Thursday, June 13, 2013

Obama Under Pressure on Gay Rights


As noted before on this blog, I feel that 2013 is a reprise of 2009 when Obama and the national Democrats gave the Democrat base little reason to be motivated and enthusiastic.  The result here in Virginia was a clean GOP sweep of Virginia's statewide offices.  This year, things in Virginia are even more frightening with the GOP slate comprised of some of the most extreme - and out right insane - slate in Virginia history.  One of the issues where Obama and the national Democrats dropped the ball in 2009 was on gay rights issues.  Fast forward to 2013 and it's the same landscape all over again.  And, if the U.S. Supreme Court, fails to strike down DOMA or rules narrowly on same sex marriage, Obama will be facing an open revolt combined with a motivation by gays to stay home on election day.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at why Obama's lip service for gay equality just isn't cutting it with many.  Pretty words are nice, but actions far more significant and motivating for elements of the Democrat base.  Here are highlights:

With the Supreme Court only days away from major rulings on same-sex marriage, President Obama faces the prospect of having to make his own difficult decisions about the definition of wedlock.
Gay rights advocates are already pressing Obama to immediately broaden the federal government’s recognition of legally married same-sex couples if the court strikes down a ban on providing federal benefits to them.

The question for Obama turns on whether the federal government should extend full benefits to gay couples living in states that don’t recognize their marriages. 

Obama would face rare, concrete decisions on the politically combustible question of same-sex marriage — an area he has largely left to the purview of courts and state legislatures.
 
Advocates have pressed the issue of benefits with White House aides in recent months, according to people familiar with the discussions. The advocates have pushed for a uniform standard that would make the most benefits available to legally married couples across the board. Officials have not signaled what Obama would do. 

Obama’s potential dilemma stems from the fact that eligibility for some federal benefits — including Social Security payments to spouses and marital tax deductions — is determined based on the marriage laws of the states where the couples live and not where they were wed.

If the Supreme Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act, full benefits would be available to same-sex couples who marry and live in the dozen states that legally recognize their relationships. But legally married gay couples that live in states that don’t recognize their marriages would be ineligible for a range of federal benefits.

Advocates say Obama could eliminate the discrepancy with an executive order or new regulations setting a couple’s “place of celebration” as the deciding factor in whether the U.S. government recognizes a marriage for the purposes of providing benefits.

“Equal protection means that every family should have access to the same protections they need regardless of state borders,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign . . . . 

As president, Obama has largely sidestepped the marriage issue. He endorsed same-sex marriage rights in the midst of his reelection campaign, spurring a flood of campaign cash from gay donors, and his administration joined in the effort to overturn the benefits provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. But Obama has said the question of legalized marriage should be left to the states.

“There will be tremendous pressure on the White House and on the president personally to move very quickly to implement the judgement and to implement it broadly,” said Richard Socarides, a longtime gay rights activist who was an adviser in the Bill Clinton White House. 

“Thirty days is what he’s got,” Socarides added. “These are real people suffering real injury. If anybody tries to argue that they need six months or a year, there are going to be riots in the streets.”
The issues raised are real.  The boyfriend and I have considered getting married in New York or Washington, D.C.  Our marriage should not evaporate the moment we travel to the south side of the Potomac River.  Obama - and the national Democrats - need to act quickly.

No comments: