What Gives: Why Is the White House Dropping the Ball on LGBT Rights?

Why is the Obama administration dropping the ball on LGBT rights? Over at Pam's House Blend, you can check out a post that includes a full run down of the administration's recent missteps around LGBT rights, including the jaw-dropping (but sadly familiar) language of the DOJ's brief dismissing a DOMA challenge; the lack of teeth in the White House's new announcement that benefits will be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees (no health insurance, though); and the brewing snafu of a planned DNC fundraiser that many LGBT donors are now boycotting.

What gives? How do you explain the profound disconnect between Obama's language and promises on the campaign trail and the clear message that his administration is sending by refusing to act or comment substantively upon LGBT rights issues currently at play, and then releasing the DOJ brief.

It's one thing for the White House to let this issue play out in the states, in Congress and in the federal courts; but it's another thing entirely to be citing the incest argument in a brief issued by the DOJ.  I understand why the administration would choose the former path and focus efforts in its first term on issues like health care and economic recovery. In fact, I think those are the big issues they ought to be devoting their efforts -- and political capital -- to. In this pragmatic realm, it is the task of of civil rights groups to move the ball forward, by lobbying effectively, exerting continual and savvy political pressure, and building grassroots support for LGBT rights.

But the language of the DOJ brief? One understands that the DOJ would dismiss the claim for lack of standing and that its role, typically, is to uphold federal statutes. But the language of the brief takes an aggressive anti-gay stance; they could have easily dismissed the claim without trotting out the bigoted rhetoric.

So why do this? The usual explanations -- pandering to conservative elements; Obama doing an about-face on the positions he held as a State Senator, a U.S. Senator and a candidate for President -- don't seem to hold a lot of water. What do you think?

One of the better responses to the DOJ brief came from the HRC's Joe Solomonese, who addressed a letter to Obama that's excerpted below.

Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,”[1] I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours.  I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.

I've written a number of posts critiquing the HRC and I'm glad to highlight their good work on this issue.

Comments

[jack-of-all-thumbs]

I confess that I do not pay as much attention to issues of gender as I should, despite agreeing that more needs to be done. I was listening to a Rachael Maddow interview a few weeks ago that focused on DADT, when I was stunned by a statistic her guest provided: approximately 13,000 men and women have been ejected from the military under DADT. I had no idea. I expected that it was 100-fold fewer. I imagine that most of America is equally clueless, and would be given pause to think if they had heard the interview.