[This post will be my up-to-the-minute coverage of President Obama's same-sex benefits announcement throughout this evening. Also, be sure to check out this follow-up post discussing why John Aravosis is unfairly maligning U.S. Rep. Barney Frank. -Ed.]
THE PREVIEW: Mark Knoller has reported that CNN is on TV pool duty today, and Wolf Blitzer is covering it now. The on-site reporter said that the CNN pool reporter is waiting to go into the Oval Office.
The Atlantic’s Mark Ambinder reported earlier on Obama’s white paper circulated to describe today’s action. In part, it stated:
For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.
As discussed earlier, this action will exclude non-civilian military employees.
* * * * *
OBAMA’S SIGNING: It is a presidential memorandum, representing “long overdue” action. Obama talks about people being unable to receive equal benefits solely “because of who they love.” Sec. of State Clinton and OPM head John Berry are cited by name for their work.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VasC9lDsw_4]
Obama cites business support for equality. Under current law, Obama says he is limited. He offers his support for the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, and thanks Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who is there, for her “tireless leadership” on the bill. Rep. Barney Frank and Sens. Collins and Lieberman, also there, are thanked.
“Among the steps we have not yet taken is” the repeal of DOMA, which he states is discriminatory. “I’m committed to these efforts” and will work “tirelessly” to do so.
He signs “the executive order.”
Joe Solomonese, from the Human Rights Campaign, also was in attendance.
* * * * *
MY FIRST TAKE: This meets several of the steps that I hoped to see from Obama tonight, but not all. First, what I liked:
- Obama signed an executive order to help provide what equality in federal employment he could without legislation.
- He talked about our relationships in a very positive way by referring to who we “love.”
- He stated that he wants to see the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act passed so that there can be equal benefits for federal employees.
- He restated his desire to repeal DOMA.
What was missing?
- A nod to equality that explained why the Justice Department filed the brief it did in Smelt v. United States.
- Restated opposition to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and a desire to see Congress, including Sen. Harry Reid, take action.
- Mention of ENDA.
In short, this was the step that can be used to move things forward as we move on, and it gave the country the chance to see Obama taking action to increase LGBT equality in our country. This is good. It was not, however, a bold, specific statement from our “fierce advocate” about his vision for LGBT equality over the coming years. It was a helpful action. As I wrote earlier:
As of September 2005, the Office of Personnel Management stated there were 1,608,742 federal Executive Branch employees. There were nearly a quarter-million of such employees in the D.C. area alone. A U.S. Postal Service worker in Alabama will be included in this order.
This might have been a small step . . . but, regardless, it will create the possibility of domestic partner benefits, overnight, in every state in the nation. Every city of any size will have some folks receiving same-sex benefits — regardless of how imperfect they are — where the local government might appear to be years and years away from granting them to its employees.
That is the real value of this action, and that’s why this action will make tomorrow a different day in our fight for full equality than it is today.
* * * * *
OTHER TAKES:
- The National Center for Lesbian Rights calls the president’s action “inadequate and long overdue.”
- John Aravosis calls it “terribly inappropriate” that gay leaders, including HRC President Joe Solomonese and Rep. Tammy Baldwin attended. He includes several groups’ reactions — including HRC and Lambda Legal — to the action.
- The National LGBT Bar Association calls it “an important first step.”
- Here’s Pam Spaulding’s open thread on the signing.
- Dale Carpenter calls today’s action “the least he could do.”
* * * * *
NEXT UP: Joe Solomonese will be appearing on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown sometime between 8 and 9 p.m.
Olbermann is going tough against President Obama, calling it a “memorandum that will expire the day” his Administration ends.
Olbermann: Could the president put more teeth behind it?
Joe Solomonese: “He did what he could do. Congress has got to convey those benefits. I was happy” to see the president call for passage of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act.
KO: As to DOMA?
JS: The only thing that will make us happy is the overturning of DOMA.
KO: Why did you go to the White House?
JS: “I wanted to be there tonight. I wanted to hear what the President wanted to say.” … “I was able to talk with President Obama, Rep. Baldwin and Sen. Lieberman about getting the DP Benefits & Obligations Act to his desk.”
Solomonese said that despite getting some alone time with Baldwin, Lieberman and Obama, he did not have any time to talk with Obama about his powerful letter regarding the Smelt v. US brief. I must admit that this lacking of an ability to “speak truth to power” from the one gay group’s leader to attend this signing is very disappointing to me.
* * * * *
FURTHER: U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, on The Rachel Maddow Show, said that Obama went “as far as he could go” and that the ball was now in Congress’s court. Calling his support for Baldwin’s DP Benefits bill a “strong statement of strong support,” Baldwin thinks that this could go forward.
She will be going to the DNC event: “Part of my role in attending the event next week is to convey my sense of urgency.”
Rachel asked how to get Obama to move more quickly. Baldwin responded: “Giving him a bill to sign would be the first order of business.”
* * * * *
FINALLY: Richard Socarides, talking to Anderson Cooper, said that this was a good first step, but that Obama “overpromised.” More: “Gay people in iowa are being married. . . . It is very behind the curve.”
Socarides, on what now: “What the president really needs to do now is enunciate a very specific plan for gay rights.” Tuesday evening, I wrote: “We want to believe in this Administration, but we need real plans and real action.”
Popularity: 2% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political editor at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, The American Prospect, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
Didn’t his administration just say last week that DOMA isn’t discriminatory? And didn’t his spokesman just say today that he stands behind that?
Well said, yeah. On the whole, I agree that it moves the football a bit down the field. Despite all my anger, I think it’s important to realize that we made some progress, emphasis on “made”, we forced this, we do have power, we can continue to push and do more.
A nit:
“Every city of any size will have some folks receiving same-sex benefits — regardless of how imperfect they are — where the local government might appear to be years and years away from granting them to its employees.”
Pretty much every city of any size already has *some* folks receiving such benefits, just not out of the public sector.
If Obama “personally didn’t believe in” a law saying that federal law wouldn’t recognize marriages between slaves, would it be okay for his administration to defend that law? The Nuremberg defense for lawyers?
This is a matter of civil rights, human rights, and discrimination. Get a spine.
KaT Adams, did you read PG’s comment before commenting? They weren’t refusing to defend laws they didn’t agree with; they were refusing to defend laws that were obviously unconstitutional. DOMA has been upheld many times in court and never found to be unconstitutional. This was not the type of case where refusing to defend it would have been appropriate.
IANAL – but isn’t this a memorandum, which expires automatically when Obama leaves office, rather than an Executive Order, which remains in force until countermanded by EO, courts or legislation?
You’re right, but I do think the “government” bit makes a difference.
Having just come from a committee hearing in Ohio where five of six Republicans voted against a simple non-discrimination bill, I think that having the federal government take this action today marginalizes their “no” vote all the more.
Matt A.,
Have you read the coverage on this website, or elsewhere, by people with experience working under an attorney general (whether state or federal), that explains the executive is almost always obligated to defend the constitutionality of a statute regardless of whether the executive personally agrees with that statute?
I’m starting to realize that a lot of people honestly don’t get the whole “zealous advocacy for one’s client” aspect of attorney ethics. No wonder we still have laymen complaining that an argument made in a brief must represent an attorney’s personal opinion.
Absolutely, agreed. Thanks again for the great coverage.
Jennifer,
The problem with the Nuremberg defense was that people were claiming justification for violating the law by saying that they had been ordered to do so by their superiors. In other words, they said they had no agency to decide whether to comply with law; that such decisions were in their superiors’ hands. This defense is unworkable because every individual has an obligation to comply with the law.
In contrast, the DOJ has an obligation to defend the constitutionality of Congressional statutes — even when the president doesn’t think the statute is wholly constitutional (which, incidentally, is not Obama’s position on DOMA — he thinks it’s unwise as a policy matter, but he has not said that he thinks it is unconstitutional, particularly under existing SCOTUS precedent that applies no more than rational basis scrutiny to laws regarding sexual orientation), the DOJ must defend the statute.
For example, Bush explicitly said that he didn’t think that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka McCain-Feingold) was constitutional. Yet he still sent Solicitor General Ted Olson to argue for the law’s constitutionality when it was litigated.
Also, Godwin.
Yeah. Except that the past FOUR presidents, at least, have all, at one time or another, not supported laws they did not agree with and helped put down things that should never have been passed. “The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”–Rand
Yes I have read that coverage. In fact, I do get the whole “zealous advocacy for one’s client” aspect of attorney ethics. Thanks for assuming I’m an idiot. Seriously, it makes me feel so welcome. I can’t wait to engage you again!
Defend DOMA, fine. But there is no law, as others (including Lambda Legal) have pointed out, saying that that defense must read like it was written by James Dobson and Peter LaBarbera. That was a choice that the Obama administration made.
And frankly, I’d be less inclined to have a big problem with this if the Obama administration had moved one inch on any of his promises to the LGBT community. The fact is that it took five months and a threat of withholding money to get ANY movement, if you can call this week’s memorandum movement.
Matt A,
In what way did the DOJ brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA read like it was written by James Dobson and Peter LaBarbera? Was it the remark on the first page — “same-sex couples in these States have won what they understandably view as a vital personal right of surpassing importance to their happiness and well-being” — that sounded like the view of a person who regards SSM as an affront to God and man?
If you are aware that the DOJ is obligated to be a zealous advocate for its client, the federal government, please explain which argument in the brief is inappropriate for a zealous advocate for DOMA’s constitutionality. I suspect that you’ll only be able to find arguments that are inappropriate for a DOJ worried about offending some part of the president’s political base — the kind of concern I hoped we’d eradicate from the DOJ’s work after Bush left the White House.
And if you’re going to claim that it’s inherently wrong to cite cases about first-cousin marriage or marriage to 16-year-olds when discussing SSM, please first read the VT Supreme Court’s decision creating civil unions, and Lambda Legal’s brief here. Nobody complained about being compared to pedophiles and incest when those cases were cited in FAVOR of increasing equality.