Homophobic Much?

In another move signaling reluctance to deliver on the promise of change, the Obama administration continues to defend a Justice Department motion filed last Thursday that reaffirmed the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The motion moved to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer. Smelt and Hammer were challenging DOMA and its current governing authority that allows states to refuse to recognize marriages of same -sex couples performed in states that do allow same-sex marrriage. It also prevents couples marrying in states that recognize same-sex marriage from receiving Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint tax returns, and receiving any of the other benefits heterosexual married couples receive.

While the Justice Department's actions and the Obama administration's defense of these actions are not surprising, the manner by which these decisions were defended were.

Central to the Justice Department and the Obama administration's arguments are that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not bar states from denying out-of-state gay marriages. In justifying this claim the Justice Department cited prior cases of out-of-state marriages that were between (a) an uncle and niece, (b) a 16-year-old and adult and (c) first cousins. What the fuck? Nice change. I'm so glad I worked for the election of a President that would defend the portrayal of two consenting gay adults' desire to wed as analogous to pedophilia and incest.

In defending Part 3 of DOMA, which bars same-sex couples from any federal benefits, the lawyers from the Justice Department cited "cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage,". Then these asshole lawyers had the nerve to argue that Part 3 "does not discriminate against gays for federal benefits." Huh? How the fuck is that possible?

Because Part 3 of DOMA explicitly states that the federal government will not recognize gay couples, even if a state chooses to acknowledge their marriage, any claims of neutrality are out of the realm of possibility. It is equally as ludicrous to argue that DOMA is a "cautious policy". DOMA represents one of only two incidents in the history of the United States where Congress acted to restrict marriage. The only other time this happened was in 1865 when it made polygamy a crime.

Quoting now from Paul Hogarth on The Huffington Post:

Many federal employees are civil servants who cannot be replaced because the new Administration disagrees with their politics. And because the gay couple in this case had previously challenged DOMA when George Bush was President, it is no surprise that the Justice Department had attorneys ready to defend the suit. In fact, one of the lawyers who wrote the brief - Scott Simpson - is a Mormon Republican, and a holdover from the Bush Administration. Alberto Gonzales even awarded the guy for his legal defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act. Arguably, the Obama Administration could not replace him with a new attorney.

But the first lawyer listed on the brief is Tony West, an Obama political appointee. West served as California finance chairman for Obama's campaign, where he raised at least $500,000. He is the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who strongly supports gay marriage and is running for California Attorney General. His wife, Maya Harris, was until recently Executive Director of the Northern California ACLU. The ACLU issued a joint statement this weekend with other groups condemning the legal arguments in the brief, saying they were "very surprised and deeply disappointed" with the Obama Administration.

Of course, there is no evidence that West wrote the legal brief - or even knew about it. His name was on the brief, because he heads the Justice Department's Civil Division (which handles all lawsuits filed against the federal government.) But that means he supervises the attorneys who wrote it, and he can be held accountable. Before gay marriage advocates start asking whether Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the legal brief, they should ask West: (1) did he review the legal brief before it was filed, (2) if so, why would he agree to have it submitted as written, (3) if not, would he have done so and (4) why were the arguments appropriate?

I often hear that the Obama administration does care about the issue of civil rights for all individuals, but now is simply not the right time to address this matter. The economy is in the toilet, we are engaged in two wars overseas, and energy policy is in dire need of an overhaul. But this excuse is just that. It does not justify the administration's marginalizing of the issue, and these latest comments reflect an explicitly homophobic and heterosexist perspective.

It is difficult to find much coverage of this on the network and cable news channels; but thank god for Rachel Maddow. Maddow is talking about the issue, and doing so in a manner that accurately reflects the importance of denying civil rights to all non-hetero Americans. And last night Howard Dean joined her to discuss the matter. As Governor of Vermont, Dean was the first Governor to enact legislation that recognized same-sex unions. I still can't believe one stupid yell cost him the opportunity to run for President. I said it throughout the 2008 campaign, and still wish he was the President.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

For more on this issue, check out the Human Rights Campaign's response.