Obama Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth on DOMA

President Obama threw a bone Monday to the LGBT activists he first pissed off in June by filing a brief arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act is both constitutional and a defense against incest and pedophilia. The concession took the form of a new brief in Smelt v. United States that now says his administration is committed to a DOMA repeal but -- don't get too excited -- also argues that DOMA itself is constitutional and Smelt should be dismissed.

Obama is going through the motions of finally making good on the campaigning that won him the gay and lesbian vote. However, while it may look like Obama is making an actual move toward overturning DOMA, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth and letting the status quo go on unchanged, saying that while he does not agree with DOMA, it is still constitutional.

Obama has been criticized for his lack of action on repealing both DOMA and the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy banning openly gay people from serving in the military. And the criticism was earned: while Obama has treaded water on empty promises and Pride Month receptions, Sen. Kristen Gillibrand has actually secured hearings for the potential repeal of DADT, while the best Obama has been able to do for gay rights is file a brief that doesn't say that legalization of gay marriage leads to pedophilia. Congratulations, Mr. President!

The brief, which is the second Obama has filed in reply to DOMA since he took office seven months ago, once again gives the president the opportunity to pass the buck to Congress.

The Associated Press reports:

"The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, because it prevents equal rights and benefits.

The Justice Department, she added, is obligated "to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court. The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration's policy preferences."

Yahoo News reports:

Monday's court filing was in response to a lawsuit by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the federal law, which prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and benefiting from other federal rights connected to marriage.

Justice lawyers have argued that the act is constitutional and contend that awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

While the most horrifying part of the situation is that Obama is still completely failing to take any action on GLBT issues, it is also shocking that no media outlets seem to be calling him out on his puppetry. Headlines are positive, and none of the so-called journalistic watchdogs are even raising an eyebrow at whether Obama's intentions actually have any muscle behind them. People: intent is not the same as actual legislation!

We're all in the same boat hoping that Obama's campaign critics weren't right, and that there's no shoulder behind the powerful rhetoric and charm, but so far, we're still waiting to see Obama really make a push for gay issues.

Read more of Air America's coverage of Obama and the GLBT community.

Follow Kase Wickman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kaseyawesome

Comments

[Sumocat]

Am I the only one who understands that the President cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court can? If you want the SC to rule on a case you need to elevate it to their level through legal battles. In other words, if the Justice Department fights to protect DOMA, then the case can eventually reach the court that can strike it down for good. The trick is they have to actually fight the case, not roll over and take a dive. And if they don't fight, the law will never be struck down. I personally look forward to seeing this case reach the Supreme Court and seeing the defense lose, but the law will never be struck down if there is no legal fight. Chess not checkers.

[Michael Shanley]

Can someone explain to me how the President can say a peiec of legislation is discrimatory but constitutional? Seems to be a contradiction in my book...

[molonlabe]

Get used to it, folks. I didn't vote for Obama, but respected his gumption and charisma on the campaign trail. But I certainly wasn't duped into actually believing that he was the savior of our country. He is a great public speaker and a motivator. He campaigned at a perfect time, when the country was tired of the GOP's ineffective 8 year reign and wanted 'change' at any cost. The cost was ignorance in believing that Obama is anything but a politician.

We've already seen his "transparency" which hasn't been all that transparent, and various other issues which he is backtracking on because of his need to cator to both sides of the aisle.

We're in for a long ride, with many a disappointment yet to come. The excuse that "he has Health care on his plate" and should be afforded some slack is BS. Hold him to the promises he preached on the campaign trail, and continue to call him out when he doesn't come through.

[SJBrown]

We don't want a Bush-like President that makes his own laws and fires DOJ lawyers if they disagree. Oops, yes we do. We just want our own brand, an Obama brand that writes laws and runs the DOJ on our issues. We voted for a man that understands and the respects the law. Not a man that manipulates the law and power. Find a way to get Congress to rewrite the law or overturn. Get a bill, he'll sign it.

[JIzin]

I still have faith in Obama to promote the rights of all Americans, whether they be gay or not. It is way to early to tell yet. His main priority is health care reform. He still has my support for the time being.

[dadw5boys]

CONTROL YOURSELF !!!!!

There is a time to listen and a time to speak.

For now wait quitely the Prez has enough without snippers changing the subject and giving the Right Wing AMMO !!!!!!!

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

could you be ANY more lackluster and underwhelm­ing....huh Barack?

lead, follow, or get the hell out of our way

[jcwtts1]

PART 2

The three part test for suspect class includes a provision about access to agency and because on average the LGBT community is better educated, wealthier and has more access to agency then the enumerated classes they are excluded. Sounds like a bunch of garbage to me. It did then and it does now but until you get a clarification or a different kind of ruling federal judges are bound by that decision ... which is why you can't pass a law saying blacks can't marry whites and you can pass a law saying two men or two women can't get married. Again, this sounds like garbage to me but it is my understanding of why it is basically legal to discriminate against LGBT and not against women, blacks, disabled people or vets. Further, this is why you have to change the law not over turn it, why DADT is constitutional (and stupid), why a catholic schools dismissal of a girl who was suspected of being a lesbian was upheld by the 9th circuit and why, continually trying to over turn these laws is both frustrating and futile. It is also why the white house has an obligation to defend the law. Finally about Roe. Roe isn't a law it is a precedent. There is a constitutional right to privacy which includes women making their own medical decisions but it isn't a codified law.

[jcwtts1]

POST 1

Ok, couple of quick things and I'm looking for help here. The case is a dog, the DOJ has told everyone twice now that the law is constitutional, there have been challenges to LGBT issues over the last decade or two and the ones that don't effect privacy, as in the texas case, are upheld. That is because, at least according to my limited understanding of the law, LGBT are not a protected class (a suspect class). My understand of suspect class is that there have been three specific rulings that highlight it. The first was in the 1930s when the phrase was first used. What it means is that in any conflict it is to be suspected that the protected class is being discriminated against and all effort must be made to level the playing field. It deals with race, religion, sex, vets, disabled, both physical and mental. The list is finite and was clearly enummerated in the 1980s case. In that case the supremes not only exclude LGBT they explain that the reason for excluding them. LGBT on average have more access to agency.

[norepublicanleftbehind]

He continues to play to a conservative base while trying to appear progressive. It's sad, I feel like I wasted my vote. At least Gillibrand has a backbone.

Excellent piece you'e written. Keep it up.

[CindyV]

My Mom had a phrase for people who talked out of both sides of their mouths. She called them "two-faced." President Fierce Advocate is a two-faced politican. And he hates gay people.

[Romulus]

When the first DOJ brief in response to Smelt came out last month, I wasn't clear whether Obama had even seen the brief let alone approved it. But, with all the uproar over that brief, I'm sure that Obama has seen this latest response and that it is his position on DOMA.

While he believes that DOMA does discriminate, he also believes it's Constitutional. If it's Constitutional, he is obligated to defend it. I know that many of you here have said he's not and cited Bush's refusal to defend Roe. But is that what we want? Do we want a President to refuse to defend a law JUST because he doesn't believe in it? To refuse to defend Roe just because he doesn't believe in abortion?

Obama has repeatedly stated that he believes that DOMA AND DADT should be REPEALED, not struck down by either court or executive action.

Personally, I believe that Section III of DOMA is NOT Constitutional. I believe it violates the 10th amendment which gives the States the right to define marriage. Whatever the individual States decide is marriage within their boders MUST be recognized by the Federal government. By violating the 10th, DOMA also violates the 14th because it does not treat a legal SSM in Massachusettes equally to the marriage of a 13 year old in Georgia (or whatever State it is that allows marriage of kids that young).

But I'm not a Constitutional lawyer; my opinion could very well be totally incorrect.

[aftershock]

"If it's Constitutional, he is obligated to defend it."

Tell me this... if it's Constitutional, and he continues to say so, what argument is going to be used in Congress to get them to overturn DOMA?

[DestinationsUnknown]

Did you see Ed Henry at the news brief today- arguing over the word 'essential'

I told them to begin to expand their vocabulary-

Did they listen?

Cause msm got it wrong- I posted this when they first started this garbage-----

Obama voters- do the do nothings have any idea that will fulfill this mandate by Obama-

'What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market'

If not- then think of this when you have to fight the dumb down nation-

If it does not fit with this mandatory tool- 'What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market' then it will not fly with Obama!

It is the msm driving this - it is incredible their spin on a statement

[stevor]

"Talking out of both sides of his mouth"? Is that surprising? Obummer is a "community organizer". He'll say whatever to whomever to get their vote, hoping that they won't believe that he said something in the opposite direction to the other group.

He's PLAYING the public for FOOLS! Too bad, it IS TRUE that too many are fools, still chanting his mantra even though he has played them.

As long as Obummer can keep the FOOLS with their heads stuck in the sand, he'll keep doing it. And the way it looks, that will happen for some while BUT, fortunately, a lot of people are wising up and protesting (grassroots and NOT Pelosi's "astroturf")

[KnowzyRowzy]

ery interesting.....