Just a point to make about the difference between getting Obama and the Congress to repeal/revise DOMA and the overall campaign for same-sex marriage. I agree that on same-sex marriage if we had waited for the right "time" it would never happen. (Although, it has been clear that it is not the right time to press federal constitutional claims with this Supreme Court and the LGBT legal eagles are careful not to do so -- yet.) But we get repeated shots at it. We file cases in key states around the country, and we win some -- MA, CA, CT -- and we lose some -- NY, e.g. Each victory makes it that much easier for the next one, and a loss isn't a debilitating setback. So while there is a strategy involved, it needn't wait for the "perfect time."

Re DOMA: I want to see Obama take it on, but he will get one shot at it, and one shot only. If he fails, he will not bring it up again in his Presidency. Period. So there is a sense in which you want to do it at the most optimum time. Now we can differ over whether the optimum time is now, and hey, it might be. But it's a different calculus.

I don't know how you get the strength to read MoDo anymore, GG. I gave up a long time ago. Her idiocy aside, her writing is just terrible. So desperate to be flip and hip.

Imagine how us gay atheists feel. I haven't exactly been saving up for my presidential campaign.

That's an interesting point you raise. It's true that when a court finds an equal protection violation in the sense that a benefit is unjustifiably being provided to one group but not to another, then the court has two options: (1) require the government to grant the benefit to the "disfavored" group; or (2) prevent the government from providing the benefit to the "favored" group. The CA Supreme Court (as did MA and CT) took route (1). Prop 8 cuts that off, but it doesn't cut off route (2), and doesn't facially purport to cure the equal protection violation.

Now I suspect that's going to be a little too clever for the CA Supreme Court. But it is interesting that the Prop 8 drafters weren't more careful. If I were a bigot wanting to draft that proposition, I'd have said something to the effect that "The Equal Protection Clause of the CA Constitution shall not be construed to prevent the state from recognizing only different-sex marriage," or something along those lines. That they didn't do that may be because it would have put the deprivation of rights in such clear focus. Would be an interesting issue for the courts.

My partner and I have the same tax issue you do (as does anyone who gets their health insurance through their domestic partner or same-sex spouse's plan). Correcting that would not necessarily require DOMA to be repealed. The tax provisions (I think they're in ERISA, but I could be wrong) could just be rewritten to allow the tax deductibility of not only spousal benefits but domestic partner benefits as well.

In fact, if DOMA were repealed you'd still have to be married under current law to remove the tax penalty. The health-insurance tax provisions need to be rewritten for this, not necessarily DOMA.

GG's description is generally a good one, but here's the actual text of DOMA Section 3:

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'

So as you can see, it only defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" and would only affect other federal laws that use those terms. It does not, in fact, purport to prohibit the extension of any benefits to same-sex couples. I suppose there might be an argument that this was the intent, but it would almost certainly fail given its very clear language.

So as long as the revision to the tax code/ERISA extended tax benefits beyond those provided to a "spouse," e.g., to "domestic partners," DOMA Sec. 3 would have no operation. That's my view, anyway.

One other point: DOMA's just a statute. It can be repealed or modified by a subsequent statute. Any law passed to rectify the tax effects, even if it conflicted with DOMA, would likely be deemed to control over DOMA because (1) the later-passed statute usually controls, and (2) the more specific statute usually controls. And, of course, those are just rules of construction employed when Congress' intent is not clear. The intent to overrule DOMA on the tax issue could be made explicit, e.g., "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in DOMA Section 3, etc."

As you (sort of) recognize, can we just wait until he actually does something to start criticizing him for it? The tendency of the press and, unfortunately, the left blogosphere to go nuts over every unsourced rumor about what Obama's going to do or whom he's going to appoint is already driving me nuts. Let the man take office first.

And let's evaluate his actions on their merits, please. Some executive orders would be completely proper, others not. The fact that there's a rumor he might use that power does not make him some power-mad executive hell-bent on destroying the Constitution.