It Still Hot in the Kitchen

And it's going to stay that way until dinner is served.

First, from Jane Hamsher, some insight:

I've heard about A-List gays in DC having their arms twisted to push back against criticism of the White House for its handling of DADT and DOMA. I know many of these people and their commitment to ending DADT and DOMA is sincere, and having their livelihoods (and those of the people who work for them) threatened if they don't intervene on behalf of the White House is truly low politics.

The campaign that John and Joe Sudbay are waging to stop people from attending the $1000 a head DNC gay fundraiser this Thursday has been impressive. Movements that start at the grassroots create the space for everyone to operate in, and aren't susceptible to being squelched because those at the top are able to put the screws to a few key people.

That sounds about right. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of tactics that ever occur to me -- I don't consider myself particularly virtuous or anything, but I'd not stoop to that, I think. Of course, with this White House crew, we still down know how much -- or how little -- they have to stoop to touch bottom. We're starting to get an idea, though.

And of course, the administration's solution, since the dog-and-pony benefits thing didn't work, is to have another cocktail party. Mike Signorile:

This is pretty outrageous. In the midst of all the anger from LGBT people over the DOMA brief and the inadequate response -- so far -- by the Obama administration, gay lobbyists, executive directors and assorted others who comprise what is identified as the gay leadership apparently have been invited to a party at the White House thrown just for them.

It's another photo-op in which everyone -- the president and the gays -- can look happy and like they're having fun, but more so, it's a way for the White House to wank off the gay leaders a bit while still not delivering. None of them should fall for it -- and that means they should not attend this event -- most all the Human Rights Campaign. We don't want cocktails for high-paid gay and lesbians lobbyists and executive directors looking to schmooze and feel important. We want action on our rights, and at this point it means DOMA and DADT.

Let me point out something once again: DOMA repeal is a tough nut, no doubt about it -- but that's why Obama has to get behind it. DADT, on the other hand, is a no brainer -- at this point, FTLOP, a majority of Republicans favor repeal. What the hell is Obama waiting for, and if you tell me it's the Joint Chiefs, will someone please enlighten us as to just who the comander-in-chief is?

And please don't spend money on another cocktail party. Put it into AIDS research or something useful. (Read Signorile's complete post -- it's a good take.)

This OpEd by Jonathan Capehart in yesterday's WaPo has drawn a lot of fire from Aravosis, Spaulding, and others, and it's really a mixed bag, but not as bad as has been claimed. Capehart's comments on the DoJ brief in Smelt are intelligent, give or take the still debatable standing argument (although most lawyers seem to regard that one as substantial). Capehart misses on small point:

The plaintiffs lack standing. Case closed. That would have been fine with gay rights groups, which viewed Smelt-Hammer as an imperfect vehicle for challenging DOMA's constitutionality. "We had no problem with DOJ getting rid of this case," one legal expert told me. "The plaintiffs didn't tell a good story."

What Capehart misses is that the "gay rights groups" he's talking about no longer have the support of their constituency. They are widely viewed in the community, with some justification, as lobbyists to the community for the administration, and not the other way around.

Where critics are correct on this one is that Capehart blows the "memorandum signing" out of proportion. It's not new, it's not enough, and it's an attempt to deflect criticism from the substantive issues.

As far as Capehart attempting to put the blame on Congress, Congress is doing something. From my own Congressional rep, Jan Schakowsky, via Pam's House Blend:

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA)

There is good and bad news but nothing that can't or won't be overcome in time.

The bad news -- The Justice Department filed a brief supporting DOMA. I read it. First of all, it wasn't necessary to file a brief at all, especially one that asked for the entire lawsuit to be dismissed. Very disappointing. I was unaware that it was coming, as were all of the House members.

The good news - Just this week, the President, in unequivocal terms, called for the repeal of DOMA. He said, "Among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it." Rep. Jerry Nadler, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, is working on a DOMA repeal bill that he plans to introduce after the July 4th recess. I'll be on it.

DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL

Legislation has been introduced by Ellen Tauscher, the chief sponsor of the bill, HR 1283, to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'm a co-sponsor. I have good reason to believe the President will support this legislation -- but it's not clear when.

There are some barbs here -- note that last sentence -- and some good news.

What's coming back to haunt Obama now is that what's happening is not happening because of him, and in some cases in spite of him (or at least, his DoJ). And you expect me to call this leadership?

Nuh-uh.