From what I can tell, GetEqual does indeed get it, and as a lawyer myself I agree with their analysis and their translation of that into friendly criticism that Administration did not go far enough.

What you argue in terms of pragmatism is actually not inconsistent with GetEqual’s approach. Putting aside my lawyer hat and putting on my activist hat, I concur that the 8-state solution and the approach in the Administration’s brief is more likely to avoid Roe-like blowback, and secure and broaden the number of states with marriage equality while paving the way for the slower states ultimately to join. (This is where it is useful to recall that when Loving v. Virginia struck down all anti-miscegenation statutes nationwide, there were only 16 states left with such laws; same-sex marriage is at a much less widespread coverage right now, so blowback is a real possibility.)

So while I would have been thrilled had the Administration gone the whole distance as GetEqual urges, I also accept that the calculus may be correct that it’s more prudent to achieve the 8-state solution and then continue to build on that and broaden the set of marriage equality states, until either a true Loving equivalent can happen or it won’t even be necessary because states will have all arrived at equality anyway.

But it’s important that we also maintain voices that are uncompromising, like GetEqual or the Task Force, even while we live with certain compromises. Those uncompromising voices keep our eyes on full equality. They play a role, and an important one. There is no harm done by their doing so, either. We need both (a) their reminders of what full equality will look like, and that we should settle for nothing less in the long run, and (b) the pragmatic incrementalism that the Administration’s brief displays. The latter carves out space for the former, and the former lights the way for the latter to keep moving toward it.