View From the Hill
BY Kerry Eleveld
May 08 2009 12:00 AM ET
If there was ever a sign that the culture was more ready to advance on LGBT issues than Washington's politicians, it was the virtual deluge of coverage from nearly every corner of mainstream media this week.
The cascade was dizzying: The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Hill . Meanwhile, back at the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked one question about whether the president had a reaction to Maine legalizing same-sex marriage and he nearly ducked behind his podium.
"No, I think the president's position on same-sex marriages has been talked about and discussed," he replied curtly, seemingly hoping to move away from the topic as quickly as possible.
As Democratic analyst Paul Begala noted during Thursday's CNN segment on LGBT issues, "The gay rights movement and marriage equality is advancing very nicely, thank you very much, without Barack Obama's help." Begala also predicted that the president would eventually come around to supporting marriage equality, but not any time soon.
Any change of heart, of course, is more likely to happen after the movement and the majority of the country has settled the issue -- likely in President Obama's second term, assuming there is one. While I'm not hopeful for any imminent profile in courage on marriage, what does seem advisable, as argued by the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, is that the White House drop the whole it's-a-matter-for-the-states shtick.
"What the president shouldn't do is stay away from the marriage debate on the grounds that it's not a matter for the federal government. For one thing, he's on record as favoring repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages and relieved states of any obligation to recognize out-of-state gay marriages," Robinson wrote.
In fact, as more states legalize marriage, it becomes ever more imperative that the federal government is able to recognize those unions for the purposes of issues like equal tax treatment and Social Security survivor benefits among many others. Even if the states are deciding individually how to handle marriage, the federal government increasingly has an obligation to right the financial inequities DOMA levels at same-sex partners. And if the White House doesn't want to do it publicly, why not simply give a behind-the-scenes green light for legislation on partial repeal of DOMA to be introduced so lobbyists can get to work on building support?
Even as popular opinion is quickly changing on marriage equality -- a recent ABC News- Washington Post poll found for the first time that more people support it than oppose it -- one issue the public has agreed on for almost a decade is that men and women should be allowed to serve openly in the military irrespective of their sexual orientation.
As Rachel Maddow and Huffington Post documented, President Obama is now in the business of firing Arabic linguists. In the opinion of Republican strategist Mary Matalin on CNN, repealing the military's gay ban "is a better fight than gay marriage -- ["don't ask, don't tell"] strikes people as imminently unfair and stupid relative to the security needs that we have."
- Ethics Complaint Filed Against Texas AG Over Stance on Marriage Licenses
- Ted Cruz and the Fallout for Fire Island
- Why These Four Justices Rejected Marriage Equality
- Op-ed: What Happened When President Obama Met Two Trans Service Members
- Why Does Vogue Think Bisexuality Is a Phase?
- Yet Another Court Tells Bobby Jindal to Issue Marriage Licenses