RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 



The group blog of The American Prospect

NOT EXACTLY "ALL DELIBERATE SPEED."

Speaking at yesterday's White House gathering marking the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, President Obama said this to LGBT activists about the administration's slow progress on repealing laws like the Defense of Marriage Act or Don't Ask Don't Tell:

So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality. (Applause.) We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.

And I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.

The president made an explicit comparison between the civil-rights movement and the LGBT-rights movement. Maybe that was rhetoric, meant to smooth tensions between the White House and the LGBT community, but it doesn't excuse the administration's behavior; it does the opposite: it implicates the president for not acting more swiftly to end bigotry enshrined as law. The president has made some important steps, such as extending federal benefits to same-sex couples, but his administration has also defended DOMA in court and hasn't taken any concrete action on DADT.

In 1955, the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation to commence with "all deliberate speed."  Lately, it seems like the Obama administration has been moving in slow motion.

UPDATE: I get pwned by Eric Rauchway.

-- A. Serwer



COMMENTS

Mr. Serwer,

The Administration is legally obligated to defend DOMA. The rules of ethics that govern lawyers (including those who work for the government) require that the DOJ present the governing law regardless of whether they like it or not. Because the specific legal theory being used to challenge DOMA has been previously rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on several occassions, the DOJ must inform the District Court of that fact. To do otherwise would be to commit malpractice and violate the code of Professional responsibility (to say nothing of the oath of admission) even if you and I dislike the outcome.

You're absolutely right about the legal obligations here, although the administration has other options such as temporarily suspending DOMA through executive order.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/25/gibbs-cap-dadt/

Post a comment


Search TAPPED for:

Archives

About TAPPED

TAPPED, the Prospect's award-winning group blog, is a link-intensive collection of musings, ramblings, opinions and other assorted writing on the political developments of the day. See a list of our contributors.

| RSS | Twitter


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2010 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints