This story in the NYT is heartening:
But it was in Oval Office strategy sessions to review court cases challenging the ban—ones that could reach the Supreme Court—that Mr. Obama faced the fact that if he did not change the policy, his administration would be forced to defend publicly the constitutionality of a law he had long opposed.
As a participant recounted one of the sessions, Mr. Obama told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that the law was “just wrong.” Mr. Obama told them, the participant said, that he had delayed acting on repeal because the military was stretched in two wars and he did not want another polarizing debate in 2009 to distract from his health care fight.
But in 2010, he told them, this would be a priority. He got no objections.
Great, good, feeling hopey again about the repeal of DADT. But, again, Obama could suspend the enforcement of DADT today while Congress works on a solution, just as his head of Homeland Security suspended enforcement of the widow’s penalty while Congress works on a solution. And Obama described the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as abhorrent and promised to repeal it but his administration nevertheless defended the law in court. But I’m prepared to take yes for an answer, of course, on DADT. As depressing as the lack of movement on the big promises—end DADT, repeal DOMA—there has been action on ending the HIV Travel Ban (set in motion by the Bush administration), and hate crimes legislation.
Mercury, I’m surprised that you would continue to espouse the (incorrect) assertion that Obama has somehow gone back on his word by defending the DOMA law in court.
Please add to your post (after fact-checking, of course) that the Obama administration is LEGALLY REQUIRED to defend DOMA in court, since it is current federal law.
Obama has gone so far as to state in the trial documents and briefs that he does not agree with DOMA and will work to repeal it. But GLBTQ advocates (and I count myself as one despite differing with them on this point) have spent a lot of time focusing on the fact that the DOJ is defending the law at all.
The law, while still on the books, is required to be defended in court. The fact that Obama has briefed the court on his opposition to the law should be commended – or if you don’t agree, it should at least be noted that the DOJ is defending DOMA b/c they’re obligated to, not b/c they necessarily hate gay people.