not to risk getting things done by allowing the right-wing to grab on to and go with this single issue, as they would surely do.

Some have said "Obama clearly stated he does not believe in same sex marriage". While he may not personally believe in it, that does not imply he would not support legislation granting full CIVIL rights including marriage. The difference is between a personal belief and a civil right. A person can hold a religious belief yet still understand and support the notion that the LAW ought not reflect any particular religious belief, especially since there are so many religions and in America, at least, we separate church and state.

Obama is a constitutional scholar, and as such, I am sure he understands the right and the need for Marriage Equality, whatever we eventuality choose to call it. His term is still very new, and hopefully he will get another term. I believe we will hear from him on this issue in a way that reflects this understanding.

.

[FearlessFreep]

"I have to believe that because the alternative is just too miserable to process." So reassuring!

[GardenerNorCal]

I agree .

[Charmed]

2010 will be JUST LIKE 1994......­.democrats just didn't learn anything from Clintons 1st year in office, LOL.......keep it up people, I see the republicans making a big come back in 2010....

[Tanyars5]

Yes, the Dems are not standing behind Obama at all.

[JackNasty]

You have it backwards.. The problem is Obama is not standing behind the Dems who elected him..

[triplettam]

Yes, "Justice delayed is justice denied." I agree; however, I think that 4-5 months into his administra­tion--with so many issues he is trying to handle--he has just decided to prioritize some issues so that he can get the things passed that are extremely important to everyone. The outcry by the Christian right when Obama confronts this issue next year might be enough to derail the measures to save the economy or fix health care were he to take it on right now. Same sex marriage would be meaningless if the economy goes down the crapper or health care takes over our budget. There are so many issue specific groups that are mad at him right now (anti-war, convict Bush Cheney, same sex marriage, etc.) because their issue isn't at the top of the list, I think it is really important for everyone to remember something. Do you all remember Bush II's first term. We didn't hear from him for 9 months, until after the attack. I think we should give Obama at least a year with all he's taking on.

[Badger84]

Thanks for the voice of reason. Ms. Ruby-Sachs is writing as an advocate, and she is a good one. However, she is not in the position of someone who is charged with the responsibilities of running the government. If she was, her position might be different. The president and the attorney general are charged with the responsibility of defending the laws of Congress. They also have the responsibility to guard the treasury. If the administration didn't defend DOMA--a law which has already been enacted and implemented, thus causing harm to individuals--it would open the federal government to civil suits for monetary damages. It would also be a breach of their legal duties. IMHO, DOMA is bad law but the administration inherited it. The r's don't care if they pass bad law. It will allow private lawsuits that will further drain the treasury and "stare the beast." Even Rep. Frank and Dr. Dean, said that while they objected to the perjorative language in the government 's brief on DOMA, they didn't deny the obligation to defend it. Defending the law's constitutionality doesn't preclude the administration from seeking to amend or repeal it.

[mykelb]

The President does not have to uphold the laws of Congress. They promise to uphold the Constitution. Didn't you watch the inauguration?

[mykelb]

The racial minority community did not let up pressure when the government sicked the dogs on them and hosed them down with fire hoses in the streets of America. The gay community has not had to deal with physical violence on that scale yet (we are picked off one by one by violent homophobes). The gay community only has this option: stop donating money, time, and giving cover to the Obama administration. The A-list gays are attending a DNC fundraiser coming up in DC this next week and I plan to be there picketing with a sign that says "NO GAY APARTHEID". There is movement afoot in the gay community to put up an "Out Of Order" sign on the GayTM for all who would impede the enactment of our civil rights.

[Gretel1or2]

During the Black civil rights movement, Martin Luther King did not personally demonize the then US president the way some people here seem to be doing. MLK called for peaceful protests, and did not expect results from a single president in 6 months.

Secondly, by making reference to the fact that this president is Black, as the blogger did, suggests that people hold different standards for him than they did from previous presidents who also promised to champion gay rights, simply because he is Black. If after 6 months, people are so willing to believe the worst about their president's integrity, because of a poorly worded legal document, they cannot condemn Sarah Palin trying to paint Obama as a "terrorist" because he once sat on a community board with Ayers. This president campaigned on change (ALL presidents do), and I think he is trying to work within a very flawed political and legal system to achieve his goals. However I believe that real change start from within and I suggest that people look in the mirror and be the change that they are trying to seek.

[gayandmarried]

It does make me wonder , had ALL the gay votes gone to mccain in the last election, would it have made a difference?

[superstition]

"For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law...

I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' On another occasion he said, 'I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.' Like Martin, I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others."
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/02/coretta_scott_king_on_gay_righ.php

Coretta Scott King gives her support to gay marriage
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-king-marriage_x.htm

[GardenerNorCal]

Yes but Martin didn't accomplish everything that needed to be accomplished in his lifetime it's unfair to expect our president to accomplish this at a time when the economy and the world is in turmoil. To focus on this one domestic issue would make any inroads into the undoing of the past administrations mistakes impossible during his first six months in office.

I can hear the fanatics on the right and their calls for even more violence and upheaval. Not to say we should be turned back by their hysteria but we need to be aware that it can be used to undo any good that may be possible at this moment.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

As an attorney, the author should know there is no civil rights issue. Gays have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, same as everyone else. The majority of Americans do not appear to desire the right to marry someone of the same sex.

[jmpurser]

Please change your log on name until you understand what the words mean.

Of course this is a civil rights issue. Until the government comes up with a REASON to deny gays the right of marriage they cannot deny them the right.

[madatnewsmedia]

Gays shouldn't have the right to marry someone of the same sex and their civil rights are not being denied. They are no more important than the economy, two wars, healthcare, etc. I am so sick of this issue. The entire country sat back for eight efffing years and allowed George Bush to railroad us into this mess, but the black president has to make everything right in five months! This just like the United States; if they can't have what they want immediately, let's hang the new president out to dry! Gays and lesbians are treated a lot better than most minorities!!

[madcat007]

Nice post jmpurser. People that think we should or could just marry anyone of the opposite sex shows how carefully they chose their life partners...may as well make everyone as miserable as they are! TruthJusticeForAll (whatever his definition) also doesn't seem to understand (as most homophobes don't) that because most Americans aren't gay, those that are shouldn't have rights to love or be loved and have that protected legally. Because they don't envision themselves with a same sex partner romantically they don't care to understand that we can't envision ourselves with the opposite sex. All homophobes think about is the physical part (making them the perverts in my mind) which is laughable because I knew I was attracted to girls years before I ever acted on it. Some of my closest friends are guys, but I have no attraction to men. Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden AND South Africa (believe it or not) all allow same sex marriage and the first six are never in the news for social unrest or injustice. The U.S. is a great country and should be a leader in civil rights (yes it is a right). While Obama isn't for defined same sex marriage, he clearly is not going to do anything without a fight regardless of his campaign promise for equality in the name of civil unions at the very least. It's time to honor the Constitution and get the church out of state affairs once and for all.

[SkuddGobang]

Yes, maybe straight people just marry random people of the opposite sex. But gay people want the right to marry out partners.

[StrayTalk]

Hey TJusticeFo­ralmostALL­, Remember when Blacks and Whites had the right to marry someone as long as they were of the SAME RACE as you! This is a civil rights issue. It's not about what the majority wants. (which will change their opinion later as is always the case)

[mykelb]

Excuse me, but are you a U.S. Constitutional lawyer or some corporate lawyer sc%&bag? I am a gay married man (had to do it in Canada, where they actually have civil rights). Are you straight? Statistically I would say you are. Are you in a minority? Maybe. But unless and until you have been bashed and had your jaw broken in 3 places for no other reason than going to the wrong club one evening and having a homophobe beat the hell out of you for it, you don't know what you are talking about.

[mikey683]

Wow TruthJusticeForAll I feel sorry for you clients.

[LMPE]

Why can't there ever be a GLBT political party?

[Mort]

There is... it's the RNC, but they're all in denial and self loathing.

[jmpurser]

THERE it is!

[Badger84]

There is more than a morsel of truth to that. I would like to stick these people with pins to see what happens.

[GardenerNorCal]

Very true!

[jmpurser]

I'm sure there's a really funny gay joke in the answer but I don't know what it is.

[PhilipB]

the joke is on me, and those who believed the democrats would do anything for Gays and Lesbians.

[mykelb]

I believe that it will come to creating a new party of progressives who are left of the middle of the road Dems. It will have to be led by a charismatic constitutional expert willing to give up his/her life to galvanize, organize, fund and get other folks to run on tickets across the country in order for it to take hold. But I don't see anything like that happening just yet. We have been screwed by the Clintons and now the Obamas. We will wake up soon enough.

[hellinahandcart]

The new leader will be Rachel Maddow. She's perfectly qualified in every way.