Democratic lawmakers last week made long overdue diplomatic overtures to the gay and lesbian community by signaling their readiness to repeal the controversial ban on gays serving openly in the military known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

But for all the Congressional jockeying, the repeal may ultimately be stymied by President Barack Obama’s failure to lead on the issue. The onus of repealing the ban rests entirely with the commander in chief, who billed DADT’s repeal as one of his foremost objectives on the campaign trail but has don’t little on the matter since assuming office.

After seventeen years of inaction, though, the LGBT community has good reason to be skeptical of the Democratic Party’s new-found resolve. For fear they may have to take action and expend precious political capital when more pressing and sensational issues lie on the horizon, the guiding principle under which Democrats operated for the last decade was much like the first rule of Fight Club: you do not talk about DADT.

Growing increasingly agitated in recent months for Obama’s leisurely pace in fulfilling campaign pledges to those who voted en masse for Obama’s presidential bid, the LGBT community wised up and began withholding contributions to the national party. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give”, as they dubbed their pocketbook boycott, was predicated on the understanding that money motivates politicians. Finally, not for principles but concern a rebellion of wealthy gay donors was at hand, Democrats gave the gay community a pittance.

Democrats in the House Armed Services Committee last Monday suggested they may include language in the upcoming defense authorization bill that would repeal DADT, according to the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein. The inclusion of such language, however, hinges on successful Democratic vote whipping — a Capitol Hill virtue not found among Democratic assets in recent high-stakes military funding battles.

Democrat Barney Frank was early out of the gate to preemptively cushion the blow in the event his colleagues failed to secure the necessary support, telling The Advocate that the incorporation of the repeal in the committee’s military budget recommendations was not a necessity.

“I do not think it matters what the Pentagon says,” Frank said. “We will get the votes without, I think.”

Despite Frank’s reassurances and categorically naive judgment that the Pentagon exerts no influence over Congress on military appropriation legislation, the gay community’s senior statesman would not have been dispatched to play the expectations game if Democrats were confident they the votes in committee. Ultimately, the Armed Services Committee’s vote to include or expel the new language will serve as a barometer for the House’s temperature on the matter.

For the repeal to reach critical mass, President Obama must build a consensus among virtually all Democratic lawmakers, though few, if any, vulnerable Blue Dogs will be receptive to his calls with contentious reelection battles on the horizon and a bruising health care battle at their backs.

In an email to SKEPTICIANS, LGBT kingmaker and organizer of the recent gay march on Washington David Mixner said the gay community is “simply not sure how serious” lawmakers and the president are about repealing the ban. “Clearly some progressives Democrats want to just that,” still, he said, “others swear they can’t support it.”

As the 2010 midterm elections rapidly approach, the last thing Blue Dog Democrats want to defend to constituents in conservative-leaning districts is a vote to socially reengineer the American military. And as Obama’s potential legacy as a failed one-term president hangs in the balance, the last thing the White House wants is to provide his would-be Republican opponents with any additional ammunition for the 2012 presidential campaign.

In the end, satisfying his progressive critics and appeasing the Democratic Party’s gay donor base is not worth risking reelection for President Obama. Gay outreach, as a matter of political expediency and common sense, will always play second fiddle to the president’s courtship of evangelical voters as he eyes a second term.

If they still disagree, the president’s remaining disillusioned gay supporters should reevaluate Obama’s selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at last year’s inauguration. The response from the gay community was typical, if exasperated, with leaders characterizing the decision as a “genuine blow” to the movement for marriage equality. Warren, they said, had taken an active role in defeating gay marriage equality in California through the voter referendum known as Proposition 8.

But despite the outcry from gay supporters, Warren delivered the invocation without a hitch. He did so not because he Obama was specifically beholden to Warren, but because the president-elect was desperate to make inroads with evangelical Christians — even at the cost of marginalizing some of his most ardent supporters.

The demand for action on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” like the outcry over Warren’s selection, will fall on the conveniently evangelically-inclined deaf ears of the White House.

Follow James on Twitter.

Subscribe to Skepticians in your favorite RSS reader so you never miss a beat.