03/13/2009
NYT: Obama on the Spot Over Court Orders Challenging DOMA
The NYT expands on a bit of news that I posted back at the beginning of February regarding the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that health benefits must be paid to same-sex partners of federal employees. It's a ruling that clashes with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and
"As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama said he would 'fight hard'
for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation
that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of
federal employees. Now, Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he
supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco
court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win
election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he
risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on
economic, health care and numerous other matters."
Obama has repeatedly promised to repeal DOMA. In an open letter to the gay community written a little more than a year ago, Obama said: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does."
According to the Times, "Federal officials said they had to follow the laws on the books (in response to the appeals court ruling). But Richard Socarides, a New York lawyer who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay issues, said he believed that Mr. Obama 'has broad discretionary authority to find ways to ameliorate some of the more blatant examples of discrimination.'"
"Congress may soon weigh in" as well: "Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, plan to introduce bills that would provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees." Last week, Baldwin said the legislation was coming "shortly."
Obama on Spot as Rulings Aid Gay Partners [nyt]
Posted 7:34 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, California, DOMA, Health, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
couldn't help but notice a domino's banner ad. pretty sure thomas monahan is still a board member and majority shareholder. he's a large contributor to anti-gay causes.
any chance you have any say on what your top ad sells?
Posted by: Jeremy | Mar 13, 2009 8:31:10 AM
"If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters."
So what? It's not like they're not fighting him tooth and nail on every petty point they can dredge up.
Stow the political tap dance and do the right thing, already... (Thank god folks like Lieberman and Baldwin are around to keep the president's feet to the fire --wait did I just say I was thankful for Lieberman? Oy!)
Posted by: ichabod | Mar 13, 2009 8:34:59 AM
I am betting Obama will give lip service once again and really no action. It will have to be studied and discussed and time will have to be wasted.
Posted by: kujhawker | Mar 13, 2009 8:37:21 AM
Obama and the Congress are going to have to deliver on their promises before the next election, or they can kiss gay campaign contributions "good-bye."
Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 13, 2009 9:21:21 AM
He won't do a thing to end discrimination against gay people. His campaign promises were promises, we can believe in them the way we believe in Santa Claus.
Posted by: Roscoe | Mar 13, 2009 9:33:59 AM
I did vote for the man and contributed to his campaign more than once. But, I said he has exactly one chance. If equal rights for my partner and me are not advanced significantly in the next four years, we won't be making any more contributions or voting for empty promises again.
Posted by: WadeMD | Mar 13, 2009 9:54:03 AM
FROM THE NYT ARTICLE: Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, said: “While the president opposes gay marriage, he supports legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He believes this country must realize its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”
What a steaming pile of contradictory shite this statement is. How does one treat all citizens with "dignity and respect" while denying them equal marriage rights?
Posted by: JohnInManhattan | Mar 13, 2009 10:13:55 AM
"Obama and the Congress are going to have to deliver on their promises before the next election, or they can kiss gay campaign contributions "good-bye."
Don't hold your breath. Both on him or Congress doing anything about this issue AND on gays abandoning him on his reelection. They will apologize to him (even though they are the same gays who refused the notion of Hillary because of Bill doing the very same thing) and send their checks.
Though in their defense the Republicans seem hell-bent on running someone like Palin or Jindal or some other right wing looney. And nothing brings out the gay money like a right wing nutjob.
Posted by: Sam | Mar 13, 2009 10:27:05 AM
Yes, the alienating Republicans theory that Ichabod highlighted boggled my mind, too. So we shouldn't do the right thing because it might alienate Republicans who haven't supported Obama's policies thus far and aren't likely to do so even after hell freezes over. What a crock. Everything is framed these days by the political implications rather than by justice and fairness.
I hope Obama will do the right thing, but he--and most Democrats--have backed themselves into this bogus we believe in equality but not marriage equality corner. One day they will break out of it, but it will take a mainstream politician of courage and conviction to do so. Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to be predictably useless.
Posted by: Ernie | Mar 13, 2009 10:37:20 AM
There's still a few of Hillary's pantsuits up on eBay, ladies. Get your bids in!
Posted by: 24play | Mar 13, 2009 10:47:32 AM
"He won't do a thing to end discrimination against gay people."
Oh, yes he will, but only the ones who voted for him. The rest of y'all can go to hell or Utah.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Mar 13, 2009 11:13:34 AM
I hope he doesn't throw us under the bus the way Bill Clinton did.
Posted by: chasmader | Mar 13, 2009 11:16:31 AM
Derrick From Philly
LOL
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Mar 13, 2009 11:29:24 AM
Lieberman is one of the more conservative members of the "Democratic caucus" (a carefully worded statement). His support for same-sex partners would surely put a lot of pressure on the White House to act.
And it can "act" by simply doing nothing. If the administration does not appeal the enforcement order (which will presumably come sometime this year from either Reinhardt or Kozinski), the appellate court's order becomes binding. The religious right will be livid. But if Obama has enough good sense to put it in the Friday "news dump," the rest of America will barely notice anything out of the ordinary.
Posted by: John in CA | Mar 13, 2009 12:00:19 PM
I gladdens me to see that Legislators are willing to do the right thing, and that Judges are willing to do the right thing, and all end up holding Mr. Obama to the fire. If things went his way, all would be studied to death. At least some people recognize the need for action, not mountains of studies which would conclude what we already know; the Feds treat us like second-class citizens and it has to stop.
Posted by: DR | Mar 13, 2009 12:54:43 PM
I thought "SteveS" summed it up nice on the HuffPost yesterday - "A former civil rights lawyer being forced to confront an equality issue. How murky it must be."
Yep. Sucks to be Obama. Maybe if Sasha or Melia come out of the closet one day he would feel and act differently....
Posted by: John Bisceglia | Mar 13, 2009 1:06:45 PM
ROSCOE, now wait a minute! Are you trying to tell me that there is no Santa Claus? I mean, really!
Posted by: mike | Mar 13, 2009 1:52:29 PM
John: when was Obama a civil rights lawyer? If recollection serves, he has never practiced the law per se, but taught. And taught Constitutional Law.
Beyond that, I don't understand how anyone thinks Obama has any say on this? It's been a while since I took Constitutional Law, but I'm pretty sure the judicial branch is on equal footing with the executive and if it says that it is unconstitutional to deny benefits, there isn't a lot Obama has to do or not do short of passing an amendment to the constitution, which I think will clearly not happen. Sure, we'll hear "activist" judges up and down from the right, but we have a judicial system that is adversarial and the appellate process is why it works.
That said, if this were appealed further up the chain, it seems unlikely a higher court will agree with the Appellate court here and Obama's thoughts on this are irrelevant.
Posted by: Alex | Mar 13, 2009 5:05:54 PM
So, it's irrelevent that Obama promised (repeatedly) to end DOMA?! Yet now as President he is standing down while the Federal Gov. enforces the very thing he promised to end.
So it's ok for Obama to break his promises? It's ok for Obama to lie?
Posted by: Wayne | Mar 14, 2009 7:20:02 AM