Obama
Today, President Obama gave some of the most extensive and supportive statements I’ve ever seen him make on the specifics of LGBT relationship equality. At a town hall in Tampa, Fla., the following exchange took place:
Q All right, I’m Hector and I’m a student at UT. (Applause.) And my question is, last night you talked about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and my question is what are you doing now to put in motion so that same-sex couples and homosexuals are treated as equal citizens of the United States, i.e., same-sex marriages and the thousand-plus benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy after marriage? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Look, as I said last night, my belief is, is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you’re obeying the law, if you’re following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are. (Applause.) I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples. So at the federal level, one of the things that we’re trying to do is to make sure that partnerships are recognized for purposes of benefits so that hospital visitation, for example, is something that is permitted; that Social Security benefits or pension benefits or others, that same-sex couples are recognized in all those circumstances.
I think that we’ve got to — we actually have an opportunity of passing a law that’s been introduced in Congress right now, and my hope is this year we can get it done, just for federal employees and federal workers. A lot of companies, on their own, some of the best-run companies have adopted these same practices. I think it’s the right thing to do and it makes sense for us to take a leadership role in ensuring that people are treated the same. (Applause.)
Look, if you are — regardless of your personal opinions, the notion that somebody who’s working really hard for 30 years can’t take their death benefits and transfer them to the person that they love the most in the world and who has supported them all their lives, that just doesn’t seem fair. It doesn’t seem right. (Applause.) And I think it’s the right thing to do.
This appears to encompass both the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act being pushed forward by U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), which he specifically notes in the second paragraph of his answer, as well as the Respect for Marriage Act, which is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Popularity: 12% [?]
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
Certainly the strongest support he’s given us since he got in office. Dare we ask the OPM if they’re ready to obey the Court Order from CA and get that women’s wife enrolled?
Look, as I said last night, my belief is, is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you’re obeying the law, if you’re following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are.
Agreed. LGBT people should be treated the same.
So, Mr. Obama, why is your administration defending DOMA and DADT as reasonable laws in court? Why did you defy a court order that ruled that a federal employee had the right to add her spouse on her health insurance plan?
Obama knows how to talk the talk. He simply refuses to walk the walk.
Well, I’ve gone through the reasons why I think those are unfair attacks many, many times. So, search through for any of those cases. DOJ has a job to do, which is to defend laws that are not plainly unconstitutional. And none of those laws are plainly unconstitutional under current Sup Ct law, if for nothing other than the fact that judges to have heard all three types of cases have come to differing views on the matter.
That seems to be an argument against the estate tax and for the personal ownership of things like survivorship benefits. There is nothing that requires transferability of benefits or other property rights to be linked to marriage.
Another one of those arguments that’s very convincing to anyone who is already convinced, and evaporates if subjected to a bit of thought. Most of the work is being done by “regardless of your personal opinions.” Yes, if you set aside the personal opinions of people who disagree with you, most arguments get much simpler. Now if only you didn’t occasionally need their votes.
“That seems to be an argument against the estate tax and for the personal ownership of things like survivorship benefits. There is nothing that requires transferability of benefits or other property rights to be linked to marriage.”
And where did Obama said they needed to be linked to marriage? Where does his answer even mention marriage? I don’t know with whom you’re arguing, but it’s not Obama.
The “regardless of your personal opinions” with Obama tends to be his way of gesturing toward the folks who think homosexuality is morally wrong in and of itself. He did a similar move at the National Prayer Breakfast when he said, “We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are, whether it is here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.”
Obama has a standard rhetorical pattern of acknowledging where there are disagreements that he considers reasonable, and then declaring that there should be common ground on something else. Which then leaves it to the other side to say, “No, Uganda’s idea of executing people for consensual adult sex seems like a good one.”
I’m sorry, did I miss the bit where he said that such benefits should be freely-transferable to an individual of the beneficiary’s choice, rather than through some state-recognized relationship? Because otherwise he’s talking about recognition through marriage (or some quasi-marriage relationship). Let us be real:
Consider, to be a bit lighthearted, Bruce Wayne and Alfred Pennyworth. Alfred easily fits the qualification for “somebody who Bruce loves most in the world, and who has supported Bruce all his life.” But whatever their personal, non-sexual relationship, they are friends and employees and not (outside certain slash-fic) lovers. If Obama really means what he says, then Bruce ought to be able to transfer his benefits to Alfred. In fact, that is not what Obama means. Unless he’s proposed some rather audaciously hopeful legislation while no one is looking, the legal change he proposes is not actually conditioned on whether you love someone all your life, or have supported them. It’s based on a legal status change.
Obama’s words are a pretty transparent candyfloss to dress up an argument in a way that makes it seem unobjectionable–why shouldn’t you be able to transfer your property/benefits to those you choose!?!–when what is actually proposed is in fact quite different: you shall now be able to transfer certain quasi-property rights to a slightly broader set of pre-selected beneficiaries than you might otherwise have been able. To pretend otherwise is non-serious.
But “quasi-marriage” is not the same as marriage.
a slightly broader set of pre-selected beneficiaries than you might otherwise have been able
I’m surprised by a meaning of “slightly broader” that includes an entire half of the population (i.e. that of the same sex) to whom you previously could not transfer benefits because you could not be in a state-recognized relationship with any of its members.
It’s still not free transfer, which is what the principle he espouses would suggest. (And of course, leaves open the question: is the law unjust because the person you love most in the world, and the person “who has supported them all their lives” might be different people, and yet this solution would only allow one of them to be a beneficiary?)
Face it, if Obama means what he says he means, then the laws he is supporting are unjust on their face. The fact is, he doesn’t mean it: he’s supporting his goals with a general principle that receives far greater support than his specific policies. This is not an uncommon political tactic–indeed, it’s common as dirt–but not exactly praiseworthy.