Obama’s Federal Benefits For Same-Sex Partners: Obama’s “Gift to Gays” After Dept. of Justice Backdoor Brief?

The LA Times is reporting that President Obama is expected to announce that the federal government will extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The Times is also reporting that the decision was made because of “growing anger” among Obama’s gay supporters over Obama’s failure to follow through on campaign promises and a recent brief filed by Obama’s Dept. of Justice. A “backdoor” brief that has stunned the gay community, leaving this writer to wonder if the new “benefits” are some sort of “small carrot” on a stick in order to appease the growing unease within the gay community.

The brief, a motion to dismiss that was filed this week in an Orange County, CA courthouse against a federal lawsuit is highly illuminating, “written” proof that Obama is playing a shell game with gay constituents and the American public. His impending announcement, of extending federal benefits to same-sex partners, came after the ensuing “fallout” over the brief by way of several high power gay backers pulling out of an upcoming Democratic fundraiser slated to be held next week.

Here’s a few facts about that brief:

The motion to dismiss was filed by Obama’s Dept. of Justice in response to a lawsuit against the federal government’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enacted in 1996.

Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the court “lacked jurisdiction” over the plaintiff’s claims against the federal government because the state court (California), “lacked jurisdiction” and that the plaintiff’s claims “must be dismissed” for “lack of standing”.

The brief also argued that while the plaintiffs were married in states that allowed same-sex marriages they were asking that other states “recognize” the validity of the marriage. The brief also cited that the plaintiffs were seeking entitlement to same-sex partner federal benefits.

While Obama is expected at any time to announce federal benefits to same-sex partners, here’s what his Dept. of Justice had to say in the brief about the very same subject:

-That it is up to the States to address “same-sex” marriage.

-That it is up to other states as to whether they will adopt same-sex marriage,

and that same-sex marriages should be not extended “certain federal benefits”.

And what are the “certain federal benefits”? Are they the same “benefits” now enjoyed by government sanctioned marriages?

Here’s what’s being reported about Obama’s “upcoming” federal “benefits” which will be offered to same-sex domestic partners. According to the Advocate, Obama is expected to sign a “presidential memorandum” which would expire when he leaves office. The Advocate is reporting that the federal “benefits” will most likely not include health or retirement due to the “legal obstacles” posed by the Defense of Marriage Act. Which, ironically, the Obama administration defended rather vigorously last week in its Motion to Dismiss.

The brief stated that under law the Federal government must say “no” to federal benefits afforded to same-sex partners.

Here’s more of what his Department of Justice had to say to the court:

“It argued that Congress is entitled under the Constitution to address “issues of social reform” and that it is up to Congress to extend federal benefits to same-sex marriages.”

While some have postured that it was George W. Bush who was “anti-gay” it was President Clinton who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act as well as the military’s “Don’t Ask: Don’t Tell” policy. It was Obama’s Justice Department which, just last week, put into court records arguments defending the “man-woman” marriage scenario enacted by Congress as well as “just say no” to federal benefits to same-sex marriage partners.

More from the brief:

“…regardless of whether same-sex marriage is appropriate policy, under current legal precedent there is no constitutional right to it, and that precedent is binding on these parties and this court. While the Supreme Court has held the right to marry is “fundamental”, Zablocki vs Redhail 434 U.S. 374, 383-87, 98 S. Ct. 673, 54L.Ed.2d 618 (1978), that right has not been held to encompass the right to marry someone of the same sex.”

“DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in provision of federal benefits. To the contrary, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in federal employment and a wide array of federal benefits programs by law, regulation, and Executive order…

…Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientation, but rather limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage. Section 2 merely reserves to the States the prerogative to make the same choice.”

Then there’s this:

“DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other states to subsidize a form of marriage their own states to not recognize. This policy of neutrality and democratic self-governance in an area of traditional state concern and preserves scarce government resources. It is thus entirely rational.”

“Given the strength of competing convictions on this still-evolving issue, Congress could reasonably decide that federal benefits funded by taxpayers throughout the nation should not be used to foster a form of marriage that only some States recognize, and that other States do not.”

John Aravosis at America Blog has reported on the brief of it’s implications and repercussions to the gay community beginning with “the big lie”.

The Obama administration argued that it “didn’t have a choice in defending the lawsuit” yet John rather succinctly points out that this is far from the truth, that prior presidents have filed briefs in federal lawsuits which opposed a “current law” as being “unconstitutional” and that “Obama could have done the same”:

“And before Obama claims he didn’t have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we’ll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was “abhorrent.” Folks, Obama’s lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He’s taking us down for his own benefit.”

John also referred to the cases which were “cited” by the DOJ, cases which referred to “incest”, “people marrying children” and “rape” and that Obama (under the aegis of the DOJ) “didn’t just argue “technicalities” about the case-which he could have easily done-he argued that DOMA was “reasonable”:

“I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).”

Understandably, gay rights advocates were shocked and flabbergasted over Obama’s DOJ’s brief as Obama, during the campaign, had promised to immediately champion legislation which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Promises, Promises…

According to CNS News, immediately after being sworn into office, Obama announced, on his new website, Whitehouse.gov, a call to repeal the DOMA Act as well as “an extension of federal marriage benefits” and “adoption rights to homosexual couples”.

While I was unable to find any reference to the inauguration day promise to “repeal” the Defense of Marriage Act on Obama’s Whitehouse.gov website here’s what I was able to find currently regarding DOMA on the site:

March 13 – Press briefing with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

“Q Robert, there was a piece this morning about the fact that same-sex spouses of federal employees are barred from health care coverage because — by the Defense of Marriage Act. Since the President would like to see a legislative repeal of that law, what is he prepared to do about it?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously I saw the story, and the President’s position remains the same. The President would work with Congress in order to — not just on this but on other ideas — institute what he promised he’d do in the campaign.

I don’t have a specific update on where the legislation is.”

May 12 Press briefing with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

“Q Okay. And the second question on a completely different topic — the President opposes same-sex marriage, but he supports giving same-sex couples the same rights as married people.

MR. GIBBS: And benefits.

Q Same rights and benefits. What’s your response to critics of his policy who say this is exactly separate but equal?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to the any number of times that he was asked this during the campaign and addressed it.

Q I don’t think he was ever asked is this separate but equal.

MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, it was asked on multiple occasions, and I can pull you something on that. It’s the President’s belief — he strongly supports civil unions, and supports ensuring that they have access to the rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation and things like that, that are enjoyed by others.

Yes, ma’am.”

May 18 Press briefing with Robert Gibbs:

“Q The President supported the Defense of Marriage Act — for repeal of that during the election. Now that same-sex couples can marry legally in five different states, what is the President doing to make sure that those marriages can be recognized at the federal level? And what’s the time line for something like that?

MR. GIBBS: I will — I have to go check on that. I honestly don’t know the answer to that.”

And that “announcement” on Obama’s website that appeared the day he was inaugurated promising to repeal DOMA? It had been removed from the site, but I was able to find this from Lifesitenews:

“May 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Obama White House has removed from its website all references to a pledge made by the president to scrap the Bush administration’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Under the heading of “civil rights” the White House website had originally proclaimed that “Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.” In addition, the site said that legislation should be enacted that would extend federal legal rights and benefits to same-sex partners “in civil unions or other legally recognized unions.” The site specified that this included all of “the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status.”

The passage about DOMA has now been completely removed, as has the specific reference to the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits. The site now says, “President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.”

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen an Obama website “scrub” previously posted info. As for Obama’s long time commitment to get DOMA repealed, here are his own words in a letter written while he was running for Illinois Senator in 2004 to Chicago’s “Windy City Times”.

“Today, I am a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Unlike any of my opponents, I have a legislative track record. No one has to guess about what I will do in Washington. My record makes it very clear. I will be an unapologetic voice for civil rights in the U.S. Senate.

For the record, I opposed DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted … .

When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. …

Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress. …

We must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize—equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. We must vigorously expand hate-crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced. We must continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent and seamless throughout all 50 states, and we must repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy.

I know how important the issue of equal rights is to the LGBT community. I share your sense of urgency. If I am elected U.S. Senator, you can be confident that my colleagues in the Senate and the President will know my position.”

Since this letter was written while Obama was running for the Senate I thought I’d check on whether Obama’s “sense of urgency” translated into actual legislation. After all, as a Senator, Obama wasn’t restricted from submitting his own bill which would have asked to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

During his tenure as Senator Obama sponsored 137 bills, of which two were passed. Not one of the bills addressed the Defense of Marriage Act nor the rights of the gay community.

As for the aforementioned promise to champion legislation that would repeal DOMA that appeared then disappeared on Obama’s Whitehouse.gov website, USNews.com reports that Obama dispatched John Berry, an openly gay Director of the Office of Personnel Management to the Advocate. Berry stated that Obama had a planned “approach” to “four broad legislative goals”. The goals are purportedly getting new “hate crimes” legislation passed–which we’ve seen in the press–securing the passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, repealing “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” and DOMA.

Berry’s “pledge and promise” from Obama:

“Now, I’m not going to pledge—and nor is the president—that this is going to be done by some certain date. The pledge and the promise is that, this will be done before the sun sets on this administration—our goal is to have this entire agenda accomplished and enacted into law so that it is secure.”

The Advocate noted that the “hastily arranged interview”, which occurred backstage at the Washington’s Capital Pride Festival after the DOJ’s brief was filed “suggests the Obama team is picking up on growing unease in the LGBT community.”

Obama has been touting the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy the bill would prohibit “employment” discrimination towards sexual orientation in employment agencies, labor organizations and training programs. It doesn’t apply to religious organizations or to the Armed Forces.

It also states this:

“Declares this Act inapplicable to the provision of employee benefits to an individual for the benefit of such individual’s domestic partner.”

So while Obama is actively touting this bill what he’s also applying is “don’t ask, don’t tell” to what all the bill entails, such as not applying to the military or that it specifically denies employee benefits to an “individuals’ domestic partner”.

It’s now apparent that the “sense of urgency” Obama had in the past regarding the repeal of the Defense of the Marriage Act as well as the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell military policy have been replaced by a sense of urgency to placate the growing “unease” within the gay community. Of promises still not kept and of actions which are contradictory to those very promises.

The Obama administration believed it could get away with filing the brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act then lie about it when asked if Obama “had a choice”. The law he’s most interested in at the moment, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, leaves out the military and specifically states benefits are not “applicable” for same-sex domestic partners.

Time will tell just what the new federal employee “benefits” mandated by Obama will be for same-sex couples. Whether they’re “small carrots” being offered to the gay community in order to quell their rather justified growing unease and to soften the blow of the “big stick” wielded last week by Obama’s Dept. of Justice’s brief.

By LBG

Image – Gay wedding cake

Tags: brief, Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Employee Discrimination Act, Federal benefits for same-sex domestic partners, federal employee benefits, gays, government, Obama, same-sex marriage