The White House and its Office of Personnel Management — a department headed by John Berry, the highest-ranking out gay official in this administration — have a lot of explaining to do to avoid charges that it is:
1) rife with political homophobia; 2) it is terminally incapable of dealing rationally with hot-potato LGBT issues related to DOMA — even to the point of shooting itself in the PR foot over and over; 3) using its big gay official as a patsy/fall guy in a matter that the administration could have quietly let blow over.
Let’s just say a big DOMA bomb has gone off again. Where do we begin on the backstory?
You have to go back to the case itself — that involved attorneys who won same-sex health benefits for spouses of fed employees. What’s interesting is that one judge ruled very narrowly to specify that the ruling this does not impact DOMA.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued the orders as hearing officers for circuit employee disputes, the Daily Journal reports (sub. req.). Reinhardt’s order declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, while Kozinski’s order didn’t reach the “hard question” of the statute’s constitutionality. Instead, he said ambiguous language in a federal health benefits act allowed him to order benefits, the story says.The cases were brought by Deputy Federal Public Defender Brad Levenson of Los Angeles and 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski, according to the story. Lawyers from Morrison & Foerster represented Golinski on a pro bono basis.
Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel and director of the national marriage project at Lambda Legal in Los Angeles, acknowledged that the orders do not create direct precedent. But she told the Daily Journal that “they will become part of our national conversation about fairness and equality for same-sex couples.”
So with that, you’d think the better part of wisdom for the Obama administration would be to let Kozinski’s rationale allow the benefits to go into effect without challenge, given that legal fig leaf. In a report by TIME mag, this “fierce advocate” administration makes what has to be the most DOMA-paranoid, politically homophobic decision on this case.
The [court] order was not published, and garnered little or no notice at the time. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts moved to comply with the judge’s ruling, submitting [federal employee] Golinski’s insurance form to Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the case would have probably gone away – had the Obama Administration not stepped in. “After the AO submitted Ms. Golinski’s form, I thought this matter had concluded,” [Judge] Kozinski wrote. “The Executive Branch, acting through the Office of Personnel Management, thought otherwise. It directed the insurance carrier not to process Ms. Golinski’s form 2809, thwarting the relief I had ordered. I must now decide what further steps are necessary to protect Ms. Golinski and the integrity of the Judiciary’s EDR [employee dispute resolution] plans.”
This is yet another black eye for this administration that will force them to rationalize this maneuver. Mike Signorile:
If the Obama administration, which now has less than 30 days to respond, tries to fight this, not only will it undoubtedly cause another (and much bigger, in my opinion) firestorm within the LGBT community, but it’s not clear that it actually can fight it, let alone win:
[Judge Kozinski's] order last week demanded that the executive branch reverse course, and gave the Administration 30 days to enroll Golinski’s wife as her health-insurance beneficiary. He made clear that if it doesn’t, he’s ready to use the powers of his court to enforce his decree. University of California law professor Rory Little, a former Justice Department prosecutor and chief of appeals, called the order a “bombshell.” “This is like exposing the tip of a huge iceberg that nobody knew even existed,” he told TIME. “It’s a fascinating question: Do the courts even have the power to do this? Where does it leave things procedurally? Where can the Administration appeal? I think there are five or six lawyers in the [Solicitor General's] office scurrying around right now trying to figure out what to do with this.”
Again — the sorry truth is that is the Office of Personnel Management led by John Berry, an openly gay man, is pushing for this. His marching orders are to deny a fellow member of our community — a federal employee — rights ordered granted by a federal court. Unbelievable.
Honest discussion questions for you all —
If you were in John Berry’s position, would you have to say “OPM cannot do this on my watch” and offer a very public resignation to the White House?
Or would you take the tack as head of OPM that somehow all will be made right in the long run despite the overt move by this administration to overstep the courts to deny the benefits?



44 Comments





Absolutely, I’d resign if I were John Berry…The court keeps saying this discrimination is illegal, yet “President Fierce Advocate” keeps kicking us down and taking away our civil rights. And he promised to repeal DOMA? How can we believe him if he keeps instructing his staff to enforce it when even the courts are now declaring it unconstitutional??!!
John Berry: QuislingBasically, a quisling is someone who, for power or money, aides in the conquest and subjugation of his people. It is a very handy word that does not get used nearly as often as it should.
But… but… he must obey the law!And every right-winger knows that the courts cannot make law. Now, if only Obama had been president when DOMA was passed, he could have issued a signing statement declaring that he would ignore the law at will. Alas, alas.
It DependsIf my loyalty was to the GLBT community, then I would resign (or at least use the threat of resignation to get the policy altered). If my loyalty was to the adminstration, I would attempt to give a rationale that would allow those among us who continue to believe in Obama some cover for doing so. Obviously, I look forward to seeing where Berry falls in his loyalties.
house queers in actionnuf said, eh?
I’d resign If this isn’t political homophobia, then I don’t know what is.
You don’t go against the courts, period. I can understand the position that Berry is in to the extent that if you grant these benefits then you really will, at some point, grant all GLBT federal employees the same benefits. But still…
You don’t go against the courts.
Haha, more right-wing hypocrisy…
Except when they want the courts to make law, like when they restrict women’s reproductive rights or prevent municipalities from taking on gun violence gone crazy or give corporations more legal rights than real people. They’re hypocrites, and their insane opposition to LGBT equality proves it.
My thing isI had been wondering whether the Obama Administration actually wanted the courts to overturn DOMA (since Congress isn’t doing it anytime soon, IMHO). This case would be another chink (among many legal chinks) in that DOMA armor.
I guess I don’t have to wonder anymore.
What will it take to convince those still operating under the illusion that the Democrats are our friends?Democrat office holders and officials are as much our enemies as their Republican counterparts.
The difference is that Democrats lie more often than Republicans. They claim to be our fierce defenders but gave us DADT and DOMA and gutted ENDA.
The DNC is at least as bad as the RNC. The DNC is dominated by a homohating Dixiecrat, Tim Kaine, and Leah Daughtry, an ordained pentecostal bigot who lost a lawsuit claiming that she used anti-GLBT discriminatory hiring and firing practices. Both are anti-GLBT and anti-choice.
The WH is infested with bigots like ordained pentecostal bigot Joshua Dubois who organized Obama’s outreach to christian bigots utilizing Warren and McClurkin and now bribes the same sorry group of pulpit pimps using our money and the ‘faith based’ charities scam. Biden voted for DOMA. Obama stabbed us in the back appealing to bigot voters with ‘gawd’s in the mix’.
Democrats in Congress, except for a tiny minority. are either bigots or pander to bigots. They gutted ENDA and dropped it and the hate crimes bill in 2007 and it’s unlikely they’ll repeal DOMA or DADT (unless causalities shoot up).
How many more times will party line followers try to tell us that the Democrats are better? How many more times will they say that Republicans and Nazis and that Democrats are liberals? The truth is that both parties are right centrist and march in lockstep on key questions like the wars, stealing from the poor and workers and giving to the rich, promoting bigotry, racism, misogyny and immigrant bashing and opposing socialized medicine.
FIERCE …just ain’t what it used to be
Ok, just how ‘gay’ is John Berry?I mean, it sounds like he’s a Sunday Baptist to tell you the truth. If he’s so gay then why is he doing this to his own community?
If I was him, I would have complied with the court order and held it up to anyone outside the organization and told them “Court Ordered, you spend the money to change it, I’m complying as required by the court because its just easier in the long run.”
Right now… does John Berry even have a partner? Cause if I was his partner I would leave his sorry ass and never look back.
He’s probably a part of the gaygeoisie –Enough money can cushion some of the harsh impacts of homophobia. He gets paid to be the token house-queen in exchange for ignoring the rest of us.
How about this option?I would go ahead an enroll the couple, and if Obama was upset, he could fire me.
StrategyIs it possible that this is a strategic move? If the OPM fights this case and loses a precedent will have been set and could be helpful in the effort to repeal DOMA.
Resign?Are you kidding? An American official resign over an issue of principle? No way. They cling to power no matter what, and he’ll likely get a book deal about it some day or his own reality show.
NoTo make something clear, the article says the decision was not published. What that means here is that the case wasn’t publicized. In legalese, if a case isn’t published, that means the decision can’t be used as primary or secondary authority – as precedent – in related cases. The 9th Circuit DID have a published opinion, In the Matter of Karen Golinski, number 09-80173 (opens as .pdf), filed on November 19th.
Since this was the 9th Circuit Appellate Court, there is only one place left to go, and that is up. If the Administration wants to fight this, they will have to appeal the decision to SCOTUS. That scares the hell out of me, because we’ve seen time and again this year how SCOTUS treats gay rights cases when the Administration doesn’t want them to hear it – they get dismissed. What would happen to the Golinski case if the Administration DID want Scalia to get his paws on it? I think we can all guess the answer to that one.
He’s in good company…Look at that Congresscritter Frank. He’s as much a WH lapdog as anyone.
To clarifyThe link I posted above was to Chief Justice Kozinski’s summary of the opinion, only 34 kb. Sorry about that. The full opinion can be downloaded here. It’s 874 kb, and may take a moment or two. The full opinion is worth reading.
The precedent set by this is fascinating – the rest of the 9th Circuit judges hearing this case plainly state that DOMA is unconstitutional; only the Chief declined to interpret that way. His reasoning was that since health benefits are granted to “family” and “family” under certain sections of OPM regulation can include adults who are not spouses within a federal employee’s household (such as dependent siblings or parents), that OPM had no right to deny Karen Golinski equal coverage for her wife.
Chief Justice Kozinski originally ordered OPM to do this for Karen Golinski in part because she already had a dependent, a son, enrolled in the program. Adding her wife to the program would have cost no additional money, because she had enrolled herself “with dependents,” which means a group plan. Chief Justice Kozinski recognized that the federal government had no legitimate financial reason to deny Karen Golinski’s wife enrollment.
If this precedent stays, it doesn’t necessarily open the door for DOMA overthrow via SCOTUS. But it certainly can mandate that the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act recognize same-sex spouses or CUs or registered DPs as eligible for healthcare coverage in the same way as heterosexual spouses of federal employees are.
If people don’t like the word “quisling,”how about “Judas Iscariot”?
House fag works just fine for me!
The only person I’m aware ofwho has seriously argued that federal court rulings do not have the force of law is…Pat Robertson. The Obama administration has now officially officially endorsed his radical (not to say un-American) position. Can there be any lingering doubt that Barack Obama is not a progressive except for PR/campaign purposes? Can even the densest halfwit imaginable still believe that this administration has the best interests of LGBT people at heart? (SciFi Geek and -ish always excepted, of course.)
Now everybody, just take a deep breath and wait for a day or two. The press release (solely for LGBT consumption) is already being drafted. ”The president didn’t know anything about this, and he doesn’t approve.” That will come; it is as inevitable as the earth’s rotation. But needless to say, he won’t do a damn thing about it. Good gosh, no, how could he? His “spiritual advisers” might not like it.
Geez, get GRIP! You people talk about job resignations as if new jobs are growing on trees these days. I know we live in a throw away society but that shouldn’t include people. That being said, I don’t think it is a bad idea that the OPM chooses to fight this issue. For us it is a win-win situation. Because not only do we have strong advocates on the 9th circuit but the case would not go to SCOTUS before it would go to the full court of the 9th circuit. A ruling that would have to call DOMA into question and require a published ruling which also be enforceable. I.e., people would have to go to jail for non-compliance without a stay from a SCOTUS judge.
As for John Berry and the rest of the administration, I just don’t know. They are radical enough to play devil’s advocate in order to force the issue out of the narrow confines of Judge Kosinski’s ruling, but they never have struck me as smart enough or brave enough to pull it off. I doubt it because any goof who would have thought the situation out would realize that the one proud gay-hiring momoent the White House had is now a defunct memory and John Berry is now a bane to his own community. I would like to believe that these guys can pull out a hollywood ending on this issue but the only one I can think of is that quote from Forest Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does”.
You are right: “throw away society” should not include peopleAnd yet, here we have a “fierce advocate” and his office doing exactly that, and in direct defiance of the federal judiciary applying the law that the President is constitutionally bound to execute. Your point is…?
Judas Iscariot had a very important role to playWithout the betrayal and subsequent execution, there would have been no redeeming sacrifice.
I don’t see how any such comparison can be made.
I think you mean my points:We should not call for John Berry’s resignation. But demmanding he except responsibility for his part is more than appropriate.
We should keep our eyes open because this issue has been going on for a year. And for those of us paying attention neither the judge or the OPM have been very helpful up until this point.
The more the federal judges do battle with the federal office paper-pushers we benefit. This could have been kept to the narrow confines of the judges order which he went through great legal pains not raise the issue in the face of DOMA. With the OPM fighting it the whole federal goverment has to come out of the closet on this one. Besides the same issue is making its way through the 1st circuit as well. Besides, since the same issue is making its way through the 9th circuit via a real DOMA Challenge and the case in the 1st circuit si challenging both DOMA and the federal benefits issue, this is all goinng to hit SCOTUS sooner rather than later.
There was no redeeming sacrificeWhen you can prove to me that there was, I’ll be quite happy to stop being a homosexual.
We Were SnookeredI’m counting the days until the 2012 election and I have the opportunity to vote our “fiercest advocate” out of office.
BTW, check out this week’s Rolling Stone. Not for the yummy photo spread of Taylor Lautner but for Matt Taibbi’s piece on how Obama has carried out the “biggest about face in our nation’s history.” His economic team are Wall Street whores who don’t give a rat’s ass about Main Street.
If you’re on the proverbial fence about his “O”-Ness, you will be pushed clear off after you read this piece.
And tomorrow nightwhen he announces 35,000 more troops to south Asia, Afghanistan will officially be Obama’s War, no longer Bush’s. The distinctions between the two keep getting blurrier and blurrier. I can’t wait to hear our resident Obamabots’ feeble efforts to defend all this villainy.
An en banc hearing?Could be interesting. I doubt the Chief Justice will take kindly to a Team Homophobama’s request for an en banc or panel rehearing on Golinski. As for Levenson, this is the money shot, as written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt:
It’s far more likely that OPM will challenge Judge Reinhardt’s ruling in Levenson, since that is the one declaring DOMA unconstitutional. The question is, will OPM go for it?
Not on the fence at all, but disgustedI’ve been disappointed and angry for months, and by much more than his dismal record on GLBT issues, though that’s bad enough. This administration is Bush Lite in far too many ways, and it’s a systemic problem. The Democrats have been running scared for decades. They were afraid of being seen as weak on defense and now they’re afraid (most of them) of being seen as weak on national security. So we will have The Patriot Act renewed, documents withheld, and troops sent into folly rather than withdrawn from it. I don’t think Clinton would have been better; I think she would have felt the burden of being seen as weak because she’s a woman and would have been even more jingoistic than Obama is by appearing at West Point. West Point! Shades of Bush using soldiers as window dressing….
John Berry isn’t gay or queer. He’s not one of us, he’s one of them and he’s not an exception.He’s a homosexual careerist without a shred of fellowship or comradeship for the LGBT communities.
Many people who mistakenly support the Democrats and Republicans are in the last closet, the political closet. Many, if not most of them are in the process of coming out of that closet. They’ve been prodded by two decades of contempt and bigotry from politicians like Reagan and Clinton to the Bushes and Obama and huge bipartisan majorities in Congress
However, homosexual gentlemen like John Berry and Barney Frank will never leave their closets. They lack the courage and, when it comes down to it, the smarts to break with the bigots. They’re weak minded, unprincipled toadies about whom Sam Adams said:
the languagethe language quoted here sounds very similar to the languauge that was in the Iowa Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage in talking about the level of scrutiny required.
huh?I certainly don’t have a law degree of any kind…. But, I don’t see how this case could have any effect in any way on anyone other than the partners (spouses) of LGBT FEDERAL employees.
This case is a federal judge demanding federal benefits for the same-sex spouse of one of the judges employees.
I can see how this ruling could effect other federal employees, but not anyone else.
Am I missing something here?
InterestingI too wondered if this would be a strategic move. If I remember correctly, the only place left to go if the OPM wishes to fight, would be the Supreme Court. As others mentioned that would be win-win; either the decision stands or we get a feel for how the SCOTUS will respond to a gay issue.
That being said there is a major discrepancy; the court order was actually published. I double-checked on the 9th circuit website and found it listed in the published decisions.
So, my thinking is, with Obama having a background in Constitutional law, he would realize that by making a fuss over this court order and losing he would be focusing more attention on the issue. Essentially, he would be calling attention to a concept that would allow legally married gay couples to still be considered family and thereby claim health insurance. This could also be done in the private sector as well since a published order could be used as precedent.
Honestly though, this rests on the flimsy assumption that Obama does still have gay interests at heart. Of course Obama did pass hate crimes legislation, and sadly, I’m sure it’d be political suicide to try to attach a repeal of DOMA to a defense spending bill. It’s very clear that Obama doesn’t want to risk public support on glbt issues, so I feel he’s trying to get the courts to do it for him.
So he appeases conservatives by fighting it in court and us by losing the battle?That’s triangulation to a level Clinton wouldn’t have even been able to conceive.
I think it’s easier to simply say that if any LGBT think that the administration is going to do anything to champion their rights as equal citizens – they should start calling themselves Log Cabin Democrats.
InterestingI wonder if the administration also has non-judicial “remedies” at its disposal. I guess a lot of it would depend on how FEHBA is written (and I have no idea about that so I could be talking out of a hat here) and what role OPM is playing here (admin of judiciary’s program or statutorily required to do the judiciary’s health benefits).
In general, non-executive agencies are not required to follow OPM policy, although in practice they usually do (where I work the difference shows up mostly in release early for work for snow or holidays–just because OPM goes, doesn’t mean we do). The judiciary would be subject to DOMA, though. Could OPM give the judiciary a choice between abiding by OPM policy and access to the federal health benefits program (ie, get into line or run your own program)? And does this give Obama incentive to kickstart (if only to make the problem go away) Tammy Baldwin’s domestic partner benefits package for fed employees that’s now kicking around as legislation?
It’s as ‘strategic’ as the Anglo-French abandonment of the Czechs at Munich. That’s not really a question sammy, its the forlorn whimper of someone betrayed desperately grasping at straws.
The direct ruling is limited, but the implications are very broadI have not had a chance to study the ruling in depth, but my understanding of it is this:
1. DOMA restricts the federal government only with regards to MARRIAGE, not civil unions or domestic partnerships.
2. Very well established case law states that, in the absence of federal law or regulation, state law and regulation applies.
3. The federal government is therefore required to comply with state law when state law mandates equal benefits to employees in a domestic partnership or civil union.
Directly, this applies only to federal employees in a DP or CU and who work in a state that mandates that such employees receive identical benefits to those given to married employees. On December 3, Washington will become one of those states, when the “everything but the word marriage” law finally goes into effect. At that time, federal employees residing in Washington and in a domestic partership registered in or recognized by the state — IRS agents, census workers, federal marshals, members of the armed services — will be entitled to all of the benefits that the federal government offers to married agents, workers, marshals and servicemembers. That alone is worth the fuss and bother.
Indirectly, it creates a huge crack in DOMA. Congress and Obama will have to either prove themselves to be spineless bigots and pass federal laws that extend DOMA to prevent this, adapt federal regulations and benefits to accomodate potentially large differences among states, or (the easy course) repeal DOMA entirely.
This is a part of the “hold their feet to the fire” strategy. Precedent obligates the federal government to comply with state law in situations like this, and we cannot afford to let this pass.
Lies and theaterHow is the sham “review” and the leaks, plus the West Point speech any less dishonest and hollow than the show that the Bush administration put on?
Mike Brenner nails it absolutely:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
This speech will basically be: Mission Will Be Accomplished
I can’t bear to watch the new any more or even listen to NPR at the top of the hour. It’s too depressing. Endless war has come, along with reduction of our rights and citizen surveillance: we’ve landed in Brave New World.
thxthank you for the detailed explanation. It all makes sense to me now. Well, except for the “servicemembers” part. If they were to file for benefits, they would be in violation of DADT wouldn’t they?
NO SURPRISE HEREMore of the same from President Obama and his administration, this is not a surprise, this is par for the coarse.
This man is not our fierce advocate, in fact he is not even our friend. This is what you call motivation to stay home for the 2012 election.
Don’t presumeTo ever speak for me. I am not one to whimper or grasp at straws. I asked a very pertinent question. Everyone here seems to want to jump on Johh Berry without looking at the possible strategies involved. Send your bittnerness elsewhere.
Yes, they would beBut that is a different issue, and of course the “problem” could be resolved by relocating the servicemember to a state without equal benefits protection. Under law, however, the domestic partner of a servicemember residing in a state with equal benefits protection would be entitled to equal benefits.
Sammy, I wasn’t ‘speaking’ for you. . I was merely describing your comments.
I’m not bitter, but I do admit to being a touch puzzled by people who not only make-believe that we still have a “fierce defender” in the WH but who go on to create far-fetched scenarios to excuse the blatant bigotry of politicians, especially ‘lesser evil’ bigots like Obama and his appointees.
Now if you’re able, answer this: what sucessful strategic victory was ever based on betrayals?