the democrats and gay marriage -- or why obama won't repeal doma

The Democratic Party's insistence on being pro-civil unions but anti-gay marriage becomes more puzzling each day. Perhaps there was some secret meeting back in the 90's when everyone agreed that Americans would never accept gay marriage and that, assuming the Democrats wanted to win elections, the Party (at least on the national level) should stick to the civil unions line. The results of the 2004 election seemed to more or less vindicate this idea (many analysts attributed Kerry's loss in Ohio to rural voters coming out in droves to vote for a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage).

And yet, at a time when 44% of Americans support gay marriage and even Sarah Palin agreed with Joe Biden's characterization of her position on civil unions being "that there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple" (although, to be fair, it's never clear how well Palin understands what, exactly, she is agreeing to at any given moment), this policy seems increasingly out-dated. Nevertheless, the Democrats' equivocation on the gay rights front continues to rear its ugly head. After filing a motion last week to dismiss a case challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (which rightfully outraged gay rights advocates at the time Clinton signed it into law), yesterday the president failed to include healthcare in a package of domestic partnership benefits for same sex couples.

After 8 years of watching Bush relentlessly pander to his base, it's pretty understandable that large parts of the LGBT movement (not to mention the rest of us who voted for Obama assuming he would, you know, back all those liberal social causes he claimed to support or whatever) are somewhat upset. No one (or at least few of us pragmatists) expects Obama to champion gay rights to the detriment of other priorities. Nonetheless, it would nice if he'd refrain from using the occasion of dismissing a case challenging DOMA on the grounds of insufficient legal standing as an excuse to launch into a whole-hearted defense of the overall merit of the Act.