American Presidents are famous for stretching the letter of the law: Nixon's attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party, Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, George Bush's extraordinary rendition. When the political climate demands, the Executive is often willing to push the edges of legal behavior in order to achieve a political end.
But when it comes to gay rights, Obama doesn't want to breathe on the boundaries of the law, let alone give them the shove they need.
On Friday, the Office of Personnel Management -- a Federal agency controlled by the Obama administration -- refused to comply with a court order to extend family health benefits to a Federal staff attorney who has a same-sex partner. In an apologetically worded memo, the OPM stated that the Defense of Marriage Act barred the agency from recognizing same-sex partners as family members -- even for the purposes of the health plan. DOMA meant that the court order must be ignored.
This is one logical approach to the situation.
Judge Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has a different perspective: He states in his order that the Federal Employee Health Benefit Act creates general guidelines for minimum health coverage. For example, the health plan must cover an employee's children, but the upper age limit for the definition of "children" can be extended far beyond the common understanding of that term (age 25 perhaps) and still comply with the Act. Or, while the Act requires spouses be covered under the health plan, it says nothing about the ability of the Federal government to extend health coverage to same-sex partners in addition to spouses. There is no legally mandated upper limit when it comes to health insurance provision.
Judge Kozinski uses sound legal reasoning to grant the Obama administration permission to widen the umbrella. He points out, this broader health insurance provision would harmonize state and federal law on a touchy subject while still complying with the dictates of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act and DOMA.
Perhaps another judge would see things differently. But as long as there is a plausible opportunity to provide equal rights, shouldn't an administration committed to equal rights jump at the chance to do the right thing?
The Obama administration would rather hide behind apologies and Department of Justice memos: "The decision in this matter was not reached lightly -- after we learned of this development, we examined our options and consulted with the DOJ. ...DOJ advised us that the order issued by Judge Kozinski does not supersede our obligation to comply with existing law."
While they pretend that the law is a concrete inflexible animal incapable of multiple interpretations, LGBT rights in this country continue to languish without the benefit of strong political leadership. This is a missed opportunity, and indicative of a dangerous tendency to avoid and ignore opportunities to fulfill election obligations put forward by Obama not so many months ago.
Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs
Loading comments… 
Applying this to the Q community (a "community
* Our most beloved family member's and children's rights are so questionab
* We don't REALLY think we deserve these rights RIGHT NOW, because who in their right mind would merely "protest" this injustice day in and day out for 10, 20, 30 years instead of TAX REVOLTING against it.
* We think rights are "won" in campaigns. A prize. A game of luck where we hope for the best, INSTEAD of revolting and letting society know that, "There is NO WAY IN HELL you will vote against my family's well-being
Well, those WITH their full citizenshi
2. The Obama administra
3. The Obama administra
4. The judge has now ruled again. And this time, he's saying that because the administra
Judge rules OPM did not file timely appeal to deny benefits in Golinski case, OPM now cut out of proceding
http://gay
DOMA is unconstitu
Do a search on "from Selma to Stonewall" in Google.
Count the number of fundraiser
Search "Rachel Maddow" with "fierce advocate".
Search the following: Same-sex marriage: He was for it before he was against it. 1996.
Search Obama DOMA abhorrent.
Watch Robert Gibbs, at the very beginning, smugly say "there is rarely a one word answer in politics and the answer is yes" when a reporter asks if DADT will soon be ended by the new President.
For a start.
So saying he would work with Congress to overturn DADT and DOMA, and dubbing himself a "fierce advocate for gay rights" was really him saying I don't intend on helping you? Maybe I'm getting a bit old what with getting up there close to 30 now, but that doesn't seem at all clear to me if the intended message is what you claim
Bull.
They pander to us each election cycle, take our money and our votes and give us one or two little meaningles
Why should Obama go out of his way to provide equal rights for Gays? He could have at least ordered a Stop Loss order in regard to DADT and had it suspended it until it's overturned
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—becaus
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—becaus
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemöller
Same hate- different day. All I can say is I am proud to be a lesbian and I don't need to qualify my rights as a human being to anyone- but I can continue to express myself and my outrage at a system run by people who fear and judge and dismiss what they do not know- President Obama- speaking to you... This is the height of cowardice and shame.