After court, gay rights spotlight shifts back to Obama

WASHINGTON Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:05am EDT

United States President Barack Obama delivers remarks at a concert celebrating Memphis Soul music at the White House in Washington April 9, 2013. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

United States President Barack Obama delivers remarks at a concert celebrating Memphis Soul music at the White House in Washington April 9, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama may have made a slow start on gay rights issues, but by the end of his first term his record was such that a news magazine dubbed him the nation's "first gay president." Now activists want more.

Fresh from historic Supreme Court arguments over same-sex unions, advocates want Obama to use his executive powers to fight discrimination at businesses, schools, and military bases and stop waiting for action from a reluctant Congress.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June on big issues: the constitutional right to gay marriage and the right of gay married couples to federal benefits. Both are backed by Obama.

Now gay rights groups are pushing for additional measures they believe are key elements for cementing equality.

First on their wish list is an executive order from Obama barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, an act that could have sweeping impact.

"There is more that he can do," said Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, a non-profit organization supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. "He has repeatedly said as president that it's people's job to push him to do more and more, so we intend to keep doing that."

So far, the president helped bring an end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevented gays from serving openly in the military, signed hate crimes legislation into law, and mandated that nearly all U.S. hospitals give visitation rights to partners of LGBT patients.

Last year, in the middle of the presidential election, Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, concluding an "evolution" of his views that took years.

While Obama's advisers tout his record on the issue, they make clear that an executive order on federal contractors soon is unlikely, arguing that it would carry far less weight than broader congressional action. Legislation called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) lacks enough votes to become law.

"We want to continue to advocate for legislation. We think that that's the most robust way to accomplish what we want to accomplish," White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told Reuters in an interview.

"ENDA is a priority. Right now the votes aren't there, but that doesn't mean they won't be," she said.

However, congressional aides say they see little evidence that the White House - already consumed by gun control, immigration reform and budget issues - is pushing to win support for ENDA.

Political support for gay rights is certainly gathering momentum - a point conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts made in the March arguments when he told a lawyer defending same-sex marriage: "Political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case."

Apart from a few exceptions, however, Republican lawmakers have not been vocal supporters of gay rights. On Friday, the Republican National Committee reaffirmed its commitment to defining marriage as between a man and a woman and called on the Supreme Court to "uphold the sanctity of marriage."

A NEW FOCUS

After lobbying successfully for Obama to weigh in against Proposition 8, a California measure prohibiting same-sex marriage that is now before the Supreme Court, gay rights activists argue executive action is the best way to keep up the momentum.

"Now the priority for our community is definitely continued progress on getting that executive order out of the administration," said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign.

An order barring discrimination by federal contractors would apply to about 20 percent of the U.S. workforce, according to HRC. It would make it illegal for companies with U.S. government contracts to fire or avoid hiring employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity, just as it now is with race.

Federal action is necessary, activists say, because state laws are inconsistent. They say it is legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states and for being transgender in 34 states.

Some activists are skeptical that Obama is backing away from executive action because he believes Congress will act. They think he is wary of upsetting the business community by forcing a new regulation on it.

"This Congress is not going to pass ENDA, and they know that," said one activist, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois intend to introduce a bill on the issue, according to a Senate aide. However, a similar bill is stalled in committee in the House of Representatives, another aide said.

Obama's advisers believe he has proven his commitment to gay rights is more than lip service, and gay-rights advocates recognize that patience pays off.

Obama's actions, including his administration's decision to weigh in on Proposition 8 and decline to defend the Clinton-era federal Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, led Newsweek magazine to call him "The First Gay President" in a story on its cover last year.

"He said going in he wanted to do a lot, but I don't think anybody really was sure that he meant it. I put myself in that category, and I admit to being proven wrong," said Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser on gay issues to President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s.

Critics say it took a while to get there. Some Obama backers were frustrated that his "evolution" on gay marriage took so long, and some thought the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" did not get its momentum from the White House.

"He supported it, he signed it, but it's clear that they weren't pushing it," Socarides said.

Now gay rights activists are cautious. Pushing too hard for an executive order would seem ungrateful and could backfire.

POLITICAL PAYOFF

Activists believe Obama could send other signals - for example, by naming an openly gay member to his cabinet.

He could also grant spouses of gay military personnel equal access to commissaries, allow them to live on bases rent free and give them access to legal services such as preparation of wills.

Legislatively, Obama could push for measures to include LGBT students in public school anti-bullying programs.

And, activists say, he could maintain his support for the inclusion of same-sex couples under protections offered by immigration reform efforts making their way through Congress.

Politically, Obama's actions so far have boosted his standing with young voters, and politicians from both parties have noticed, leading to a wave of new, high profile declarations of support in the last few weeks alone.

Exit polls from the 2012 presidential election showed 5 percent of voters considered themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual, and 76 percent of them supported Obama.

Since endorsing gay marriage, Obama underscored the point by referring to it during his Inaugural Address on January 21, tying the push for gay rights to the broader civil-rights movement.

Polls have shown a rapid shift in public opinion on gay rights issues, but Jarrett said that while Obama recognizes his role in shaping public opinion, that was not what drives him.

"This isn't a matter of satisfying a constituency. It's a matter of doing what's right," she said.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson, Mary Milliken and David Brunnstrom)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (26)
sgreco1970 wrote:
Its high time an American president made certain that there is no room in our nation for bigotry against anyone, for any reason.

Anyone who does not believe in our American right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness, whether you’re gay, straight, black, white, male, female or what have you is welcome to move to another country where liberty is held less dear.

Maybe you’re pro gun and anti gay. Or pro christian and anti muslim. Whatever you may be -you want YOUR freedom to be what you are; let others have their freedom to be what they are. You don’t have to agree with it or condone it -but the minute you curtail it, you open the door to having your own freedoms curtailed. Today you cant be gay -tomorrow you cannot be christian.

Food for thought. Freedom is NOT free. Its been paid for with the blood of our soldiers for centuries. Do not be so quick to throw it away.

Apr 14, 2013 5:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:
The Supreme Court is not a body to decide on the “sacredness” of marriage. “Sacredness” or “sanctity” is a matter of religious conviction and religious definitions.

The Courts of this country are concerned with the rights and obligations of citizens of a variety of religious or secular backgrounds.

If more people would keep that in mind and grow up a bit, there would be less emotional noise surrounding this issue.

Marriage existed long before any of the major religious traditions had a definition of it. The Ancient Romans had four forms of it. Christianity established one form fits all. But it also maintained a parallel tradition of non-marriage and renunciation of all worldly ties. Buddhism and Hinduism also have similar traditions. Judaism seems to maintain older attitudes that saw only monogamous marriage as an option with no tradition of chastity or celibacy. Islam has plural marriage and no monastic tradition either.

Not even the religious traditions seem to agree about the issue of the sanctity of marriage or the exact form it should take.

Apr 14, 2013 7:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MichaelDennis wrote:
130414 gay rights post in Reuters

The headline says, “After Court, Gay Rights Spotlight Shifts Back To Obama.”
And the last sentence in the article says, “This isn’t a matter of satisfying a constituency. It’s a matter of doing what’s right,”
So the article begins and ends with lofty allusions, “light” and “right,” of things that are obviously good. But let’s get a perspective of what is really going on here.
Anyone who has flown in an airplane at night has seen the beauty of city lights in the night sky. But from 40,000 feet, how obviously insignificant are the mighty works of human beings compared to the light of the sun!
And the light of the sun not only gives us daylight, it makes life itself possible on the earth. Anyone who has witnessed the miracle of spring has seen evidence of the glory of God both in the heavens and on the earth! The laws of nature’s God are regenerating life anew, again. Thank you, Lord God, for being a god that gives life!
Now, as reasonable persons, are we to assume the Creator of the universe, who science has demonstrated is so lawful and predictable in the physical world, has not also thought to create order in the moral world of right and wrong, good and bad? Can there be regeneration and degeneration in the physical domain and not in the moral?
Some foolishly say there is no such thing as moral absolutes, yet I can prove to you they are wrong. That 2 + 2 is 4 is perfectly true. It is not approximately true, it is absolutely true. And that 3 does not equal 4 is also perfectly true. Now if I have agreed to buy something from you for $4 but then give you only $3, what I have done is not only mathematically wrong, it morally wrong. And it is not relatively morally wrong, it is absolutely morally wrong. I have not given you what is right.
So is homosexual “marriage” morally right, or good?
Is it life giving? Is it regenerative. No. It makes about as much sense as trying to fasten together or “marry” two bolts, or two nuts. It takes a bolt and a nut to connect things and hold them together. Two nuts or two bolts is not the right way to try to try to connect things. It is not good for holding things together. One bolt and one nut is needed. It also takes a father and mother to create a child, and it follows normatively, naturally, it takes a father and mother to raise their child. We can trust this to be true because the God of nature that gives us spring has also given us the bond of men and women in the family to care for their off springs.
And please note that the union of nuts and bolts, marriage, in our analogy, is not an end in its self. This union is to serve a purpose greater than itself, it is regenerative, it is life giving, it is lawful. God has planned it this way, for God is the author of life and of order, and of peace. Anyone, and any nation, who does not see this is denying reality and choosing death, lawlessness, and chaos.
Wake up America! Yes, freedom is the bedrock of America’s values. But what kind of freedom? The founders of our nation were seeking religious freedom! They sought to create a nation where Christian values were not against the law! Are we going to allow what they accomplished and what has blessed us for generations to be destroyed? Christianity is the Spirit of America. The reason we are now experiencing so much turmoil within our nation, and in the word, is because we have turned away from God! God help us if Christians do not soon stand up for what we believe in, and knowing in whom we believe, act like it.

Apr 14, 2013 8:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.