Media Covers LGBT Displeasure With Obama

Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press

Joe.My.God does a good job of covering the reaction of the three openly gay members of Congress to the ongoing flap over the Obama Department of Justice defending DOMA in court in a way that offended LGBT activists:

Barney Frank (D-MA): “I think the administration made a big mistake. The wording they used was inappropriate. I’ve been in touch with the White House and I’m hoping the president will make clear these were not his views.” Frank says that the DNC fundraiser boycott is wrong. “There are a lot of people who aren’t boycotting. I think it’s a mistake to deny money to the DNC.”

Rep. Tammy Balwin (D-WI): "Last week the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. I was profoundly disappointed by this action, particularly coming from this administration. I still take President Obama at his word that he is committed to the repeal of DOMA. I also recognize that he cannot do it alone. Congress has the responsibility on its shoulders to pass legislation that would give the opportunity to the President to keep his word and ensure that all married people, including those in same-sex marriages, enjoy the same rights under federal law."

Rep. Jaris Polis (D-CO): "I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court, especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it. Comparing my loving relationship with my partner, Marlon, to incest was unconscionable coming from a president who has called for change. Since this filing, I have called on the President to issue a statement or give any sign that would clarify his position and am disappointed in his lack of reply"

In today's Los Angeles Times, Jessica Garrison and Mark Z. Barabak have an article entitled "Obama Policy Is Outreach To Gays" which quotes numerous LGBT activists reacting to the Obama administration's decision to offer (some) domestic partner benefits to federal employees:

"This is a good thing for the small percentage of . . . people that work for the federal government, but it leaves out the vast majority of people who are in same-sex relationships," said Geoff Kors, head of Equality California, one of the state's largest gay rights groups.

[...]

Although there is some sympathy for the president's position -- "he has enormous stuff on his plate that requires a lot of political capital," said Steve Elmendorf, a gay Democratic strategist -- many think the concerns of gays and lesbians are once again being shunted to second- and third-tier status.

Ken Sherrill, a Hunter College political scientist and gay activist, recalled how the Clinton administration started with great hope but ended in disappointment when the president, for tactical reasons, retreated on gay rights. President Clinton approved both the marriage bill and the policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

"There's a fear that Obama will prove to be a heartbreaker as well," Sherrill said.

A White House spokesman said Tuesday that the president was not retreating from his campaign promises. "The president remains fully committed to the . . . proposals he made," Adam Abrams said. "We have already begun work on many of these issues."

[...]

Nothing, however, matches the outrage provoked by last week's court filing in Santa Ana supporting the Defense of Marriage Act. The fact that the brief was filed during Gay Pride Month, which Obama saluted with a formal proclamation, only compounded the sense of insult.

"You have some appointments that have been good and a proclamation," said Sherrill, who has written extensively on the history of the gay rights movement. "And then two tangible areas where the administration has done something wrongheaded and offensive. Doing nothing at all would have been a helluva lot better."

Indeed.