Asterisk

So President Obama signed that memorandum yesterday, and it was pretty much what we’d all expected. No health benefits, no social security, no benefits for military personnel, and the effect of the memorandum disappears as soon as President Obama leaves office. The benefits that were offered are not new; they’ve been available for over ten years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VasC9lDsw_4

The signing itself is surprisingly clumsy. I get the impression that President Obama knew that he was doing nothing and was uncomfortable about it, at least I’m hoping that’s the case.

On December 18, 2008, President Obama proclaimed that he was a “fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans”, and then didn’t let the G-word or the L-word pass his lips for six months. It cannot be another six months before he’s prodded to publicly acknowledge us again.

More important than the signing held last night, though, is a nugget of information buried in yesterday morning’s press briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. The two big topics in the briefing were the election in Iran and the forthcoming signing, and they bounced back and forth between the two. Skip ahead to 25:27 for some information that I don’t think we’ve heard before.

Q: And on — just one more time on DOMA, “don’t ask, don’t tell” timeline, does the President want to see that overturned in this Congress? I mean, is there a plan to do that in this Congress?

MR. GIBBS: I think, as Senator Reid said, it’s something we can do in this Congress and it’s something that the President is working with members of Congress, working with — on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” working with the Pentagon to ensure that that happens.

(full transcript here)

“This congress” is 2009-2010. I wouldn’t exactly call this a firm commitment, but it’s certainly more specific than the vague Sunday’s “on this administration’s watch” that we got last Sunday.

Of course, I still think it’s reasonable to suggest that President Obama stop the DADT bleeding while Congress works out the details over the next 18 months.

No sooner did I get the last post up than the White House published a “fact sheet” on today’s proclamation.

In an Oval Office event later today, President Barack Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination. The Memorandum follows a review by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management ant [sic] the Secretary of State regarding what benefits may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees in the civil service and the foreign service within the confines of existing federal laws and statutes.

Over the past several months, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State have conducted internal reviews to determine whether the benefits they administer may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees within the confines of existing laws and statutes. Both identified a number of such benefits.

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

The Presidential Memorandum to be signed today will request that the Director of OPM and the Secretary of State act to extend to same-sex partners of federal employees the benefits they have identified. The Memorandum will also request the heads of all other executive branch departments and agencies to conduct internal reviews to determine whether other benefits they administer might be similarly extended, and to report the results of those reviews to the Director of OPM.

The Memorandum will also direct OPM to issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.

Some worries that are now facts:

1. This is a memorandum, not an Executive Order. As soon as President Obama leaves office, the benefits evaporate.
2. Spouses of foreign-based employees are allowed to go to the base hospital.
3. Gay employees of the government may take off time to care for their partners, but they’d better hope their partner has their own health insurance.
4. Health insurance is not covered. For the uninitiated, “long-term care (LTC) insurance” is NOT health insurance per se. LTC is generally used by the elderly and is limited to nursing home and skilled home nursing care. LTC does NOT cover doctor visits, prescriptions, surgeries, and other standard health insurance expenses. The federal LTC Program DOES cover parents of employees and their spouses. From the federal Office of Personnel Management:

The Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP) provides long term care insurance to help pay for costs of care when enrollees need help with activities they perform every day, or you have a severe cognitive impairment, such as Alzheimer’s disease.

Most Federal and U.S. Postal Service employees and annuitants, active and retired members of the uniformed services, and their qualified relatives are eligible to apply for insurance coverage under the FLTCIP.

Most employees must be eligible for the FEHB Program in order to apply for coverage under the FLTCIP. It does not matter if they are actually enrolled in FEHB – eligibility is the key. Annuitants do not have to be eligible or enrolled in the FEHB Program. Certain medical conditions, or combinations of conditions, will prevent some people from being approved for coverage. You must apply to find out if you are eligible to enroll.

It’s important to note that spouses of active military personnel are theoretically covered by federal LTC insurance. Of course, if an active servicemember’s partner were to apply, the servicemember would be drummed out of the military,making gay servicemembers and their partners effectively ineligible for LTC insurance. Hey look, they just added a new effect of DADT!

So as I said in the last post, this is a nice gesture. LTC insurance is a much bigger deal than many people think, but it ain’t health insurance, and that’s what people need first and foremost.

Frankly, we’re not interested in nice gestures, especially ones with a lot of footnotes and exclusions. It’s time for real action and real leadership. Is President Obama up for the task? So far, the answer is no.

News broke last night that President Obama plans to sign a memorandum this afternoon granting benefits to unmarried domestic partners of federal employees, including same-sex partners.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, a White House official said.

Obama planned to announce his decision Wednesday in the Oval Office, the official said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because Obama had not signed a presidential memorandum putting his plan into place.

Of course, this is a hurried reaction to the furor caused by President Obama’s inaction on DADT and offensive District Court brief defending DOMA.

Taken at face value, it’s…nice. It’s a good idea and something that the administration should be applauded for. In fact, I do applaud President Obama for this. But there are several reasons The Homosexuals are skeptical.

1. It’s reportedly a memorandum, not an Executive Order. There is some confusion about this, with the Washington Post reporting it as an Executive Order but just about every other source I’ve seen, including the New York Times, reports it as a memorandum.
   
   The difference is important. If this is an Executive Order, it would take another Executive Order to cancel the benefits. If it’s a memorandum, the benefits evaporate the second President Obama leaves office. In the language of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, that would not be a lasting and durable solution.
2. It may not include health care or retirement benefits. There’s confusion about that one as well. Some say that DOMA, which the Obama administration now defends, effectively prohibits health care and retirement support for same-sex partners. Others say that these are covered under the memorandum if it references not spouses, but rather broadens the group of people covered by the federal government.
3. This whole event seems like a bandage to most commentators I’ve read. The gay community has gotten louder and rowdier since the Obama administration made clear its true thoughts on DOMA. As the AP story notes, Vice President Biden is scheduled to attend a Democratic party fund raiser with a special emphasis on LGBT rights next week.
   
   Several big donors have publicly expressed their anger and have told organizers that they will not be attending or donating any more money to the Democratic party. Two of the three out gay members of Congress, who are jointly leading the fund raiser, have expressed their outrage over the apparent change in support from President Obama. The fund raiser is turning into a PR disaster, and that’s what the Obama administration is responding to.

Politically speaking, the timing of this memorandum is the biggest problem. It’s as if they sat down in the Oval Office and said “Uh oh, we’ve gone too far. What’s the least possible action President Obama could take to get The Homosexuals to shut up and patiently wait while we ignore them for another five months?” The fact that the signing will happen at 5:45 in the evening, making it nearly impossible to be substantially reported on tonight’s evening news and improbable to be mentioned at all on tomorrow’s evening news, only makes me more suspicious.

And other than announcing that the White House dog is gay, I can’t think of something less that President Obama could do.

Guess what’s going on in Washington while Dan Choi, Margaret Witt, and Victor Fehrenbach are fighting for their rights and their livelihoods. They’re playing political games with each other!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking at a press conference Monday said he has no plans to introduce a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the Senate.

“I haven’t identified any sponsors,” he said. “My hope is that it can be done administratively.”

A Democratic aide later clarified that Reid was speaking about the possibility of using an executive order to suspend discharges or perhaps halting enforcement of the policy by changing departmental regulations within the Department of Defense.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has continually said in recent months that President Barack Obama believes the only “durable solution” to repealing the military’s gay ban would be to do so through legislative action.

Senator Reid also indicated that he is waiting on the House of Representatives to take action on the bill that was introduced there in March.

“If the House moves on this,” he said, “I would be happy to take it up.”

So if you ask the Senate Majority Leader, he says that the White House or the House of Representatives has to start it. If you ask the White House spokesman (President Obama’s far too busy to say the G-word himself), he says that Congress has to start it. If you ask House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she says she’ll get back to you after they do a bunch of other stuff.

Oh, and if you ask Defense Secretary Gates he says to wait a while, and if you ask at the Pentagon, they just look at you funny.

So don’t worry, bigots! You’re still safe in the US military! You’re even safe in Congress or the White House, for that matter!

UPDATE: On Tuesday afternoon, Think Progress reported that Sen. Reid had clarified his position. Doesn’t change much, but here’s what he had to say:

Today in a statement to ThinkProgress, Reid’s office clarified the senator’s remarks, saying that what he is looking for is a “legislative proposal” from the White House. Additionally, while the Senate does not currently have a bill introduced, “a number” of senators are working on one:

While we do not have a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell bill introduced in the Senate yet, a number of Senators are working on an approach to get it repealed. We would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the President would like to see and when. Working together, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress.

Others have noted that both the White House and members of Congress have been unusually quiet since last week’s DOMA brief. I wonder if this is a sign that we’re getting through to them that we won’t be left behind. If so, I hope they understand that it’ll take a whole lot more than a few words to shut us up.

It’s been three days since AMERICAblog’s John Avarosis got their mitts on a copy of the Justice Department motion to dismiss a federal DOMA case. It’s an appallingly offensive document, written by GWB holdover Scott Simpson, and I’ve been trying to figure out how to address it.

Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

And before Obama claims he didn’t have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we’ll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was “abhorrent.” Folks, Obama’s lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He’s taking us down for his own benefit.

The Obama Administration’s motion (pdf) goes on to make the argument that marriage rights for everybody would be too expensive, that we can just get straight married like everybody else, and with a whole host of other horrible arguments. (I tend to agree with the Box Turtle Bulletin‘s Jim Burroway that Avarosis is reaching with the incest argument claim.)

We have gone from the Obama Administration being curiously silent on LGBT/civil rights issues to an openly hostile Obama Administration which, as Richard Socarides points out, is trying to inflict maximum damage. And I’m trying to square the Administration’s newly enumerated stance squares with this video from late last October:

To the people who suggest that the Administration didn’t have a choice but to defend DOMA, I offer two things. First, nobody was forcing them to make their case in the most offensive manner possible. For goodness sake, the thing reads like it came from the Family Research Council.

Secondly, and most troubling, yesterday the White House sent out resident House Fag John Berry to explicitly defend the motion, throw up his arms, and tell us that it’ll all be done by the end of President Obama’s watch, so just be patient, you guys! The interviewer asked whether Berry meant 2012 or the potential 2016, and he dodged the question, so most people (including me) assume that this means that the wait on ANYTHING might be 7 1/2 years. But don’t worry, “this president is with us”!

Mr. Berry, this president is most decidedly not with us, and we most certainly will not wait patiently in the corner for another seven years as more people lose their civil rights and others lose their lives. The fact that you don’t ‘get’ that astounds to me. I have a feeling this a case of “I’ve got mine”, which disgusts me more than I can say.

You know, I always knew that we’d probably get cast aside. I’m sure it’s no accident that President Obama has just started his health care push, and ditching these nasty civil rights issues probably gains him a couple political points. But last November, when I stood in line for three hours to vote for him, I’d hoped that I was voting for someone who might be above that.

And people wonder why I’m a pessimist…