The issue of Gay rights is still viewed by social conservatives, and by those like President Obama who don't see equal protection as a priority, as a sort of growth in the organism, a cancer originating in Massachusetts that has since metastasized to the rest of New England and as far away as Iowa.  It may seem harsh to lump Mr. Obama in with social conservatives, but in some ways his underwhelming stance on two major issues impacting the gay community — marriage equality and DADT — makes him worse.  One can easily imagine he would rather not have to deal with gay rights at all. 

To be fair to Obama he has never wavered on his opposition to marriage equality, which he has said on several occasions is against his Christian religion.  And his promise to repeal the military's disastrous Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was never accompanied by a time-line or assurances of following up with an explicit statement of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, which would offer the same protection afforded federal civilian employees.

Most recently, with the dismissal of Arabic linguist Lt. Dan Choi from the National Guard for coming out publicly, the "Yes We Can" President has reiterated his "I'd Rather Not" stance on intervening in the firings of qualified professionals based on criteria that in no ways influences their on-the-job performance. 

Of course I understand the political principles involved, and this President's reluctance to squander political capital on this segment of his constituency, which he has every right and reason to believe has nowhere else to go, should put to rest any lingering doubts that Obama is, indeed, a mortal politician, with an agenda and ambitions of his own, and not a moral force and heir to Gandhi's or Mandela's mantle. 

Obama was master on the campaign trail of making the obvious seem revelatory to some.  This was part of the historical era of doublethink we'd found ourselves stuck in, where the obvious had, indeed, become revelatory to many.  On DADT Obama made simple declarative statements, like "We’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe."  This was refreshing.  But he left his audience to infer from this frank acknowledgment whatever it would.

Many, who had "seen Mr. Obama's soul" naturally inferred that his acknowledgment of the waste of resources and urgent security threat presented by DADT would lead to swift action on that front.  While encouraging this interpretation of his intentions during the campaign, he, again, never offered a time-line or specifics.  Voters liked Obama, and trusted him to "do the right thing" if given the opportunity. And with the opposition offering McCain/Palin, even the skeptics had little choice but to "hope".

It would be hard to argue that Obama has been anything so far but consistently disappointing on the moral issues of the day, from equal rights and protections to torture and transparency, and this is because he's clearly not a moralist, but a pragmatist (I would even concur with David Axelrod's characterization of the President as a "ruthless pragmatist"). 

In choosing his battles he will likely leave gay rights on the back burner until term two.  And, like I said, he can afford to.  Where are gays going to go?  To the GOP, whose members recently opposed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill by referring to its namesake's savage murder as a "hoax" and associating homosexuals with pedophiles and necrophiliacs in House debate? 

And while Obama had promised to support the bill, and seems to have done so, in typical fashion, where he called it "the Matthew Shepard Bill" in campaign literature, he declined to invoke Shepard's name* in a public statement of support before the House's vote. This may not seem all that significant, so long as Obama is working behind the scenes to get things done, but with gay rights in particular "coming out" is itself a significant act. 

The failure of Obama to take an open, unequivocal, and principled stand on such serious social issues has real consequences.  A sort of "butterfly effect" that resonates around the globe.  By hedging on gay rights Obama abdicates a little of the moral authority he brought with him to the office of President.  That he has explicitly refused (through his spokesman, no less) to support or defend gays gives aid and comfort to their enemies at home and abroad.  The Obama administration has, for example, said nothing about the recent violence against gays in Moscow that resulted in the arrest of scores of gay rights advocates there.  And there is no reason to believe he will mention it to President Medvedev on his July 6th visit to the Kremlin.

His reluctance to lend his voice to even such obviously egregious abuses sends a message that, however stealthily he may be working for change, he doesn't quite see the issue of gay rights as one of social import or moral significance.  I'd say, if Obama supports human rights for gays and lesbians it's time for him to come out.   
__________________________________
*The House bill is officially known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.