Obama Administration Bad On Gay Rights

Ken AshfordSex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

There's no avoiding it: Obama's record on gay rights is not going to be good.  That's unfortunately, especially given the trend in the states to recognize gay marriage.  Many on the left have condemned Obama for this; now the Gray Lady takes a shot:

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.


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.

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.

The best approach of all would have been to make clear, even as it defends the law in court, that it is fighting for gay rights. It should work to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans gay men and lesbians in the military from being open about their sexuality. It should push hard for a federal law banning employment discrimination. It should also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress.

Not sure what the thinking is in the White House.  Perhaps they have too many other things on their plate (wars, economy, health care) and they don't want to spend political capital (there's only so much of it) on social issues.

Or maybe it's a second term thing.  Still, it's disappointing.