Considering that we are about halfway through Gay Pride month, it seems Obama has gone 1 for 3 in opportunities to put same-sex couples on the same footing as straight couples. The Justice Dept's analysis of DOMA has been reviled; the political football that is "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" has been kicked around. The one bright light in this is that he is extending benefits to same-sex partners for federal employees. Expect bigots' heads to explode with cries of "not with MY tax dollars!".

But are all of these as one-sided as they seem? People have a tendency to simplify anaylsis, and take a pro/con position, where it may require a more nuanced approach. After 8 years of Stupid in the White House, perhaps we've swung the other way, where the President assumes Americans are able to see things in shades of gray, and we're failing.

What about "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"? Can Obama simply rescind that? What happens if he does? To begin with, DADT is a federal law, enacted by Congress. Can the Executive branch remove a federal law enacted by Congress? I sure hope not. How would that effect our system of checks and balances? But - assuming he could - what would that leave us with? Before DADT, soldiers were court-martialed and jailed for being homosexual. Would military policy simply revert back to that? Wouldn't that be worse? It seems that - to use a tired phrase - it will take an Act of Congress to remove DADT and replace it with a law that allows gay military members some dignity.

The Justice Dept's response to the DOMA court challenge has been causing the biggest outrage. It's even sparked a financial backlash by donors to the DNC. The most offensive part is where "it compared gay unions to incestuous ones and that of an underage girl – in the sense that states have the right to not recognize marriages that are legal in other states or countries." The idea is that certain states have different marriage laws (for example: regarding the ages of those allowed to be married) and other states are not required to recognize those marriages if their state requires the partners to be older. This is a classic "states rights" issue, because the Constitution guarantees that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Of course, it also states that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

This is where the marriage argument gets sticky and why the right-wing required DOMA. It essentially gives preference to the 10th amendment over the requirement for states to respect each other's laws. However, the 10th amendment doesn't really allow states to ignore each other's laws for things like marriage, so DOMA seems to clearly be unconstitutional. It seems like it would fail that test in a court challenge, but - given the current court - would it? Is it worth the risk of losing that court battle?

This is another case where the ball is in the "court" of Congress. They need to amend or repeal DOMA for any real change to occur. Again - the DOJ legal brief could've gotten that message across with a lot less hostility. But here's another consideration - remembering how much Bush interfered with the DOJ and the (justified) outrage it created, do we really want Obama to interfere as well?

So it seems that the President really can't do much about DADT, he can't do much about DOMA, but he CAN help out Federal employees - and he has (or - more accurately - will). Unfortunately, medical benefits will not be included:

Once again - the DOMA is a legal problem that requires resolution. That means Congress.

Perhaps time spent blaming Obama for not fixing something over which he has no control would be better spent petitioning Congress to change laws (after all - it IS their job ).