John Berry, President Obama's openly gay Office of Personnel Management director, gave an impassioned speech on anti-gay discrimination this week at the Department of Justice's (DoJ) awards ceremony celebrating Gay Pride Month, as reported by Government Executive. Berry, who has been a major player in employment policy before he entered the job, offered a particularly pointed criticism of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy:
A good friend of mine was a colonel who honorably served in the Middle East. His sacrifice and risk of life was no less dear than anyone. I ask America, where do you stand--with this honorable service or with those who would make him lie to do so?The Bush administration had stopped the DoJ celebration from 2003 to 2007, before Attorney General Michael Mukasey resumed it in 2008.
Berry drew on his own experiences--among them, seeing his partner of 10 years lose a battle with AIDS--to make a forceful case against gay discrimination.
He challenged those in attendance again before he was done: "Again, I ask: where do you stand? Honoring love as precious and true wherever you find it, or with those who would demean or deny it?"
Obama has said he wants to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but he has yet to do so. His relationship with gays has been slightly strained since he took office; they saw hope in his candidacy, but there's a sense that he's yet to deliver. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, domestic partner benefits (or, preferably, federal civil unions), hate crimes (which the Senate will reportedly address), and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act are pieces of their agenda.
Berry's significance, I'm told, is partly symbolic. He's the government's highest-ranking openly gay official, and he happens to be in charge of human resources. There's a notion of the federal government as a "model employer," sending signals to the private sector on issues like diversity.
The signal of Berry's speech Wednesday was loud and clear--albeit one that was not widely attended by media or widely publicized.
John Aravosis is blogging today that the Obama DoJ made numerous homophobic assertions in its pleading to dismiss a DOMA case federal court in California.
I have not slogged through the 54 pages, but Aravosis is a credible blogger, and his assertions are deeply troubling. Did John Berry know about this pleading, filed yesterday, when he made his speech?
Does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing, or was this a snow job to distract us from this case?
Aravosis claims that sections of the DoJ's filing could become significant ammunition for those who seek to strip our rights, not just block them.
Please investigate. Thank you.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
John Aravosis is not really reliable on this issue. He tends to overreact and in his analysis of this brief he continually interprets it as having been written in Obama's voice and with the most obviously inflammatory possible inferences. His notes on the brief are close to being hysterical and people concerned with this issue should really be reading it with a tighter rein on their emotions than John is exhibiting.
There are other challenges to DOMA and this is not the right one to do the job. There is no reason to monger hopelessness and fear they way John is doing at Americablog. Steady, guys.
Your trashing of Aravosis is out of line.
He currently has Richard Socarides, a former Clinton staffer, passionately arguing about why the Obama DOJ was not necessary, in the extremity of its arguments.
I would be interested if you thought the comments of Mr. Socarides, who has been a presidential adviser, was also devoid of credibility. If so, specifically why?
I think I see now what they are doing. On several blog sites, amidst the poisonous concoction of outraged human rights supporters and right-wing Obama haters, there are always a couple of voices saying, in effect, "Patience, my dear. Soon all your dreams will come true."
I've specifically heard mention of "waiting until the end of this month"; "They do have a plan" (a smiling Joe Solomnese, director of the Human Rights Campaign); and a story in the Advocate in mid-April about behind-the-scenes efforts by Congressional leaders to modify DOMA to grant same-sex couples all 1,138 federal rights without calling it "marriage" -- to be introduced "probably within the next several months." (http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid78955.asp)
Add to that Nancy Pelosi's provocative statement that "now is not the time for Congress to get involved in the marriage debate," and factor in the ever-present counsel from supposed insiders that "we just need to be patient," that "we will soon be happily surprised," and gently chiding us against being "too emotional," and the picture begins to take shape.
I think Obama & co., by the end of June, are planning to introduce some kind of omnibus gay civil rights bill that:
1) Repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell
2) Slightly Modifies DOMA, so that the bill can:
3) Propose universal life-partnering (but not "marriage") rights under the term, "Civil Unions"
The only problem is that, in following their leader's cool, Vulcanesque mien and pooh-poohing the illogical emotions of the oppressed rabble, they are gravely underestimating the rage that is out there.
Every day, more and more people come to the realization that it is unacceptable to continue to deny the rights of couples now in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, and to be continue to treat them like fringe groups. Obama is certainly not helping his case by defending DOMA in court by filing a brief containing spurious, non-sequitur arguments against the pretty obvious fact that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is, on its face, an unconstitutional contravention of the Fourteenth amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.
What they don't "get" is that every day, good people's lives are being harmed or destroyed by the insanity of the status quo. Long-term partners are being forced to live outside of the country or are split apart against their will; legitimate, tax-paying, MIDDLE-AGED voters are being financially penalized many thousands of dollars based exclusively on the sex of their partner.
Do they not imagine that at some point, one or two of the millions of LGBT people in this country will snap? Have they not seen that a lone, armed ex-convict can pretty easily undertake home-grown terrorism to advance a political agenda? Are they disregarding as an outlier the fatal attack by an 88-year-old white supremacist at the Holocaust Memorial?
Patience has its limits. Now is not the time for telling people to "bide their time."
They are playing with fire.