Obama and the Gays: The Ruthless 6 Part Strategy? UPDATED 7pm
The President just signed the memorandum discussed below, and the event was televised.
President Obama said that the memorandum "paves the way for long overdue progress in our nation's pursuit of equality" and affirmed his commitment to the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act:
It's a day that marks a historic step towards the changes we seek, but I think we all have to acknowledge this is only one step. Among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it.We've got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally; to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms; and to bring about that more perfect union. I'm committed to these efforts, and I pledge to work tirelessly on behalf of these issues in the months and years to come.
Thank you, President Obama, for openly expressing, as President rather than a candidate, your support for repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and for working to address the varied civil rights concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans and our families.
These were the right words, at the right time. And we'll continue to do our part to hold you accountable for the actions they promise.
Here is the memorandum in its entirety:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release June 17, 2009
June 17, 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination
Millions of hard-working, dedicated, and patriotic public
servants are employed by the Federal Government as part of the
civilian workforce, and many of these devoted Americans have
same-sex domestic partners. Leading companies in the private
sector are free to provide to same-sex domestic partners the
same benefits they provide to married people of the opposite sex.
Executive departments and agencies, however, may only provide
benefits on that basis if they have legal authorization to do so.
My Administration is not authorized by Federal law to extend a
number of available Federal benefits to the same-sex partners
of Federal employees. Within existing law, however, my
Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
who oversees our Foreign Service employees, and the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management, who oversees human resource
management for our civil service employees, has identified areas
in which statutory authority exists to achieve greater equality
for the Federal workforce through extension to same-sex domestic
partners of benefits currently available to married people of the
opposite sex. Extending available benefits will help the Federal
Government compete with the private sector to recruit and retain
the best and the brightest employees.
I hereby request the following:
Section 1. Extension of Identified Benefits. The Secretary of
State and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management
shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, extend the
benefits they have respectively identified to qualified same-sex
domestic partners of Federal employees where doing so can be
achieved and is consistent with Federal law.
Sec. 2. Review of Governmentwide Benefits. The heads of all
other executive departments and agencies, in consultation with
the Office of Personnel Management, shall conduct a review of the
benefits provided by their respective departments and agencies to
determine what authority they have to extend such benefits to
same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. The results of
this review shall be reported within 90 days to the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management, who, in consultation with the
Department of Justice, shall recommend to me any additional
measures that can be taken, consistent with existing law, to
provide benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal
Government employees.
more
(OVER)
2
Sec. 3. Promoting Compliance with Existing Law Requiring Federal
Workplaces to be Free of Discrimination Based on Non-Merit
Factors. The Office of Personnel Management shall issue guidance
within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies
regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil
service laws, rules, and regulations, including 5 U.S.C.
2302(b)(10), which make it unlawful to discriminate against
Federal employees or applicants for Federal employment on
the basis of factors not related to job performance.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum
shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) Authority granted by law or Executive Order to an
agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) Functions of the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative
proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with
applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law
or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person.
Sec. 5. Publication. The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management is hereby authorized and directed to publish this
memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
# # #
__________________________________
In advance of the meeting during which the presidential memorandum discussed below will be signed, I participated in a conference call with Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry to clarify issues around the memorandum and its contents. Highlights of the call included:
* Explicit confirmation that President Obama supports the repeal of DOMA and will sign legislation to that effect if it makes it to his desk. He declined to give a time line for such action saying,"When you have 218 votes in Congress and 60 in the Senate, that's your timeline."
* When questioned about whether or not this memorandum was, in fact, just giving federal employees rights and benefits they already have as a result of activities under the Clinton administrations, he said that the difference was that, "Federal employees will no longer have to rely on an enlightened supervisor" to access the benefits, but rather that, "The President is conferring a mandatory legal right" to receive these benefits.
* He also confirmed that, due to the limitations set forth by DOMA, the benefits addressed by the memorandum will NOT include health care or retirement benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees.
I will update further following the ceremony and President Obama's remarks.
____________________
As a supporter of President Obama, I am continuing my efforts to do as he asked and hold him accountable for his campaign promises now that he is president. Accordingly, I'll be listening very carefully to the context in which President Obama places his signing of a presidential memorandum regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans.
Yesterday, the Administration announced that the President will be signing a memorandum today that extends benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. However, given the restrictions imposed by the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it is unclear just what those benefits will actually entail. Some have theorized that DOMA will make it impossible for the benefits to include health care for same-sex partners - especially (and ironically) those partners who are legally joined in marriage or civil unions at a state level.
Some pundits have argued that the signing of the memorandum is in response to the justifiable outrage over the Department of Justice's issuance of a dehumanizing brief defending DOMA earlier this week. As gratifying as that idea might be, I have to respectfully disagree. It appears that this memo has been in the works for quite a while.
In fact, this might even be a part of a larger strategy by the Administration to triangulate two different constituencies - thereby appearing to be concerned about all while satisfying none.
This is how such a strategy works:
1. The repeal of DOMA is quietly removed from the official White House website, which is followed by assurances by the Administration that this does not have policy implications but is rather a streamlining of the language.
2. A carefully-worded proclamation is issued in recognition of LGBT Pride Month that appears at first to be glowing but in which there is NO mention of Obama's campaign promise to repeal DOMA and which actually contains VERY different (and less supportive) language from a previous statement issued by Senator and then candidate Obama the year before.
3. There is outrage by the extreme right wing (you can google this yourself - I am not going to reprint any of their diatribes here).
4. A brief is issued defending DOMA which contains completely unnecessary and offensive language and arguments, despite the Administration's claims to the contrary.
5. Understandable and expected outrage follows from the LGBT community in response to having our relationships compared to incestuous ones and the like.
6. The Administration announces the signing of a presidential memorandum giving limited benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees (benefits that are limited by the very DOMA that the DOJ is busy defending).
And all of this just in time to try to rescue a fundraiser aimed at LGBT donors on behalf of the Democratic National Committee scheduled for June 25th.
Welcome to politics. It's not for the faint of heart.
The take-away here is yet to be determined. Right now it looks like the benefits given are important but are limited and will probably NOT include either health care OR pension benefits (the ability of a same-sex partner or spouse to receive the pension upon the death of their partner) - which are arguably two of the most important benefits in question.
However, I'd like to return to the point that I made in my previous piece on Obama and the Gays, which is that a visible platform like this is an ideal opportunity for the President to make incremental yet powerful changes in how he talks about LGBT Americans and our loved ones.
This evening, when President Obama signs this memorandum, I will be listening for him to strongly convey the humanity of LGBT people, our relationships and our families. I will be listening for him to begin to lay the groundwork for making the case that the limitations imposed by DOMA are not only unfair but that they are in violation of the very ideals upon which our nation was founded. This is not about President Obama's personal feelings or purported religious beliefs about marriage - this is about the right of couples who are married at a state level to have those marriages recognized at a federal level. It is about the President's responsibility to state clearly that equal protection for all means for just what it says.
This is an opportunity for President Obama to seize - or not to seize, as the case may be. We'll see. I'll update this piece later today to let you know what I hear.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
How's that update coming?
Thanks, Leah
I appreciate your post.
Great post Leah! Keep up the good work!
Real change and equality are coming. It will not happen with the stroke of President Obama's pen, but will take a multi-front effort:
1) Small victories, such as "some" federal benefits extended to same-sex couples
2) State-by-state Gay Marriage such as in Massachussetts, Vermont, New Hampshire (keep working in your state)
3) Challenges to anti-gay amendments and DOMA and DADT that make their way to the Supreme Court
4) A split Supreme Court as we have now will pass judgement on a case as historical as Brown v. Board of Education that will lead to...
5) Legislation in Congress establishing equal protections for the LGBT community
In this manner, our rights will be solidified as working through our Constitutional system, not as being dictated down to the People by a "liberal" President.
Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks... they had patience and the spirit of non-violence (non-confrontational) that validated the simple statement worn by picketers in Birmingham -- "I am a man."
With this same commitment and perseverance, we will also be able to stand and say "I am a human." and deserve equal rights.
Patience and perseverance. Our time will come. Freedom will ring.
"I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience."
-- Coretta Scott King
"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."
Mrs. King's words could not be more applicable here.
I don't tell sick people to be patient, just to wait for health care.
And I sure don't tell 'em to d i e waiting for something to be done about health care.
I wouldn't think of telling to embark on a state by state campaign even though many aspects of health care are managed by the states.
For all those who advise "Stop being so uppity!" I say:
If we'd taken that advice about AIDS and not Acted Up, then millions more would have died including some of you.
Outrage has a place in societal change. Don't reject it. It can be a potent force.
Let's help each other channel it.
RACHEL MADDOW interviewed Congresswoman TAMMY BALDWIN on JUNE 17:
At the end of their interview Maddow posed one last question: “The President’s words may make things move more quickly in Congress. What do you think would make the President move more quickly?”
BALDWIN: “WELL, GIVING HIM A BILL TO SIGN WOULD BE THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.”
Bingo!
Please stop sending negativity to 1600, when it's really up to all of us (and our straight friends and family) to MOTIVATE our members of Congress to move on DADT, DOMA, etc...
http://www.examiner.com/x-6489-Madison-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m6d17-Tammy-Baldwin-and-Rachel-Maddow-discuss-presidential-gay-rights-memorandum
Well, that is the idea of the right, divide and conquer.
I'm not sure how many of the "negative" posters are really in our camp.
I think that this is cheap. Just because people are fed up now, doesn't mean they haven't been Democrats before. Or do you want to tell yourself: "Democrats didn't alienate loyal supporters."
Um... I've encountered many a negative gay person who is demanding action from the White House... and that is counterproductive at its core.
Pressure must be focused on CONGRESS with letters and emails...
They must stand for something...
It is up to them to legislate these solutions...
... And then (and only then) would it be up to the president to sign them into law.
Here are bills that are ready to go:
http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/4732.htm
Obama is a saint. Obama is a big ot. Of course neither is true. Obama is a politician. You'll have to excuse the gay community for thinking politician Obama will act the same as politician Clinton did to the gay community. Clinton threw gays under the bus. Obama lets gays stand next to the bus. At his best he might let them sit at the back of the bus. He sure talks pretty. So far that's all he's done. Give him 4 years. If all that's happened is pretty words, vote Green. Keep your donations and time working on campaigns for someone who thinks you're actually an equal human being. To expect instant change is unrealistic. To accept disrespect and crumbs is insulting.
President Obama's vision is to re-make the Democratic party: DLC types, less looney Republicans who split off from their party, and center-right independents. Straight liberals will suck it up. God, guns and gays are the bane of the Democrats--and Obama is doing something about that. God, is being dealt with preacher-like speeches, Jesus references (more than Bush) and faith-based women's heath care; guns, well, that's easy--the president has even approved carrying firearms in national parks. Now, what to do about the gay. Starting with the inauguration, Rev. Rick Warren gave the invocation. Protests fell on deaf ears, although a bone was thrown with Bishop Robinson called up as a sidebar. Not a word after either the gains (e.g. Iowa) or losses (Prop 8)--except for an insensitive joke about Prop 8 protesters at an LA fund-raiser. His DOJ not only defended DADT, but insisted that it had a rational basis which has been debunked by its major author,, and, of course, the unnecessarily cruel brief accompanying the motion defending DOMA--briefs that even discounted one of the most important Supreme Court decisions for gay rights, Romer v Evans. That must have warmed the cockles of Scalia's dissenting heart. The president is a brilliant politician, this pattern is not likely to be happenstance. The handwriting is there to see, the slip up was gays were expected to go quietly, or stay on, with kind words.
He does talk real purty like.
See Leah McElrath Renna's Profile
To my readers:
I really appreciate your comments - and do try to read most of them.
In fact, as a result of many of the comments here, I might just tackle some of the very damaging miscommunication and misunderstandings that are taking place between black LGBT people and allies and white LGBT people and allies. (Not trying to leave other people of color out of the equation - but I see some patterns that are most pronounced between blacks and whites specifically.)
Dangerous waters, I know, but I hope you'll stick with me and explore them with respect and understanding.
Thanks again -
Leah
Could I also add a suggestion that might be part of the investigation into why such a stigma of the gay community from the people of color communities? I say that because I think the hispanic community needs to be included in this.
I'd also like to see you tackle the "on the down low" part of this. I think that has a lot to do with stigma against the gay community. What causes men in minorities to go on the down low, how does that play a part in the new HIGH infection rate of HIV in straight women of color. I think this all has to do with the stigma against the gay community. Just a suggestion, and if you don't print this comment Leah, that's fine. It's just something on my mind that I feel plays a huge part in why the black and hispanic communities are so against equal rights for the gay community. Because of the stigma that causes a large portion of the men in the minority communities to do "on the down low".
See Leah McElrath Renna's Profile
The issues you bring up are very complex, multi-layered and important. However, I think most of them would best be addressed by a person of color. I know that my friend Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend explores these kinds of issues on an ongoing basis - if you're not familiar with her site, I suggest you check it out:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/
In the piece I am contemplating, I am going to keep my analysis pretty focused - using this recent memorandum signing and the reactions to it - and the reactions to the reactions - as an example of a dynamic that is very damaging and generally unacknowledged. If doing so helps even a few people think about it differently, then it will be worth any push back that I am sure I will get.
Thanks for your comment and suggestion!
Don't ALL supposedly straight men have sex with other men on the "down low"? Your logic seem faulty. Why do you seek to blame Blacks and Hispanics for being more against equal rights for gays than white people? Are you saying there's less stigma amongst white people than non-whites? Do you really see us as the enemy?
The idea of 'down low' is hardly unique to the African-American or Hispanic communities. Caucasian and Asian men, and in general, men of all races and ethnicities will engage in homosexual sex, or relationships, 'on the down low.'
The term is a code of sorts, coined within the African-American community. That is all. It does not indicate that living one's life 'IN THE CLOSET' is unique to any one community.
Homophobia knows no boundaries.
GOOD POINTS ABOUT MARRIAGE EQUALITY
http://www.glaa.org/archive/2009/talkingpointsonmarriage0517.pdf
IN SPANISH
http://www.glaa.org/archive/2009/igualdaddematrimonio0527.pdf
This is absolutely ridiculous. What next? live in girlfriends and boyfriends? roommates? Where does this stop? I say either recognize a marriage or civil union or do nothing. This is unfair to because their will be no way to prove who is the significant "other" and anyone that wants benefits will get them.
Wow grammy11 then people will be getting health care willy nilly!! Oh wait wasn't that another campaign promise?
Incorrect.
Many employers have domestic partner benefits, and typically require affidavits that the couple shares resources, finances and has mutual financial responsibility for the other.
Since many GLBT people can't avail themselves of civil unions or marriage, it's the only way to provide an equal benefit that the employee earns. If the system were fair we wouldn't need it.
Leah-
PLEASE continue to hold the President responsible. Please also realize that pretty words mean exactly nothing, particularly when the President's administration has been actively working against equality. Honestly, when he talks about inequality and how he will "tirelessly work" to repeal DOMA, all I feel is anger, because I know for a fact that we'll never see him take the initiative on gay rights. We can't afford to be naive about this.
As for the straight Democrats outraged by our outrage (i.e., "GIVE OBAMA A CHANCE YOU SELFISH JERKS, HE'S BUSY WITH THE ECONOMY blah blah blah), I would kindly ask you why in the world you think all LGBT people belong to your party. We don't belong to anyone, and certainly not to people who are so clearly against our interests. I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't ever plan to do so. (Hopefully, my reasoning should be obvious.)
We frankly don't care whether you like us or not. In fact, we're so used to people openly and irrationally hating us that it's almost an Olympic sport for us to see exactly how much contempt we can garner from the media, politicians, and our neighbors. So, by all means continue to alienate the most maligned minority in the country right now. I hope it makes you feel good about yourselves.
Wow Matt. Interesting post. Thank you for that. You've made me look at our fight against these issues a little differently.
I wish I had done things a bit differently at the time of the election. Unfortunately I fell for the promises of Obama.
I really appreciated your post! Thank you.
Thank you Matt!
Thanks Matt. i don't understand this need in the gay community to be"liked". I've quit gay groups that seem to need to "reach-out". Meaning they're out there begging for their rights! I deserve equal rights because I'm an American and I don't need anyone's permission. I plan to fight not beg for my rights.
This post from AGarcia proves my point:
"When people talk about a "revolution" and delivering "national outrage" it doesn't sound like we're on the same side, now does it? I voted against Prop 8 but with all the protests and condescending "explaining" of civil rights to minorities and the first non-white president, I'm starting to have my doubts about my former support for gay rights. I'm just being honest here".
I don't have to please anyone or be polite enough to have my civil rights!
Love your comment, Matt!
Some here claim 90% of the country doesn't care about GLBT issues, and our votes don't matter anyway.
If that's the case, you have nothing to worry about.
(And yet you're so troubled.)
BINGO!
Right.
Your point about the incongruity of their views was completely lost.
On the one hand they say we are an "insignificant" minority and
on the other hand the same people say we're so powerful that we can "hijack" the Democratic party.
Doesn't make much sense either way, but makes no sense both ways at once!
Keep up the good work Joe!
Felisa, we get your point: Don't be overly negative.
If we're still not nice enough for your liking, I can live with that.
You can't expect everyone to like you.
Now, let's roll up our sleeves and really * fight * for our gay & lesbian families!
If you and others like you (reasonable and constructive) would call out the others who rant against religion and blacks and let them know not to generalize and name call, I will call out the non supporters for idiotic statements about the gay community. Agreed?
Who is ranting against blacks? That's the old technique of crying foul solely in order to demonize an opponent.
Agreed! :)
Wow felisa11 that's a big chip on your shoulder. You know, sometimes your crappy life is your own fault.
Every single day you and your small handful of buddies come to this site, find all the gay threads, simply to bring up race when no one is talking about it. You know what...why don't you go to the other pages on this site where there is REAL RACISM being discussed, not here and stop it.
Why is it only gay posts that you come to to discuss racial issues with gays when no one is talking about it. Ask yourself that one.
I expect no one to like me. but I would absolutely love for all democrats to work together on all issues for progress without divisive and negative actions.
We all will at some time or other disagree with the current administration, and we should, but can't we be more constructive in our cricitisms and not result to name calling. is that asking too much?
Who has "ranted against blacks"?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
