Obama's Move on Gay Rights: Not Really a "First Step"

The talking point about Obama’s memo on domestic partnerships is that “It’s a first step.” Obama said it, and John Berry, the openly gay head of the Office of Personnel Management, has been repeating it all day. The implication is that the administration is ready to march proudly down the path of ever more gay freedom and equality. This strikes me as only half believable, as Emily pointed out yesterday. All the administration did was scan the existing law and see where they could apply it without violating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That counts as barely a step at all. The next “step,” Berry said on the radio today, is the hate crimes law, which, as Andrew Sullivan often points out, is mostly symbolic and makes very little difference in anyone’s life. And as gay rights advocates say, the administration went beyond the call of duty in its brief taking on a challenge to DOMA. They defended the essence of the act, calling heterosexual marriage the “traditionally and universally recognized form” (not true, see California, Iowa, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut) and arguably lumping gay marriage with incest.

My suspicion is that despite his campaign promise, Obama is genuinely conflicted about DOMA. In California, the fight against gay marriage was led by black churches, and Obama must have been exposed to that sentiment over the years. This is why this feels like the first instance of Obama behaving in a disingenuous way. More honest would be to treat gay rights as he treated race and abortion, and give a full throttled speech about strong convictions on all sides, which would surface the contradictions. Instead, he is uncharacteristically mumbling his way through this one, putting forth the chipper gay bureaucrat to do his talking for him.

Tags: defense of marriage act, gay rights, same sex domestic partnerships

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Hanna Rosin Double X co- editor, reporter, prefer my friends live.

Comments

Gay Marriage and the Black Churches

By: rallaw | Sun, 06/21/2009 - 11:32

"...the fight against gay marriage was led by black churches, and Obama must have been exposed to that sentiment over the years." ??? Though I share frustration with Obama's DOMA defense and hypocritical half-stepping, this statement is wholly misguided and wrought with alarming assumptions. The exit polls of a demographic group that comprises a paltry 6% of the total population has been routinely (and unjustly) used as a scapegoat for the results of Prop 8, but I don't think I've ever heard the ante so disingenuously raised as to say that the fight against gay marriage was LED by the black churches.
Perhaps even more frustrating is the line of reasoning in the latter part of that statement that seems to say; the exit polls for Prop 8 in the black community were lopsided; churches often hold a lot of sway with voters; the black churches in Compton are the same as the black churches in Chicago; Obama is half black; Obama was a member of a black church in Chicago, ipso facto Obama's hesitancy to advocate full marriage rights to gay couples is due to his exposure to the homophobic sentiment of America's black churches. That's quite the leap and I don't claim to know you nor do I presume that you necessarily think in this way, but, whatever the source of Obama's internal conflict, its incredibly inflammatory not to mention grotesquely stereotypical to so forcedly single out black churches to reach your conclusion. I feel silly saying this but you don't have to be a member of a black church to be exposed to homophobic sentiment. You also make a blind leap in assuming that Obama's reticence on the issue is due to a conflict with homophobia in the first place, regardless of its source.

@jackiero: The problem with

By: B. Peregrine | Thu, 06/18/2009 - 22:21

@jackiero: The problem with keeping the gay marriage issue in the states is that DOMA already addresses the issue on a federal level, in a way that makes gay people second-class citizens under the law. Unlike straight people, who are assured by the Constitution that their marriages will be recognized in any state, DOMA gives states the right to ignore a same-sex marriage even if it is recognized in another state. Furthermore, DOMA outlaws federal recognition of gay marriages and prohibits the federal government from granting gay couples the tax breaks and other federal benefits it gives to straight couples. Under this law, gays are essentially required to pay extra taxes.

Personally, I don't care why a person is against gay marriage, but I do ask anyone who is to consider that they are holding opposite-sex relationships to be more important and deserving than same-sex relationships. This IS about civil rights--it's about equal rights under the law--and I challenge you to explain to me how it can possibly be otherwise.

Ms. Rosin: Please consider that your proposal that Obama's racial and religious background has led him to hold the position on gay marriage that he does not only sounds racist, but excuses Obama from having to make moral, ethical, and legal judgments of his own. He should be held accountable in his own right.

jackiero, i know plenty of

By: strivergirl | Thu, 06/18/2009 - 20:55

jackiero, i know plenty of people in the lgbt community who'd be pleased to meet you halfway! what about we get rid of all state-sponsered marriages and make everything civil unions?

kidding aside, i have yet to hear a principled argument against gay marriage that doesn't come down to "this is the way we've always done it, marriage is for the creation of children, gays are being petulant and this isn't a civil rights issue, why can't things just stay the same?" if you or obama has something to add which doesn't basically come down to a religious objection to the inherent validity of gay relationships (as you imply that you do), i'd be thrilled to hear it. just don't call me a spoiled child because i don't want to pay a single person's taxes my entire life or because i want to adopt my partner's child or visit her in the hospital without anyone questioning me.

if the issue is state v. federal decision-making, you're just deferring the debate to another level--why should states be able to deny individuals their right to marry based on the above arguments any more than the federal government can? even if i do admit compromise on making this a state decision, there are equal protection issues at play here. i'm not going to law-school geek out about them here, but i think a serious argument can be made (and if i'm not mistaken, soon will be made) that gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment.

I agree with Obama

By: jackiero | Thu, 06/18/2009 - 18:00

This is the one issue where Obama and I see eye to eye. A lot of America is "wishy-washy" on the gay marriage issue and would prefer to keep the issue with the states. But somehow there is this message that if you're against gay marriage (for whatever reason, although the narrow-minded jerks like to think that it's because of religion or homophobia), you're anti-gay. What THIS woman really thinks is that the debate has not been heard on all sides. Throwing civil rights into the mix is not only erroneous, but ignorant. Instead of knocking Obama for his position, how about listening to it--REALLY listening to it--and then understanding that it's not just about gay people. I swear, the LGBT community is starting to sound like a whiny 5-year-old girl who didn't get her ice cream. I know that Obama is willing to meet halfway, so how about it LGBT community?

origins of Obama's less than enthusiastic support of gay rights

By: Bobo | Thu, 06/18/2009 - 16:14

I agree with the previous comments about the Mormon church's opposition being central to Prop 8, but I did want forward along a link that corroborates Hanna's argument for the potential conservativeness of the black church when it comes to gay marriage. In November, Charles Blow offered a sociological analysis for the New York Times. He points out that, demographically speaking, blacks did *not* cause Prop 8 to pass; however, black voters (especially black women voters) voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. He attributes this, in part, to black women's role as church goers. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/opinion/29blow.html?scp=1&sq=blacks%20...

I'm not particularly interested in apportioning out blame for Prop 8 (i.e., Shall we blame blacks or Mormons?). I am saddened by the brief the Obama administration released in support of DOMA. To liken gay marriage to incest is extremely hateful. The logic is odd. Yes, there is a history of prohibiting incestuous marriage as well as same-sex marriage. Of course, there was also a history of prohibiting interracial marriages (and Mr. Obama and I wouldn't be here if people hadn't realized that these laws were based on irrational bigotry). So let's shift the analogy, shall we, Mr. Obama? Yes, there are some people who would be scandalized if I married my girlfriend, but what real harm would it cause?

No support/evidence for your assumptions

By: RB | Thu, 06/18/2009 - 14:41

It was Mormon churches, i.e. largely white ones, that led the fight against gay marriage in California.

And what on earth is your evidence for the idea that Obama's "exposure" to the black church led to his opposition to gay marriage or ambivalence about DOMA? The black church he belonged to, Trinity United, is widely known for its welcoming attitude toward gay parishioners.

Just because it's a blog post doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want with no support whatsoever. What you say is has influence -- try to be responsible.

Mormon Church, not Black Churches

By: midwesterner.in.Cali | Thu, 06/18/2009 - 13:45

It was the Mormon Church that spearheaded the anti-gay-marriage movement in California this past election cycle, not black churches.