President Obama on refusal to defend DOMA: It might not be pretty “but it’s the right thing to do.”

[jefferson_dem]

Inside Obama's Gay Marriage Decision
by Daniel Stone

President Obama’s surprise decision to stop enforcing part of the Defense of Marriage Act was part of a campaign by gay groups to change his mind reports Daniel Stone.

President Obama was in the Oval Office, poring over a stack of legal memos.

It was several days before the announcement that the administration would no longer vouch for part of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the former constitutional law professor was reviewing the arguments before the Justice Department for an upcoming Massachusetts case.

With top staffers more concerned with the political impact of halting prosecutions under the marriage law—and whether it would complicate negotiations with Republicans about avoiding a government shutdown—Obama summoned his senior advisers to a meeting. It might not be pretty, he told them, “but it’s the right thing to do.”

The administration’s decision to effectively rule part of the law banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional caught Washington off guard. Even gay-advocacy groups that work closely with the White House didn’t get more than an hour’s notice of a change that many had been pushing for over the last year-and-a-half.

The DOMA decision was the latest in a series of administration moves on the politically sensitive issue. Last spring, Obama ordered hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. In December, the administration devoted significant time to pushing for the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which barred gays from serving openly. Administration officials also point to Obama’s decision to host the first-ever gay-pride event at the White House last fall.

<SNIP>

For the most part, gay advocates have been pleased with the administration. That’s a major shift from a year ago, when LGBT issues weren’t getting the attention some advocacy wanted. “We felt disrespected last year,” said a spokesman for one group, who requested anonymity to criticize administration officials. “But over time, they’ve come to appreciate the compelling arguments we have.”

<SNIP>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-05/president-obama-shifting-policy-on-gay-marriage/?cid=hp:mainpromo3

[blueclown]

1. There are certain accomplishments you can't take away from the President..

as much as the mouthbreathers try.. and this is one of many..

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Note the title

President Obama’s surprise decision to stop enforcing part of the Defense of Marriage Act was part of a campaign by gay groups to change his mind .
So there was and has been a concerted effort to change the President's 'thinking' or rather to calm his political fears, around this issue. Without that campaign, where would he be? The article tells us that as well:
"Obama’s reticence on the issue isn’t the only obstacle. The federal law that delegates marriage decisions to the states would have to be changed by Congress or the Supreme Court. But the president taking a public stance in favor of same-sex marriage would have an undeniable impact.

Senior officials won’t talk on the record about Obama’s process of “grappling,” as Press Secretary Jay Carney called it last month, with the idea of allowing gay people to marry. But to push Obama to change his mind, gay advocacy groups have been strategizing how to get to convince him that it is politically safe to commit himself. "

So the President is not yet supportive of equal marriage rights, still having his personal struggle with other people having rights. I've never understood concepts of bigotry and group superiority so I'll have to leave that to the 'faith community' and the President, his close allies, and others who stand against equal rights, such as Palin and the Bush family. Not something I understand, this prejudice thing. I grapple with it. I struggle with the idea of allowing bigots to express themselves in the law.
Wrong is wrong. Unfair is unfair. It is what it is. Silence = Death. Knowledge = Life.

[jefferson_dem]

3. He did the right thing so now you complain about how he went about doing the right thing?

Sorry. You lack credibility.

[Swede]

4. How dare you try stop the moving of goalposts?

:shrug:

[dionysus]

8. oh ffs.

[Ikonoklast]

14. Obama walks on water.

Bluenorthwest says Obama can't swim.


When looking for a reason to be disappointed one usually will find one.

[ruggerson]

5. This, once again, makes it clear that political pressure from the LGBT community worked

And, once again, kudos to the President for listening and evolving. A lesser man/leader would not have.

While many were bashing gay activists, bloggers and formal organizations, these LGBT groups kept the pressure up, got through to the WH and to Obama and, rightfully, convinced them that this was both politically smart and morally correct.

You can't say enough about Obama's willingness to listen and to adapt. Both are signs of a keen intellect and a strong leader.

[DevonRex]

6. Great post. Credit to everyone involved. Nt

[Jakes Progress]

7. Yes it did.

There are those that would silence all advice from progressives to the president, but without it we wouldn't have had this decision.

[TheWraith]

9. Obama-bashing isn't "pressure," not if you're talking about bloggers calling him a bigot & homophobe

And saying that that is irrational and illogical isn't gay-bashing.

[AtomicKitten]

10. +1

[ruggerson]

12. It was bloggers who first ran with criticisms of the Smelt brief

which was indisputably bigoted and legally harmful. But because of the bloggers it became a front page story in the MSM. There were those at the time who claimed that there was an unbreachable wall between the DOJ and the WH and that Obama's hands were tied and that he had to defend the law vigorously.

But the President reacted to the overwhelming criticism of the brief, organized a meeting with the DOJ and top LGBT civil rigthts attorneys and ultimately issued a revised brief along with a concurrent, much more helpful and positive, statement directly from the White House.

That series of events pretty much demolished the "unbreachable wall" argument.

Every civil/human rights movement has had its calmer, cooler, quieter and more reasoned proponents and its more raucous and vocal segment. Both serve very legitimate purposes: the official organizations often gain access to power, the more vocal groups serve to apply pressure both to the official governmental power structure and also to the more staid professional organizations.

It is the responsibility of the more aggressive activists to speak truth to power. If their language sometimes shocks or angers, well, that's how, in part, things get done.

And there is a big difference between some in a disenfranchised group "bashing" their leaders in pursuit of moving forward the cause of civil equality than those who blindly defend the powers that be and "bash" back those seeking only to shake off the iron clad shackles and injustices of second class citizenship.

[AtomicKitten]

11. The wingnuts are confusing "defend" with "enforce"

-- but it's fun watching them spin their wheels over this.

[jenmito]

13. K&R.

:thumbsup: