White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “It’s the President’s Justice Department.”

I’ve been waiting for the W.O.R.M, but so far nothing. In his daily press briefing today, Robert Gibbs responded to a question by Jake Tapper on the Justice Department’s brief supporting the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

Q Does the President stand by the legal brief that the Justice Department filed last week that argued in favor of the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, as you know, the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the President believes that that law should be repealed.

Q I understand that. But a lot of legal experts say that the brief didn’t have to be as comprehensive and make all the arguments that it made, such as comparing same-sex unions to incestuous ones in one controversial paragraph that’s upset a lot of the President’s supporters. Does the President stand by the content, the arguments made in that brief?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, it’s the President’s Justice Department. And again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the President has stated and will work with Congress to change that law.

In other words, yes, the President agrees with the argument that essentially draws an analogy between incest and same sex marriage–the same argument used by the Bush Justice Department!

Here is the paragraph that Tapper was referring to (Warning, PDF):

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages
performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize
that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy…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”).

But President Obama himself made a statement about DOMA tonight at the official signing of a presidential memorandum to grant limited benefits the the partners of gay federal employees. In his remarks, Obama claimed that he will work with Congress to overturn it.

It’s a day that marks a historic step towards the changes we seek, but I think we all have to acknowledge this is only one step. Among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it’s discriminatory, I think it interferes with states’ rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it.

We’ve got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally; to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms; and to bring about that more perfect union. I’m committed to these efforts, and I pledge to work tirelessly on behalf of these issues in the months and years to come. Thank you very much everybody, and with that I am going to sign this executive order.

Huh? Is anyone else getting dizzy? Should we start referring to the President as “Both ways Barack?” Because it sure seems to me like he’s trying to have it both ways. Is the LGBT community going to let him get away with it?

According to the New York Daily News, this morning

an angry, openly gay Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank lashed out over the legal brief, telling the Boston Herald, “I think the administration made a big mistake. The wording they used was inappropriate.”

But tonight, Barney Frank appeared with Obama at the signing of the presidential memorandum, along other openly gay Congresspeople and Joe Solomonese of the Human Rights Campaign and . Afterwards, Frank sent out a press release in which he reverse course and praised the Justice Departments legal brief in defense of DOMA.

“It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example. It is the President’s job to try to change the law, but it is also his obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”

Of course Frank may just be trying to rescue his big LGBT fund-raiser, which a number of prominent gays have already pulled out of.

You’ll have to excuse me, because I’m just a bitter, post-menopausal old woman who didn’t vote for Barack Obama in the primaries or the general election. One of my reasons for declining to vote for Mr. Obama was that I didn’t trust him on gay rights issues. If I could figure out that this guy was sneaky, underhanded and would throw anyone under the bus in order to advance himself, it seems like anyone could. But many in the LGBT community supported Obama and so did the Human Rights Campaign. Openly gay bloggers like John Aravosis passionately supported Obama and viciously attacked and smeared Hillary Clinton.

But John Aravosis has done a one-eighty recently too. Here he is today on Gibbs’ remarks at the press briefing today:

Yes, God forbid our president distance himself from a brief that argues that gay and lesbian marriages are akin to incest and pedophilia. I ask again, who is advising these people?

[….]

One more thing. The President will reportedly say tonight that he opposes DOMA. He’s not going to oppose the law however, he’s going to keep defending it in court. But in his heart he opposes it. Aw thanks.

And on Barney Frank’s quick turn-around:

I am simply astounded. Even more astounding is that Barney’s release sounds as if it were written by the White House. Their talking points are all through it, including the bizarre notion that somehow Obama would be as bad as George Bush if he opposed DOMA in court. (Repeating the lie that presidents never oppose existing legislation in court.) Joe and I already debunked that lie with the example of four court cases in which Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. all opposed existing law. And what’s more, we published an essay by former senior Clinton White House official Richard Socarides explaining exactly how the president goes about telling the DOJ to oppose existing law in court. It’s not debatable, it’s what actually happens in the Oval office, and it’s not illegal – it’s a fact.

Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the press release was written by the White House. Nothing would surprise me about Obama at this point, to be honest. Aravosis ends his rant by saying “We are on our own folks. The Democratic party has abandoned us.” Now he figures it out? Now that it’s too late.Nevertheless, Aravosis has done a great job of summarizing the issues in his posts today. I strongly suggest reading all of them.

Here is what the New York Times had to say about the Obama administration’s brief defending DOMA:

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

And regard some of the arguments in the legal brief:

The brief also maintains that the Defense of Marriage Act represents a “cautious policy of federal neutrality” — an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits — such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns — that heterosexual married couples receive.

In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule.

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

No kidding. But sometimes I think President Obama actually enjoys hurting people once he has gotten what he wants from them. He just loves to pull the rug out from under people.

You know, I wish I had been wrong about Obama. I wish he were really a “transformational” figure who would lead us out of the valley of Bush and into a new New Deal. But it’s just not gonna happen. These days, I feel as if I’m in a constant state of simmering rage alternating with the urge to break down and cry for my country.

If Robert Gibbs “mispoke” this morning, he ought to be fired. But we’ll probably just get another W.O.R.M. instead.

---

Please DIGG!! & Share!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine