In lieu of our usual morning open thread, I want to make sure everyone sees today's New York Times editorial on Obama and the DOMA lawsuit brief -- considering it's based on the issue AMERICAblog blew up on Friday morning. From AMERICAblog to a NY Times editorial in four days, not bad. (And the Times editorial actually mentions the incest slur.)
Maybe, just maybe, someone in the West Wing of the White House will at least pay attention to this editorial from the New York Times and realize they've got a real problem on their hands. I'm providing some excerpts, but read the whole thing. It's very powerful:
The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.Yes, those incest references were particularly ugly and disturbing.
A gay couple married under California law is challenging the act in federal court. In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the couple lack legal standing to do so. It goes on to contend that even if they have standing, the case should be dismissed on the merits.
The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.
And, this section has particular relevance considering the pushback we've received, both publicly and privately, on whether Obama had to defend DOMA:
In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule. (emphasis added)And, this paragraph nails it:
If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.But, our alleged allies in the Obama administration did resort to "specious arguments and inflammatory language." It was very, very ugly.
The LGBT community didn't start this fight with Obama and his crew. Many of us were prepared to let the president focus on issues like the economy. But, from the moment Obama chose Rick Warren to be his inaugural speaker, it feels like the Obama administration is going out of its way to provoke us. For awhile I thought it was clumsly politics. But, unfortunately, it feels deliberate. This feels like a cyncial politics at its worst. I hope whoever devised that strategy has realized it's not working. It's hurting. This isn't 1993, Rahm. It's not even 2004. We expect more from Barack Obama. We deserve more.
It's hard to imagine how any self-respecting (self-respecting being the operative term) LGBT Democrat would participate in the DNC fundraiser on June 25. If anyone is thinking about it, read this Times editorial again. Actually, anyone thinking of spending that kind of money on Obama and the DNC should read the DOMA brief. It's here.
