EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

Unfinished Business: The Defense of Marriage Act

Last month, with almost no fanfare, the federal government did a very decent thing: It canceled the deportation of a Venezuelan man after he married an American man in Connecticut and claimed legal residency as a spouse. But the government did not say that it was formally recognizing their marriage, because it cannot. The Defense of Marriage Act, which ranks with the most overtly discriminatory laws in the nation’s history, remains on the books, prohibiting federal recognition of legal same-sex marriages.

 The deportation dismissal was an isolated act of kindness by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. It is heavily outweighed by the continuing inequality imposed on thousands of same-sex couples who have been legally married in the five states — plus the District of Columbia — where it is already allowed. Likewise, the many couples who will take advantage of New York’s new marriage equality law will not be married in the eyes of Washington.

That means they cannot receive Social Security benefits for spouses, as can the straight couple next door. They cannot file joint federal income tax returns or take advantage of the larger estate tax exemption for married couples. Federal laws like those giving the right of family leave do not apply to them. If they work for the federal government, they cannot extend their health insurance policy to their spouses. A childless soldier with a same-sex spouse will not receive the housing allowance for dependents, even after “don’t ask, don’t tell” is fully repealed.

And, because the law allows states to ignore a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere, spouses may not be able to visit each other in a hospital if they are traveling.

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 as an election-year wedge issue, signed by President Bill Clinton in one of his worst policy moments. Any Congress with a real respect for personal freedom would repeal it. That, of course, does not describe the current Congress, where many members talk a great deal about freedom but apply it mainly to businesses and gun owners. With legislative repeal not on the horizon, the best hope for ending this legalized bigotry is with the courts.

Last year, a federal judge in Massachusetts said the law’s definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman violated the equal-protection provisions of the Constitution. In June, a federal bankruptcy court in California said the law was unconstitutional. Other cases have been filed in New York and Connecticut, and the Justice Department, having agreed that the marriage definition is unconstitutional, has refused to defend it in those court cases. (The House hired its own lawyer to defend the law.)

The issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court, possibly in the next term. In the meantime, many married couples will have to hope for the kindness of strangers.

Unfinished Business: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

It has been six months since Congress voted to allow military service by openly gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans, but the law banning their service is still in effect. The Pentagon has not certified that the military is ready for the change, and while that process needlessly drags on, soldiers continue to be discharged for acknowledging their sexuality. The full repeal of this discriminatory policy should be one of the highest priorities for the new defense secretary, Leon Panetta.

The armed forces are a conservative, tradition-bound institution, and proponents of repeal have long known it would not happen overnight. Scores of regulations had to be rewritten, training sessions had to be held for changed procedures, and old prejudices had to be overcome. The Pentagon has tried to anticipate questions about a huge set of possible circumstances.

In one set of training scenarios used by the Marines, for example, the guidelines explain that a military recruiter with strong religious feelings against homosexuality will no longer be able to refuse to process a gay applicant, but — because of freedom of religious expression — a military chaplain will be allowed to preach in a base chapel that homosexuality is a sin.

Nonetheless, service members also have long known that this day is coming, and six months seems long enough for them to get the message that the law has changed. Even after the Pentagon and President Obama officially sign the certification of readiness, the law provides for another 60-day period before it takes effect.

Beyond changing the regulations, the most pressing issue is whether commanders will put a firm stop to the harassment of openly gay or lesbian soldiers that often takes place in locker rooms or barracks. The rules are clear that commanders are expected to crack down. But there have been regular reports that training sessions are not always taken seriously, particularly by Marines.

The services will come to accept the new policy, just as they have absorbed many social changes over the decades, including racial and sexual integration. But there are clearly some people who will continue to resist the new orders, and they and their commanders will have to decide whether they should remain in the military.

Prejudice and harassment apparently led at least one airman to announce that he was gay and request a discharge from the military under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” according to The Advocate, a gay publication. The discharge was approved in late April. Three others in the Air Force have also requested and received similar discharges in recent weeks.

Time has run out on the use of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for these kinds of discharges. One of the points of repeal is to begin to build a military culture in which no one feels the need to request a discharge because of intolerance. That may take time, but the best way to start is for Mr. Panetta and other military leaders to wipe official discrimination from the books in the next few weeks. Then they can lead the painstaking effort that will be needed to repair the emotional damage it has caused.

Unsung Heroes

A small gesture can mean a lot. That is the simple but compelling idea animating a drive to gain official honors for the patriots, both civilian and in uniform, who stood up against the Bush administration’s immoral torture policies.

The idea of bestowing honors on these heroes was raised in an April 28 Op-Ed article in The Times by Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union and Larry Siems of the PEN American Center. They said that while senior Bush administration officials approved egregious interrogation and detention practices, including torture, there were dissenters throughout the government.

“Those who stayed true to our values and stood up against cruelty are worthy of a wide range of civilian and military commendations, up to and including the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” they wrote.

Worthy candidates include Alberto Mora, the former Navy general counsel who waged a lonely battle to revoke Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s interrogation directive authorizing abuses at the Guantánamo Bay prison; and Antonio Taguba, the Army major general who says he was forced to retire after his frank report on the sadistic treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib. There are others.

This modest awards proposal has lately assumed a degree of urgency. After the killing of Osama bin Laden, some — like John Yoo, the Bush Justice Department lawyer who twisted the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions to excuse the inexcusable — argued that waterboarding and other abuses were both proper and necessary.

Ten leading civil liberties and human rights groups, including the A.C.L.U. and Human Rights First, have called on President Obama to honor all who bravely said no when the country veered off course. Recognizing them would not discharge Mr. Obama’s failed duty to find ways to further accountability. But it would be a start.