Gibbs' response is completely reasonable. I support the right to gay marriage as much as anyone else, but it is the Justice Department's job -- and the President's in that context -- to uphold the law.

This blog called out the Bush administration for politicizing the Justice Department. Obama shouldn't politicize it either. Obama's avenue to advocate for a policy change is though the legislature (to repeal DOMA) and the military (to repeal don't ask don't tell). Leave the Justice Department alone to uphold current law like it's supposed to.

To put things in perspective, it should be noted that Obama has already done more for gay rights, even with this very small step, than any American president ever, and he's not even 6 months into his presidency.

Dan -- you own/partially own your own paper and can provide benefits for your boyfriend. -- so why does health care matter to you?

You have an open relationship -- so why does marriage matter to you?

You think you're fighting for the rest of us? You're not. You're actually spitting out SHIT. Save for your sex column.

Just save it.

Indeed there does seem to be two very different ideas, Obama supports the DoJ's brief and it's contents, and he is still committed to the repeal of DOMA through the legislature. I'm going to say, that the words out of his mouth have more power than the contents of the brief, from my perspective. That repealing DOMA is still the plan.

Thank you Dan Savage for leading the charge on holding this administration's collective feet to the fire. This type of pandering just makes this gay submarine vet's blood boil. Dan Savage you have a platform to expose this for the low ball maneuver it is. Get it done.

Hmmm... sounds like he's saying the current law is the issue. Time to start demanding Congress repeal DOMA.

3 You've got it. DOMA and DADT are not things that can be repealed only through an executive order, that's why I've never understood the attacks.

This is what Kennedy did in advance of the CRA of 1964, abridged, after basically dicking around black america ("thanks for your votes and time, but I can't do anything to offend white people!!!!1"). His speech is a classic, although a bit wordy. It happened 46 years and 5 days ago tonight.

What happened next is about 4 or so days later, Kennedy brought in a standing but motionless bill and put his seal on it, introducing it personally on the 19th (exactly a week after his speech) which makes it a walk through committees and generally through Congress itself. Congressmen saw it as Kennedy's liability and decided that they wanted to end conversation as soon as possible and ended up passing it later, in spite of, ah, ugliness that happened in the interim.

Everyone needs to get on the phone and e-mail to their senators and congressmen NOW. We don't need history-dumb plodding and poutrage right now, we need immediate action. If we can get the President to push this onto the floor as soon as possible, it's quite likely that we can get this voted and passed by the time healthcare re-emerges post-recess in July.

Sometimes, politicians send up flares when they're stuck in the morass of bureaucracy and their own political fears. Like Kennedy before him, Obama seems to be doing the same.

4 Great point.

@10 That's exactly why we need to keep pushing. And that's why I'm gonna stand outside the White House from July 1-4 and hope other follow me.
protestforhumanrights.com

Parker Todd
Universal access to health care matters, or should matter, to everyone regardless of their ability to receive it under the current set up.
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue that affects everyone in this country. If you can't see that, read more, perhaps starting with the United States Constitution.

Yes, LovesChild and Parker Todd, every gay relationship is exactly like Dan's, and as such we all can just extend the benefits and screw who we want.

Man, if idiocy was a disease, bith of you would be dead by now.

(Which, in and of itself, would not be a bad thing)

@1 for the 70 pct of America crying for a single-payer national health care plan win.

Dan for the get over it Epic Fail.

oh, i don't mean danhawes, I mean Dan S.

@12

Good for you! In doing that, you're doing a hell of a lot more to affect change than any one of Dan Savage's hissy fit Slog rants.

Doers make things happen, not whiners and finger-pointers.

Ugh, it's the “he’s just upholding the law” defense.

Jeebus, ‘murrikins like to think of themselves romantically as revolutionaries and rebels, but we really are a sad, jello-brained, authoritarian culture.

The DOJ is under no obligation to argue in favor of laws the administration considers to be unconstitutional. Try the Googles.

@12: Did you e-mail your senators and rep? I e-mailed Cantwell and Murray and referenced Kennedy's speech and the CRA64.

Action NOW!

Keep the heat on Dan. Those of us who wish to be treated as an equal citizen in the eyes of the law NOW, not "years from now," support you.

@5 may well be correct about Obama's unspoken plans, but it's important to treat this as a priority and not something he can get to when it's convenient for him politically.

@13 is right on.

@5: Those aren't two contradictory ideas. It's entirely possible to both believe that the DoJ is obligated to defend laws that are not facially unconstitutional, while nonetheless believing that DOMA is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

I'll be contacting both my U.S. Senators and informing them that if they want my vote next time, they need to stand against single-payer national health care.

Thanks Will for your inspiration!

Done. I just submitted online written messages to both my U.S. Senators imploring them to stand AGAINST single-payer national health care.

Thanks again Will in Seattle!!!

Maybe this comment missed its proper train, but anyways: a couple days ago Dan mentioned the DOJ's politicization at the hands of the Clinton admin, and the 3 (Republican!!!!) other administrations since 1980 (which predates not only my date of birth but, i'm guessing, a whole lot of other commenters and readers of Dan's).

But why is that proof that Obama is hedging or skirting the issue by claiming that the DOJ's mission is beyond the reach of the WH? That previous admin's were willing to go where his isn't doesn't mean he's being coy. It means maybe his admin has more respect for the rule of law. He was a friggin' constitutional law professor at the U of Chicago, and editor of the Harvard Law review. Thus has more pre-presidential experience with the courts, and hence respect for/understanding of them, than all 4 of his predecessors combined.

To reiterate: This means you can't judge Obama's level of respect for what the rules of the game are in the DOJ by the standards of his predecessors.

@25 and @26
Jizz-a-belle,
Don't be sorry. I'm not offended one bit.
The first amendment is a wonderful thing.

Prediction:

At the end of Obama's first (and with luck last) term gay people will not have their rights, there will be no single payer health care plan, and we will still be in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The important thing is that the unemployed spouses of gay federal employees have health benefits.

As for the millions of Americans without health insurance who do not fit in this category? Who cares, they're not gay.

Dan,

Good for you for continuing to hold the Obama and his administration to their promises. The extension of ALL benefits accorded to the opposite sex spouses of federal employees to same sex partners is a very important step that needs to happen NOW.

That said, your continued repetition of this claim that the DOJ brief filed last week "equated same sex marriages to incestuous ones" is bullshit. It's either a deliberate misreading of the brief or an ignorant misunderstanding of the legal arguments in it. Either way, it's wrong, and it makes you look like you are seeking a source of false outrage.

Here's the passage from the brief (apologies for the lengthy "legalese"):

And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

So, does this passage "compare same-sex marriages" to the marriage of an uncle to a niece, or of first cousins, or of sixteen year olds? Yes, it does. It compares them on the basis that some jurisdictions approve those marriages and others do not. IN THAT RESPECT, THEY ARE ALIKE. Not in all respects. Nowhere in the brief does the government make any kind of "same sex marriages are morally wrong, like incestuous ones" argument.

This is an argument in a 35 page legal brief that says: "some marriages are valid in some places and not others." Reading it as more is taking it grossly out of context and takes away from, rather than adding to, your credibility. Stop it. Please.

@31 seandr
I believe you are incorrect. The memo that Fiercy signed today does not include healthcare benefits. Only an act of Congress could make that possible.

It doesn't sound like Dan is going to be satisfied until Obama personally takes it up the butt. Christ, queen-o-rama this week...

@32 That's exactly what Barney Frank is saying. He retracted his earlier criticism, and said the DoJ brief doesn't compare gay marriage to incest, but makes a narrow and appropriate legal argument.

The fact that these cases were included in the DOJ brief was a matter of choice, not necessity. They did not have to be included. The administration did not have to make this defense.

Dan, these haters can keep telling you that you're crazy and don't speak for gay people and bla bla bla, but I think you're spot-on with your coverage of this news. Obama used gay talking points to get gay votes and gay money, but now when he has the bully pulpit and the power of the presidency he refuses to follow-up on the promises he made to gay people when he was campaigning. Until he does something that gives (lasting) equal rights (to all) gay people he is undeserved of our support as gay people.

Dan you're doing good work. Keep it up!

For everyone saying "Look! Obama's all for gay rights! Look at what he's saying now!" a couple points.

First, notice that the President had ZERO to say on the subject and had taken ZERO action until people like Dan started getting pissed off and the fundraising threatened to dry up. If that's not an endorsement of everything Dan's been doing here (along with plenty of others), I don't know what is.

Second, merely saying a few pretty words in a press conference does nothing to get legislation pushed through Congress. Bills have to be introduced, co-sponsored collected, votes corralled, compromises made and so forth. It takes some effort and some of that will have to come from the White House (although there's no reason why people like Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin can't do a lot of the heavy lifting). It also means that the House and Senate leadership has to be on board and convinced to make this a priority.

Third, yes, a lot of the pushing has to come from us. But part of that pushing is identifying who in government are our real friends (i.e. those that take action), who is not (i.e. those who claim to support LGBT rights and take the money and run), and who are our outright enemies. Yes, we have to call our representatives. We also have to be smarter about who we give our money to. Why reward the DNC when there are plenty of conservative Democrats who won't stand by us? We then lose say over who gets help and who doesn't. Isn't it better to target our funding to those who will help us?

There are a lot of Pride celebrations happening this month. It's time that this community forgot about begging for help from politicians. Most will do the absolute bare minimum to keep the money and votes flowing. So take advantage of the season to get out there and volunteer with a group or even work on your own to MAKE them enact our agenda. Raise money and tell the politicians that they only get it if they actively support equality. Collect signatures and show them how many people, straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual, whatever support equality. Quit relying on Obama to make everything right and get out there and do it yourself.

Nice way to confuse the issue at hand, in case nobody noticed -- starting out calling it a presidential memorandum and finishing off by calling it an executive order. What is it, in fact -- one, or the other? That makes a difference, Mr. O, and you're well aware of it.

@32 Morrolan,
I agree with you. And, more importantly, your reading of the passage is accurate. Those cases are cited as authority for a legal argument regarding state autonomy on a state issue, not to draw a moral comparison.

It's possible that those particular cases were slightly more desirable as authority because of their facts, selected as a deliberate stroke of advocacy. But, there's undoubtedly a limited variety of types of marriage where state recognition differed and the matter was litigated. And, by nature of the issue, those cases had to involve marriages that garnered less than universal acceptance.

One last thing: Congress is well within its authority to repeal DOMA--as a separation of powers issue, this brief does not make it more difficult for Congress to legislate.

@32 Morrolan,
I agree with you. And, more importantly, your reading of the passage is accurate. Those cases are cited as authority for a legal argument regarding state autonomy on a state issue, not to draw a moral comparison.

It's possible that those particular cases were slightly more desirable as authority because of their facts, selected as a deliberate stroke of advocacy. But, there's undoubtedly a limited variety of types of marriage where state recognition differed and the matter was litigated. And, by nature of the issue, those cases had to involve marriages that garnered less than universal acceptance.

One last thing: Congress is well within its authority to repeal DOMA--as a separation of powers issue, this brief does not make it more difficult for Congress to legislate.

@28 Yes he has great belief in the rule of law. That's why he's willing to be in charge of indefinite detention without legal recourse. He's a republican president. The best thing he's done in convince me there really isn't much difference between the parties.