Friday, May 08, 2009

Rip Off The Bandaid

Eugene Robinson in today's Washington Post asks the fair and timely question, where is our "fierce advocate for equality" for the LGBT community? A lot of folks, me included, are wondering the same thing.

MIA On Gay Marriage
By Eugene Robinson

Believe it or not, often I can see the other side of an argument. I know that tough gun control laws save lives and make our communities safer, for example, but I also see clarity in the Second Amendment. I support affirmative action, but I realize that providing opportunity to some worthy individuals can mean denying opportunity to others. Thinking about some issues involves discerning among subtly graded shades of gray.

On some issues, though, I really don't see anything but black and white. Among them is the "question" of granting full equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans, which really isn't a question at all. It's a long-overdue imperative, one that the nation is finally beginning to acknowledge.

Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Now, with the same-sex marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy ripe for repeal, it's time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is.

On Wednesday, Maine became the fifth state to legalize gay marriage; similar legislation in New Hampshire has been sent to the governor. Politicians in Washington who want to avoid what they see as a dangerous controversy have a convenient escape: They can say that the marriage issue should be left to the states and that the question of whether a legal gay marriage in one state should be recognized everywhere has already been addressed by Congress and ultimately will be settled by the courts.

But that's a dodge, not a stance. It certainly can't be confused with leadership.

Favoring "civil unions" that accord all the rights and benefits of marriage -- but that withhold the word marriage, and with it, I guess, society's approval -- amounts to another dodge. I'm concerned here with the way the law sees the relationship, not the way any particular church or religious leader sees it; that's for worshipers, clergy and the Almighty to work out. Marriage is not just a sacrament but also a contract, and the contractual aspect is a matter of statute, not scripture.

Obama took the "civil unions" route during last year's campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation -- that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates -- I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what are they?

It seems to me that equality means equality, and either you're for it or you're not. I believe gay marriage should be legal, and it's hard for me to imagine how any "fierce advocate of equality" could think otherwise.

Obama sensibly advocates the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." He should press the case by publicly reminding opponents of letting gays serve openly in the military that their arguments -- it would hurt morale, damage cohesion and readiness, discourage reenlistment -- are often the same, almost word for word, as the arguments made 60 years ago against racial integration in the armed forces. It was bigotry then, and it's bigotry now.

Obama should also make the obvious case that forcibly discharging capable, fully trained servicemen and servicewomen for being gay, at a time when our overstretched military is fighting two big wars, can only be described as insane.

What the president shouldn't do is stay away from the marriage debate on the grounds that it's not a matter for the federal government. For one thing, he's on record as favoring repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages and relieved states of any obligation to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

Does Obama's stance in favor of repeal mean that he believes the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages? Does he also believe that, say, the state of Alabama should recognize a gay marriage performed in Iowa? If so, what is the practical difference between this position and just saying in plain language that gay marriages ought to be legal and recognized in all 50 states?

I'm not being unrealistic. I know that public acceptance of homosexuality in this country is still far from universal. But attitudes have changed dramatically -- more than enough for a popular, progressive president to speak loudly and clearly about a matter of fundamental human and civil rights.

Digger comments:
Just this past week, the same-sex spouse of a person serving overseas was initially denied tamaflu, even though folks at post were showing symptoms and so EVERYONE ELSE at the mission was given tamaflu as a precaution. Another person's partner was denied a flu vaccine earlier in the season, even though post historically has ordered more doses than needed and had to throw them away! Once again, this demonstrates the second-class status Foreign Service members of household are forced to endure.

Some of this the Secretary can fix in the stroke of a pen, and she needs to do it sooner rather than later.

But much of it could be handled by our "fierce advocate." My partner had the right idea this morning. Instead of doing things piecemeal, President Obama needs to rip off the bandaid. He needs to do it all at once. Get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA and push for federal marriage all at once. Realistically, our enemies are only going to be able to fight back on one thing effectively, and that will be federal marriage. Then he can offer the compromise of federal civil unions. While that will still violate my freedom of religion (as a member of a mainstream prtestant denomination that recognizes same-sex the government is in the business of decided which of the marriages my church performs it will recognize), at least it will mean I can visit my spouse in the hospital and if god forbid she died, not have to pay inheritance tax on my own propert.

Rip off the bandaid, Mr. President. There is never going to be a better time.


Anonymous said...

I hope the SecState knows about this? Because, as a private citizen, I'm outraged.

People who are otherwise amazingly MOH-friendly have said that there's no need to worry as long as you have an AmCit partner because, when push-comes-to-shove, at least the Dept. will stick-up for AmCits.

Diplomats shouldn't have to be in someone's good graces or rely on people with power's own innate moral sense of what's right and wrong to take care of the most important person in their life in an emergency situation.

We need to fix this. NOW.

There's no reason to need ask for help from foreign governments (long-term visa/ work status) and others at post (flu shots, employment, security, language) to get what we should be entitled to anyway. It puts both the officer and the USG in a needlessly vulnerable position.

I'd also LOVE to know who had final authority to make the decision not supply MOHs with Tamiflu.

I'd say they should be held accountable but, technically, I'm sure they didn't do anything against regulations... and that's the real wrong here.

Anonymous said...


Remember the law in the State Department that any benefit FSOs get also has to be given to Amcits. This would probably include many partners.

If an american taxpayer is opposed to gay marriage, should he/she be forced to pay taxes to pay to move the partner of an FSO overseas and the health insurance? That is quite alot of money.

Digger said...

Not entirely true. FSOs get housing and transportation overseas to do their jobs. the government does not routinely pay that for any American citizen. It is a job-related benefit.

Every study shows that the costs will be negligible. Most companies who have offered partner benefits have found only a small percentage make use of the benefit.

But cost is really a non-issue. American taxpayers pay for plenty that they oppose. Do they get to reduce their taxes by their portion of the defense budget if they oppose war? No, of course not. If they oppose welfare, can they opt out? No. Those without children still pay school taxes. So yes, those who oppose gay marriage should still pay taxes to pay the negligible cost of keeping LGBT families together so that they can serve their country.