I've been out of the loop for the last 24+ hours, so a lot has happened regarding 1) the blowback on the DOMA brief, and 2) the meltdown of the gay DNC fundraiser next week, as the list of those bailing on the gala hosted by Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis featuring VP Joe Biden.
Here are a few links for you (and me, since I have to catch up):
One way to get the Obama administration's attention on civil rights is for gay people to stop funding the Democrats. That's all these people care about anyway when it comes to gays: our money. If the Democrats refuse to support us, refuse to support them...No cheering him at events while he does nothing to follow up on his explicit promises.
* Gay tsunami slams Obama (Rex Wockner). Good roundup of commentary that quotes many reactions to the DOMA hate brief. (but none from the Blend, lol.)
If you can't make the date, take a rain check and help anyway? SUZE ORMAN just signed on that way. ELIZABETH BIRCH signed on that way. Lots of others.
If you CAN make the date, you'll be joining the Vice President of the United States . . .
. . . along with Virginia Governor / DNC Chair Tim Kaine . . . immediate past DNC Chair Howard Dean . . . Chairman Barney Frank . . . Representatives Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis . . . Vermont Senate President Pete Shumlin . . . District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty . . . David Mixner . . . Richard Socarides . . . The Task Force's Rea Carey . . . HRC's Marty Rouse . . . ESPA's Alan Van Capelle . . . GLAD's Mary Bonauto . . . NBJC's Alexander Robinson . . . GMHC's Marjorie Hill . . . The Victory Fund's Chuck Wolfe . . . Towle Road's Andy Towle . . . Iraq Marine vet Brian Fricke (whom you may have seen on 60 Minutes) . . . Billy Bean . . . Joan Garry . . . Keith Boykin . . . Ray Buckley . . . Brian Johnson . . . Corey Johnson . . . Dixon Osburn . . . Paul Smith . . . Bruce Bastian . . . Mitchell Gold . . . Krystal Ball . . . and so many others, like YOU, who have been pushing the ball down the field for so long. (Well, Krystal is fairly new to this, but what a kick to have a pro-marriage CPA triathlete young mom running to unseat a conservative Republican in Virginia.)
It would mean a great deal to have you with us:
www.democrats.org/LGBTdinner
Did I mention that the Mandarin Oriental has a 10,400-square-foot spa?
The National Stonewall Dems pulled support from the event; it won't encourage its members to attend.
I can report the latest addition to the strikeout list is GLAD's Mary Bonauto; look for her upcoming guest post to the Blend explaining why she will not be attending the DNC dinner.
And this one has to hurt -- also bailing is former Co-Chair of the Obama LGBT Leadership Council during the 2008 campaign, Stampp Corbin. The San Diego City Commissioner has written an op-ed that passionately and rationally explains why the DOMA brief crossed a line with the community. He gave me permission to share it with you.
The DOMA brief ruined everything by Stampp Corbin
When it comes to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) equal rights, it has been a schizophrenic week for the Obama administration. Last Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed LGBT Department of Justice employees at a Pride celebration held in the building. Holder said "...neither the frustrations of the past, nor the challenges of the future should deter us from our goal - our responsibility - to continue our efforts to ensure the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans."
Last Thursday, the Attorney General filed a legal brief in a California federal case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that made arguments that compared same sex marriage to incest. Thursday, President Obama announced the extension of some benefits to LGBT federal employees; just not the most coveted ones, like health care and pension benefits. Oh that's right, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents that and you just wrote a legal brief defending it. When I wake up each morning, I feel a bit schizophrenic myself, "I love Obama, I hate Obama, I am ambivalent about Obama." It's maddening.
Someone get me a Prozac.
I ask, "Mr. President how can you argue for the legality of DOMA, when you are for its repeal?"
You really are talking out of both sides of your mouth and my community knows it.
More below the fold. Stampp continues:
The Administration's specious argument was extolled in a press release "As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."
Oh really, so can I expect the same response when your brief is filed in a Massachusetts federal case on June 29th? I certainly hope not. Mr. President make a different choice. Choose to lead.
Both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton filed legal briefs arguing against existing law. The president says he is a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights. Really? I don't think comparing a marriage to my partner, to marrying my niece or sister, is being my fierce advocate. I expect the president will try to distance himself from the brief and even the press statement, but it is too late. If how I feel, as one of the president's most ardent supporters, is any indication, Obama is in for a world of trouble over the next year with the LGBT community.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest LGBT rights organization, rightfully condemned Obama for the filing of the government's DOMA brief. I could not agree more with the leadership of HRC. President Obama, your legal brief was clearly a mistake, a big mistake. After Prop 8, my partner and I feel we are playing a tragic game of Wipeout. Traveling through an obstacle course that we must master to get our rights; making it to the end in California, only to be told by voters that heat didn't count. I expected obstacles to be placed in our path by our enemies; I just didn't expect it from the President. I thought he was on our side; I still want to believe that.
Unfortunately, I will see everything that the Obama administration does for LGBT Americans through the lens of the DOMA brief. Meaning, I will be waiting for the other proverbial shoe to drop, while praying President Obama delivers on his promises.
Next week, I am boycotting the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council Democratic National Committee event honoring Vice President Biden to drive home my discontent. Many other prominent LGBT donors have also joined in the boycott. Is the announcement of benefits for LGBT federal employees to squash the boycott and the general uproar? Hmm...In politics, money talks. It is unlikely that Obama just put together this announcement in the last week to throw a bone to my community; it has been in the works for many weeks. I would have celebrated loudly had this been announced before the DOMA debacle, but now I will only give polite, muted applause. That pesky DOMA brief has ruined everything.
Mr. President, your DOMA mistake awakened a sleeping giant. He is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore. You better get LGBT affirming legislation moving quickly or the coffers of the LGBT community will be slammed shut on the fingers of your administration and the DNC. You and the DNC may find themselves asking about our donations "if not now, when" as we have been asking about our rights for the last few months.
If you are already a member, log on now. If you are not
a member, Join up!
Comments
Comment Order:
6/21/2009 11:15 PM
0|-1
todd
i didn't see your first post, my apologies.
"In Obama's address to the Jews he promised to preserve their holy land, which sparked outrage with Muslims. He then went back on that statement assuring Muslims that's not what he meant and that he'd support them. The problem here is we have 2 groups that hate each other and BOTH have sacred ties to the land in question. The only way to be truly neutral and many would support it, DON'T TAKE SIDES, let them work it out themselves."
brett, the two parties in question have asked our government repeatedly to help them resolve their issue. we can certainly help them and not be seen as "taking a side." what it requires is some very hard choices that both sides have to make. if the world community doesn't force them to make these choices then there never will be peace.
personally, i don't hate moderates or conservatives. the problem is we don't have any true conservatives in charge of the republican party right now. i think you can agree with that.
how are celebraties and athletes receiving special treatment from the democratic party?
"The government programs Obama proposes only benefit the select groups who voted for him and are going to force hard working Americans to pay dearly for it."
bullshit and you know that. you know damn well that many people, including you probably, will most definitely benefit from some of his programs. to say that only the people who voted for obama are the only ones who will benefit is disingenuous and i know your smart enough to recognize that.
the people who voted for obama come from every economic demographic, from every race, creed and all that other good stuff. the numbers don't lie and neither do the statistics. i suggest you read up on them.
tired and he said it well.. so im just going to say that i agree with brett completely.
6/21/2009 11:03 PM
-
todd
care to back any of that up? yeah, i didn't think so. so keith olberman is a douche bag too? really? your not telling me anything i already didn't know.
i never said new york, san fran, and chicago represent the entire democratic party. i just used those as examples. i think you can see that.
"Anyone who says "I hate Bush and you'd have to be a moron not to vote for Obama" is NOT a moderate."
care to back that up? uh huh. it's not too far fetched to think there are moderates who truly thought that this last election. i direct you to andrew sullivan as being one of them. hell, you can look at me. i'm for gun rights, i'm for the death penality AND i'm for gay marriage and support woman's rights to choose. those four things could easily make me a moderate in the eyes of many people.
and guess what? not every san franscisco liberal is for all of those things you mentioned either. your obviously not good with nuance when it comes to classifying people on the political spectrum. you still haven't explained here how you consider yourself a moderate. have you ever voted for a democrat in your short life? i'm genuinely curious. a true libertarian?
yeah, good night. if you have a radio alarm clock, change your station to the local npr station. you might be lucky enough to wake up to "morning edition."
As for classification, yes, people on here are hardcore leftist liberals who classify anything in the middle or the right to be too Republican to consider valid. News flash, Keith Olbermann is to Democrats, what Bill O'Reilly is to Republicans but if you're far left, Olbermann seems reasonable to you. Anyone who says "I hate Bush and you'd have to be a moron not to vote for Obama" is NOT a moderate. Bill O'Reilly is just as hateful, and I have lost respect for both of these men.
I use San Francisco style liberals to highlight the fact that not all liberals support gay marriage, illegal immigration, excess environmental regulations, and banned gun rights. Go to any state that isn't along the coasts, (in the West, Midwest, and South) and you will find many Democrats, largely union workers who are liberal only because their unions gets them the most money and benefits. Many support gun rights, oppose illegal immigration, excess welfare, and are less than excited by gay rights.
To say that San Francisco, and Chicago and New York for that matter, represent the entire Democratic Party is completely false, which is why I differentiate the style of Democrat.
Republicans would be stupid to nominate Palin after 2008. It's time for a new face who gets back to basics and drops the religious BS. I'm waiting for either party to get back to the basics of their core principles and once they do, I will consider registering for a party. Democrats have lost their core focus of "rights for all" because they now give biased representation to teachers, lawyers, government employees, racial minorities, celebrities, and athletes, at the expense of all other Americans. Selecting individuals for preferential treatment contradicts their true quest for equality. The government programs Obama proposes only benefit the select groups who voted for him and are going to force hard working Americans to pay dearly for it.
In Obama's address to the Jews he promised to preserve their holy land, which sparked outrage with Muslims. He then went back on that statement assuring Muslims that's not what he meant and that he'd support them. The problem here is we have 2 groups that hate each other and BOTH have sacred ties to the land in question. The only way to be truly neutral and many would support it, DON'T TAKE SIDES, let them work it out themselves.
These random "promises" Obama has made temporarily placate the groups he addresses, but once he realizes how many people he pisses off, he goes back on his words. This is not strength, it's pure political games. I don't understand how one can think Obama is "the best this nation can do". The best thing this nation can do is elect a president who supports economic responsibility, equal rights and protections for ALL people, and one who is willing to tell America the truth. Obama is far from a perfect leader and is it so wrong to demand more accountability from him? It's loyal liberals who have become complacent that allow Obama to continue doing as he pleases, feeling no pressure to take any other actions. Regardless of who is president, you praise them for what they're doing well, but pressure them in areas where they need improvement.
Why do I consider myself a moderate? Let's see, I'm registered independent, have voted for both Republicans and Democrats, I thought both Obama and Palin were equally unqualified to lead this country. I'm ashamed of both Republicans and Democrats who fail to carry out the true values of their party and let special interests rule. I support a split party government, etc... Both Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann piss me off with their flaming biases and hatred of those with opposing views.
Why is a person only moderate if they vote for Obama? Using your logic, wuldn't that make them a Democrat? A moderate often alternates and votes for differing parties, often Republican and Democrat. This whole gay liberal elitist attitude of "your either with us or your a dumbass" is the very reason gays have failed to reach any sort of understanding or compromise with conservatives.
Everyone is praising Obama's peaceful negotiations with country leaders who hate Americans, so why aren't gays following his example and having peaceful negotiations with skeptical Democrats and Republicans? If you think it works so well, spend the time you would be promoting protests, creating an open forum to politicians.
I think I've made my point and I'll leave the rest of you to battle this one out. Go right ahead and preach your hatred of moderates and conservatives, but remember that the divide you are creating parallels the divide that many racial minorities have created in refusing to band with gays to fight for common rights. I fully support a respectful meeting of the mind where all groups are given a chance to make their case and are heard. Let me end it by saying we have intelligent individuals on this message board of all political orientations, and I don't think I'm better than you for my beliefs. No, I'm not a coward, I'm secure enough in my views, that I don't feel threatened by people that hate me for them.
Brett is the worse type in the Republican party, he is the type that is too ashamed to associate himself with such a party because it is currently associated with shit. So he listens to FOX and has to proclaim himself an independent or libertarian for someone to take him seriously.
6/21/2009 9:46 PM
0|-1
todd
san fransisco style liberals? what is that? how are they different from a chicago liberal or a new york liberal?
on what scale do you consider yourself a moderate? what criteria do you use to come to this conclusion that your a moderate?
of course you won't answer any of these questions because your fox news talking points memo kind of fails when it comes to questions that require nuance.
"unsubstantiated comments", just like the arguments you and Raul make that speculate that Obama is truly for gay rights and that he will fulfill his promises in time.
The only reason you think these comments are substantiated is because there are hundreds of other gay liberals out there willing to back up your speculations.
FACT: Obama has addressed gays and DOMA, pledging support of 2 incompatible goals. There is no way he can fulfill both pledges.
FACT: Obama has addressed Jews and Muslims, pledging support of 2 incompatible goals. Again, there is no way he can fulfill both pledges.
FACT: Universal health care is an expensive risky proposal. Moderate Democrats are hesitant to rush into it
Once again, I'm not saying Obama is any better or worse in this regard, but don't make promises knowing damn well you can't fulfill them. When one wants to remain neutral, one should simply say that.
As a moderate, I would vote for a president that is the opposing party of congress so that they could cancel each other out. I support the type of administration we had when Bill Clinton was in power, Democrat president, Republican congress. This is best because the 2 parties regulate one another, keeping spending and special interest influence to a minimum. If Congress continues to be Democrat run, I may vote Republican in 2012. If congress flips Republican, I may vote Democrat.
I realize I'm one of a handful of moderates on here, who gets beat on by San Francisco style liberals, but it doesn't phase me. It's merely a message board and we live in a free country.
Yes, I'm pissed that key Republicans shifted their focus from conservative spending to "preserving" religious values, and that is what has kept me from registering Republican. That said, I feel Democrats are idealizing a United States where everyone sacrifices their own wealth and possessions "for the greater good of society" while the government is allowed to be as wealthy and powerful as it wants. Wealth redistribution is a very scary proposition and a selfish move by the have nots to steal what they did not earn. Obama could care less what those who worked hard for their money think because the poor give him votes in return for stolen handouts.
The Democratic party is turning our government into a lawyer system that says your struggles are someone else's fault and you deserve to be taken care of regardless of how hard you work. Unlike Obama's initial promise to create jobs to boost the wealth of the poor, he's planning ways to steal from the rich so the poor won't have to work so hard.
I refuse to vote for an all-Democratic government that votes to reward the lazy at the expense of hard-working Americans. Yes, we need a safety net, but telling the poor that it's never their fault, and they deserve a lavish life contradicts the values that made this country great to begin with.
Republicans are failing on their mission of controlled spending, and Democrats are failing on their mission to promote equality for all people. Screw em both, vote opposing parties so they keep each other in check.
I may come off as a Republican, but trust me, I have plenty of gripes with the Republicans that keep me from registering as one.
Uh huh right, tell me this then, if you had to choose between Obama and Palin for next year who would it be?
and it's disappointing to see that civil rights have taken a backseat to special interest groups, the same thing that everyone criticized Bush for.
You see only a Republican would see it as such, I believe you have forgotten Bush actually tired to ratify an amendment to the constitution to define it as what he believed a sacred institution, and Obama did what? uphold DOMA because he was defending a law passed by Congress.
Doug and Raul, is that all you can do is play on my words and reiterate the media's love affair with Obama? If you think his actions thus far have been such big steps, are you saying that separate but equal is "the best we're going to get" so stop complaining?
Silly Republican, trying to degrade my convictions, I'm saying something is better than nothing and that this takes time. He wasn't elected by a majority for equal rights, that is one thing I fully understood the moment I cast my ballot.
Many on here are not honest with the fact that they are the far left, and rather than proudly proclaiming such, they claim to be a moderate but offer unwavering support to the Democratic party and think anyone who doesn't support their party is ignorant.
Same can be said of those who say they are not Republican, but abuse the words of being Independent or Libertarian.
I may come off as a Republican, but trust me, I have plenty of gripes with the Republicans that keep me from registering as one. That said, the Republicans have been railed enough by the media and gays already and there's no sense in wasting my time regurgitating all of those arguments. We know already and it doesn't need to be harped on further.
Democrats control everything at the moment and have the power to make some waves, and it's disappointing to see that civil rights have taken a backseat to special interest groups, the same thing that everyone criticized Bush for. The Republicans are out of power now, so rather than beat a dead horse, lets focus on what Democrats could/should be doing.
Doug and Raul, is that all you can do is play on my words and reiterate the media's love affair with Obama? If you think his actions thus far have been such big steps, are you saying that separate but equal is "the best we're going to get" so stop complaining?
When you want a job done, and find 2 candidates where one won't do the job, and the other is only willing to do 1/3 of the job, you find someone else to do the job. Obama is pandering to mainstream Blacks and Hispanics who frankly hate the idea of gay marriage and until he puts civil rights before the whims of his select groups, we're not going to get any "change".
I'll use this analogy again, Obama is like the big man on campus who won a school election. Gays are the unpopular kids that made up 10% of the student body. Obama realizing he needed our votes suddenly tried to coax us with pledging to protect our interests, but once elected he went back to being too cool to worry about the people he sees as inferior.
I'm not saying Obama is any worse than previous presidents in this respect, but to think that he somehow immune from special interest influence and biases is total BS. Rather than make promises he can't fulfill just to placate his listeners, he should just flat out say it's an issue he would prefer to stay out of. Honesty is a rare find in politics, and I've found Obama to be just as dishonest and deceitful as Bush was.
Many on here are not honest with the fact that they are the far left, and rather than proudly proclaiming such, they claim to be a moderate but offer unwavering support to the Democratic party and think anyone who doesn't support their party is ignorant. The far left is not the center, andif you'd listen to differing views without immediately discounting every word, you might learn something.
Democrats have thrown cookie crumbs at gay rights, and used gays as puppet voters, and I respectfully refuse to give them any support.
"For example, Obama originally told the Jewish that he would support Israel and protect their sacred lands, but he also told Muslims that he would do the same. Both Jews and Muslims felt betrayed. More than likely, it will result in complete inaction."
Oh for piss sake, come down off that crucifix, someone else needs the wood
Dean, I understand that, and we do. But that is going to take time, that's all. It is small to you, but it's something to me, for going through an administration, especially the last 8 years were we weren't even mentioned whatsoever.... and you know this'
Raul, I'd rather vote for David Letterman, I can't even say Sarah Palin's name out loud without wanting to puke. I just want you to have a clear idea of just exactly what benefits Obama just gave us in signing this memorandum, it's simply a few crumbs & we all deserve better.
AUSTIN:"it's been 6 months and obama has already delivered more than any past president in terms of gay rights."
RAUL:"He has enacted benefits for us..."
If you have a few minutes for a quick read on yet another gay attorney's blog on the recent Presidential "executive order," I think both of you would be surprised at just how little substance is contained in that memorandum benefitshttp://www.kipesquire.net/2009...../#comments
6/21/2009 7:17 PM
-
todd
"For example, Obama originally told the Jewish that he would support Israel and protect their sacred lands, but he also told Muslims that he would do the same. Both Jews and Muslims felt betrayed. More than likely, it will result in complete inaction."
find me a president who hasn't said that when they're in the white house, brett. you need to find better examples to make your point cause that one fails. that difference this time around is that obama has basically told bibi netanyahu and the massive isreali lobby in d.c. is that things are going to change. they're going to take a more balanced approach to this conflict and that will not always benefit the interests of israel. it's about damn time someone stands up to israel and admits the underhanded influence that country and it's lobby, aipac, has on our country's foreign policy. i truly hope obama is the one that does that.
I'm not going to write long ass commentary like Brett continuously, no offense Brett, they reek Republican to me, but I still do stand with what I said below' LOL
He has enacted benefits for us, changed America's stance on the U.N. resolution for promoting protection for gays in the international community, he has spoken with Matthew Shepard's mother, Judy, in regards to his commitment on signing the Matthew Shepard Act, DO YOU FUCKING THINK MCCAIN WOULD OF COMMITTED TO ANYTHING REMOTELY ABOVE!? I'm more afraid of Obama being pushed away by us "GAYS", whiny..and bitchy... and moaning about receiving liberties we do not work hard for but expect in a fucking Presidential ballot to magically appear! than I am about him upholding DOMA for now.
STEVE: As for the gay stuff and Obama, again, I hate I told you so's (I really don't, but I'll pretend), but I did tell you so.
TODD: steve,
no, you didn't tell us so and repeating that only solidifies it in your mind, not anyone else's. if people truly thought we would get instant equality when obama took office then that's their stupidity, they're the ones who weren't rational in choosing a candidate.
the only reason the jewish community is upset with obama is because obama plans to push a more balanced treatment in the israeli/palestinian conflict. that hasn't occurred within an administration in a long time.
And now the line of questioning goes something like this. . .
"Counselor, you argue that states do not have to recognize marriages if it is against their social policy."
"Correct, your honor."
"Do you have any authority on that?"
"Well, courts have refused to recognize marriages based on incest and pedophilia."
"But here we have two consenting adults. Are you saying that that we should find those cases persuasive?"
"Yes. . ."
6/21/2009 5:26 PM
-
Ted
I'd rather they say, "it's not constitutional because not only is the meaning of the constitution plain, but even if you believe in the previously accepted exceptions, this does not meet them." But disagreeing with that statement and believing gay marriage is just as bad as incest is not the same thing.
6/21/2009 5:23 PM
-
Ted
If they don't come up with an example, the court could say, "The Respondent points to no authority that a state can choose not to recognize an out-of-state marriage." The state can choose to do so, it's a matter of whether to expand the categories where they can do so or keep them the same.
6/21/2009 5:21 PM
-
Ted
But it did not say, "States may ban incest, therefore states may ban gay marriage." See the difference?
Clint, they always attack both standing and the merits. Because otherwise, if they lose at standing, they lose the case.
Yes, by likening gay marriage to incestuous marriages. The paragraph essentially read "Courts have recognized that a state does not have to recognize validly performed marriages if the marriage is incestuous. Similarly, the state should not have to recognize an otherwise validly peformed gay marraige." See the problem?
The issue is, you're taking the facts of one case (pedophilia and incest) and using those facts to support your position. It's great fanstatic, amazing lawyering and exactly what he should do. But it doesn't mean that the argument still isn't damaging.
AND. . .he didn't need to argue the constitution. When you can knock something out on standing, knock it out on standing!
6/21/2009 5:18 PM
-
Ted
If the brief couldn't establish that it was possible to constitutionally reject an out-of-state marriage (and IT IS possible to do so, based on prior decisions), it couldn't have had any meaningful argument for the constitutionality of DOMA.
6/21/2009 5:15 PM
-
Ted
No, Clint, again it wasn't about the state banning something, it was whether it had to recognize marriages from other places.
Ted,
The argument in question is about states choosing to not recognize marriages for -social policy- reasons. The cases were used to illustrate that there is a history of limiting marriage based on social policy, even if some people think it's ok. The use of the cases were designed to show that just like states ban incest and pedophilia, the state can ban gay marriage.
6/21/2009 5:14 PM
-
Ted
To clarify my first paragraph a little...it didn't say since the two are equivalent, neither should be recognized. It said that courts have held that marriages in other places don't have to be recognized. It doesn't matter what the example is in order for that to be a true statement.
But it certainly said nothing about the wisdom of making laws against the two things being similar.
6/21/2009 5:10 PM
-
Ted
Clint, the brief was arguing for the position that a marriage of another jurisdiction isn't always recognized. One example happened to be an uncle and a niece. The brief did not argue that just because that wasn't recognized automatically means gay marriages shouldn't be recognized because it's the same thing. It wasn't about the laws restraining them being the same, it was about recognition in other places.
Tim, Obama and his DOJ can believe DOMA is constitutional, and Obama can still be against it. When a law is not defended, it is in deference either to another law or to the constitution.
For example, three California judges believe that marriage is a basic civil right and that anti-gay discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny BUT that it is constitutional for such rights to be taken away. Jerry Brown didn't defend the law because he believed it was unconstitutional, not because he just didn't like it. Another example, Justice Thomas wrote that he is against laws banning consensual adult sodomy, but he upheld the constitutionality of such laws. Being against something and believing something is unconstitutional are not the same thing.
The issues for me are: (1) Obama sees it as policy, not a basic constitutional or civil rights decision, and (2) he doesn't seem to think gay rights are particularly important, at least not enough to get in the way of his healthcare plan or "stimulus." There certainly is nothing in the constitution mandating those.
no austin you're still an idiot and i'm not a dipshit. both bush and clinton put out briefs opposing current laws. it has been done. period. obama could have done it. but what you ignored was that he also could have done nothing. not released a brief supporting or opposing the law. you should be ashamed for defending his actions.
Austin,
When you argue a case, you argue it zealously, but that doesn't mean you necessarily always have to put forward the best case or all arguments. If a husband and wife are on trial together for a crime, the wife's BEST defense may be to put all the blame on the husband. But if she doesn't want to, then she doesn't -have- to.
The DOJ could have gotten the results it wanted without going to the merits. And, they should know that the Court would want to throw this out on anything BUT the merits.
And yes, Austin, they argued by analogy, but when you argue by analogy, you equate two things. The DOJ argued that restraints on gay marriage were valid by pointing to restraints on incest and pedophilia. That's called equating two things. . .
I can understand if one likes Obama's economic policy or foreign policy, but please stop saying "He is the champion of change for gay rights, and is a clear choice." In my mind, as well as many moderates, the choice isn't clear anymore. You can say Obama has so much to tackle right now, we can't expect him to take on gay rights. I respond to that by asking why he's fighting so hard for abortion promotion, and completely changing our health care system. These are not the most pressing issues in our country today and yet he is pressing them even against strong opposition, likely for personal motives. Even many Democrats are starting to voice concern over his proposed ideas because they are very expensive, very risky, and if implemented incorrectly, will create more failed government programs that will cost even more to reverse.
Point being, Obama's actions and insistence on select programs show me what he REALLY cares about. Gays are pretty low on the totem pole and if you think otherwise you merely are a die-hard Democrat who has brainwashed into thinking Democrats always do what's right.
News flash, all politicians lie or stretch the truth. I have to admit, unlike Bush or McCain, Obama is very charismatic, and even when he's blowing off absolute fluff, he sounds like he's confident in his message. As a Communication major, I had countless liberal teachers who railed Reagan for being too charismatic and using it to gain the trust of people, even if he had personal motives, but the exact same thing is true of Obama.
People are falling head over heals for his charismatic delivery and nice guy image, but just as all politicians do, he has a hidden agenda, and he will tell people what they want to hear to please them, even if it's a flat out lie.
The liberal media keeps referring to Obama as a revolutionary, who breaks from a deceitful government run by special interests, but in reality, he's doing the exact same thing Bush did but with a different pandering base.
Many gay people have turned liberal politics into their replacement religion. They think that they are superior individuals for worshiping the "chosen" Democratic party and preach hate of people who don't agree. I respectfully disagree with many people on here, but I'm not going to stoop to your level of hatred, or saying that you lack intelligence for being staunch Democrats or Republicans.
Let's remember too, everyone has a frame of reference that is shaped by the way they were raised, and you're pretty selfish if you think the way you were raised was the only proper way and all others are ignorant fools. I was raised by conservatives in a liberal ecosystem (Los Angeles), and to be honest, both sides have their strengths and major weaknesses.
To put politics into black and white and say all Democrats are good and all Republicans are bad, is completely ignorant. If you worship Obama who has done little for gay rights, then spit on Meghan McCain who is actively working for gay rights, it tells me you are more loyal to being a Democrat than supporting the rights of gay people.
Like it or not, gay Libertarians and gay Republicans are growing in numbers, and if we want change, we need to start working together for a common cause. Our 2-party political system is becoming a failure, and rather than exclusively cling to one parties half-ass'd hope, we need to challenge BOTH sides and get REAL change.
6/21/2009 2:50 PM
2|-1
Austin
if i'm an idiot tim, what's that make you a dipshit?
he did have to do it, again, please read:
here's the important part for those who don't wish to read the entire thing:
a) Obama and the Executive Branch are doing what’s done 99.9% of the time in defending a law passed by Congress and signed by another President.
b) Obama had a choice, to be that 0.1% of the time and take a stand in what was likely to be a losing cause by refusing to weigh in on DoMA, or to support the law. Whether we agree with it or not, Obama decided that this was not the time or the place, nor did he have the means or the will or the political capital or what have you, to dictate an end to DoMA on his own. Call him a coward or a political pragmatist, but he is on the record as wanting Congress to take the lead on these issues.
c) OBAMA DID NOT EQUATE GAY MARRIAGE WITH INCEST OR PEDERASTY. The brief made an argument by analogy with other cases, to prove a point using cases that had dissimilar facts but came to the same conclusion wanted by the writer. This happens ALL THE TIME in legal arguments, it is standard practice and says nothing about the writer’s personal beliefs about the case.
d) If you decide to argue a case, you can’t do it half assed. You have to do so zealously. In so doing, the brief employed the standard equal protection, fundamental rights, and public policy arguments that always come up in these marriage cases. We may not like the other side of these arguments, but they are what they are.
austin ur an idiot. sorry but the doma brief was a proactive move by the obama administration AGAINST gay rights. he didn't have to do it. if he's so busy as you say then he should not have had time to file that disgusting brief. doing nothing on DOMA would have been better than filing that brief. And furthermore, your 10 percent pressure argument is crap. I mean it could be correct in the sense that that is how most politicians operate. But it doesn't make it right. These are civil rights were talking about. equality. And our first african american president should see that. ESPECIALLY one that claimed to be a new type of politician. Above politics. Change. Remember all that crap. Turns out he is more of the same. I'd love to be proven wrong... but thus far i am not and that DOMA brief... well let's just say b/c of the DOMA brief my HOPE is dwindling.
6/21/2009 2:06 PM
3|-2
Austin
obama can't step onto the firing line for 10 percent of the population - he does have more he'd like to do as president.
if there were pressure to change it - he'd be doing more - there's not a lot of pressure to change anything.
and if you can't see obama has done more for gay rights within 6 months of office than any other president - i can't help you. you may say it's not enough - but it's far more than anyone else did in th past. and again it happened in only 6 months. think what else could happen if there were only pressure.
we're not in a dictatorship brett - and i think most people think obama is handling israel and the gaza issue exactly right - the same is true of iran. and how quickly we forget iraq.
but obama can't just say it and it be done...and he doesn't want his administration to resemble that of the bush administration in matters of state. i think the main reason for that is because nothing bush did worked.
a quick thing to note is that Obama has a track record of addressing opposing parties and telling them he supports their interests, but unfortunately when the opposing interests have incompatible goals, he is going to piss off one or both parties, and you are left with inaction.
For example, Obama originally told the Jewish that he would support Israel and protect their sacred lands, but he also told Muslims that he would do the same. Both Jews and Muslims felt betrayed. More than likely, it will result in complete inaction.
The same is true of DOMA vs. Gays he has said things to placate both, and the result is either going to be inaction, or taking the side that will piss off the fewest number of voters.
------------
By the way, I'm not saying that waiting for the older crowd to die off without taking action now is smart, but a lot of the in your face techniques (rallies, violent protests, etc.) have sparked a backlash such as Prop 8 movements. Trying to make the Democratic party into the "voice" of gay people has not worked as there is simply too much lack of interest within the party.
Many older Americans disregard the gay rights protests as bunch of angry flamboyant males and masculine females shouting in the streets like kids throwing a temper tantrum to get what they want. Gays are being ignored for this, or even being looked down upon. It's like Jehovah's Witnesses coming to your door and demanding you listen. The more they infringe on you, the more angered you are by them.
Why aren't gays sitting down with politicians to have peaceful discussions, of goals, common concerns, and working for compromises? What's especially concerning is the lack of cooperation amongst minorities to fight for common goals. Why don't gays meet with Latino organizations and African-American organizations to draw parallels between gay rights, and the rights that racial minorities fought decades for?
The bottom line, angry street protests are not getting us any good recognition and it's time to try something else. I've written letters to state and federal representatives, and always get a generic response such as "Thank you for your concern of issues pertaining to gay and lesbian rights. We assure you that we are looking at these matters very closely, and comments such as yours will be taken into consideration". Large gay rights organizations need to demand to sit down with politicians and work out compromises.
----------------------
Obama has taken the minimum possible action for gay rights, and it has only been given when large gay organizations have put heat on him and threatened lack of funding and support.
To defend him or even praise him for actions that had to be pressured, is a clear sign of how badly gays want Obama to be the man for them COULD be doing but isn't. The extensions of rights to gay workers lacks some key items that would make it true equality, and this very exclusion shows his true lack of support. McCain wouldn't have been a champion for gay rights, but as far as I'm concerned Obama's lack of action and selective speeches shows me he doesn't believe gays are equal or deserve equal rights. The only difference between McCain and Obama is Obama finds a smooth way to tell people exactly what they want to hear whether or not he has any plan for action or not.
Sure things could be worse, but things could also be a lot better. Settling for the random bone Obama throws us and saying "let's have hope and wait for him to do what's right" isn't going to get us anywhere. If we take that attitude, we will be waiting 10-20 years until Americans in general are accepting of gay rights.
6/21/2009 1:38 PM
1|0
Austin
"neither party..." my ass. some of you better wake up and smell reality because it's passing you by.
if you think government officials would have gotten same sex benefits - however many they did or didn't receive - under bush/cheney or mccain/palin - you are sadly mistaken.
it's been 6 months and obama has already delivered more than any past president in terms of gay rights - but you can't give him credit for what you can see - just for what you can't.
"It could be 10 years, it could be 20, but once the older crowd begins to thin out, the scales will tip and acceptance could be enough to get politicians to give up the fight AGAINST gays"
No offense, Brett, but simply waiting around quietly until people die off is a rather weak and inefficient approach to equal rights
"this may blow a few minds, but your enemy's enemy isn't necessarily your friend, even if he talks nice to you when he wants a favor."
Very well said JD. Neither party is working in our favor right now, so to stand loyally (and without skepticism) behind either party is naive.
It's becoming more and more apparent that the fight for gay rights is not going to come from a political party movement, but rather a gradual passing of the older intolerant generations and introduction of the new, younger generation who is more accepting and supports rights for all.
It could be 10 years, it could be 20, but once the older crowd begins to thin out, the scales will tip and acceptance could be enough to get politicians to give up the fight AGAINST gays.
Let's face it, many adults that are racial minorities have a fear and hatred of gays as well, so it's going to take 2nd or even 3rd generations for those long standing traditional views that only straight exists to die out. The Democratic party is going to face some challenges while trying to balance pleasing the minorities, and doing the right thing for equality. Unfortunately many minorities only favor what benefits their group and disregard the rights of other minorities.
Steve, which part are you talking about, where Obama said that (because of his spiritual beliefs) he isn't for "gay marriage", but for "civil unions" (which is a semantics issue); or the part where he said gay civil unions should have the same recognition and rights as straight marriages?
6/21/2009 12:11 PM
-
todd
steve,
no, you didn't tell us so and repeating that only solidifies it in your mind, not anyone else's. if people truly thought we would get instant equality when obama took office then that's their stupidity, they're the ones who weren't rational in choosing a candidate.
the only reason the jewish community is upset with obama is because obama plans to push a more balanced treatment in the israeli/palestinian conflict. that hasn't occurred within an administration in a long time.
JD - hear hear. We all know that there is a double standard in politics, but for many single issue voters (some people here) you'd think that they would be asking questions and demanding answers. When a GOPer says something even close to being anti-marriage or equating marriage with incest some people in here talk for days about it (Rep. Fox), but Obama does it and we say "one more chance."
Amazing. Did nobody else watch the big gay debate on LOGO or was I the only one. Obama said what he believes about gay marriage then and only went gay crazy when the general election was looking tighter, but where do gays live? Mostly in solidly blue states where clout is divided with other minorities that he (and all politicians) need more. A lot of Jews are mad too - Obama lost about 17% in his approval rating from the Jewish community so what does he do to placate us? He gives a statement after the Israeli PMs speech saying "I agree." That's it.
When will we realize that we're taken for granted no matter the candidate because we are in states that really are not in play for anything...
a year ago, if you had said, 'hey, cut bush a break. let bygones be bygones. those crimes are in the past--forgive and forget,' the typical left-leaning ideologue would have apoplectically called you a dozen unsavory names. why now is it any more acceptable when the big O does it? if you have the power to bring justice, but turn a blind eye, you're complicit.
it's sad to see people disillusioned. it's even more sad to see people clinging desperately to their illusions. george bush is that stupid jock in high school that didn't invite you to the party his parents paid for. obama is that guy who invited you to the party and then pretended not to know you in order to not piss off the popular people at the party that don't like you.
we lose ground whether it's clinton or bush or obama in office--so obviously the partisan knee-jerking hasn't helped much. this may blow a few minds, but your enemy's enemy isn't necessarily your friend, even if he talks nice to you when he wants a favor. his continuation and furtherance of the bush policies that so outraged everyone (overextension of executive power, erosion of personal privacy/patriot act, no end in sight to either 'war on terror' and another on the horizon, no punishment for the outrageous criminal acts of the previous administration)--does it still make you feel all changey inside?
if you're happy with a bit of verbal juggling and some weak excuses about biding one's time and the necessity to bridge gaps and all that, but no results (or even deliberate action counter to the cause in the form of a voluntary pro-DOMA brief) then you deserve what you get--in this case the derision of the brighter former supporters and the jeers of the people who saw through his arrogant flim-flamming from the get-go.
Raul: we are not supposed to know what steps are taken to protect us - and if the Patriot Act is such an evil thing then you ought to consider that there is not a single piece of legislation sitting in Congress (or sent from the White House) to get rid of it.
All presidential candidates criticize things until they need them. Same thing with people in Congress - everything (like earmarks) are evil until they are in charge of giving them - both parties. As for the gay stuff and Obama, again, I hate I told you so's (I really don't, but I'll pretend), but I did tell you so.
Well, thank you for the compliment, Martin- perhaps the twits that gave you, Raul, and myself the "thumbs down" should put those digits to better use and write their elected officials. Perhaps their "outrage" will be more sincere than it's been expressed on the threads
Raul, you write: "I'm more afraid of Obama being pushed away by us "GAYS", whiney..and bitchy... and moaning about receiving liberties we do not work hard for but expect in a fucking Presidential ballot to magically appear! than I am about him upholding DOMA for now."
To use your phrase, you are the whiny, lazy bitch, tellng gays to sit back and do nothing.
Increasing welfare payments & extending unemployment benefits for the soaring numbers of those out of work...
You must be heartless not to consider the people who genuinely need that system, that are hard working Americas that do not
have the opportunity to just simply get hired else where. Compare to us who are seeking for a radical change in society, they
are far more important, by a landslide!
flip flopping on warrantless wiretaps & preserving the Patriot Act, yet wants to be "transparent," but doesn't want to expose or prosecute any previous administration officials who broke US law & violated Geneva Conventions & then changes his mind about the publishing of the Abu Ghraib torture photos (and rightly so in my own opinion), delaying the closing of GITMO though increasing foreign aid for countries that will take the detainees off our hands.
In regards to the Patriot Act, we have no idea how effect or ineffective it is, we have no evidence that proceeds to indicate why it is or isn't justifiable.
But when has there been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil after 9/11? It must be working for Obama to consider it maybe, who the fuck knows? In regards
to getting previous officials who broke US law & Geneva Convention laws that would take time either way, through evaluating methods during the Bush
Administration, or maybe there wasn't enough evidence to go by, especially when there was executive orders from the the previous administration to destroy CIA interrogation tapes, remember? I guess not . . .
Raul, you're right, timing is everything, but NOW is the time. On any controversial matters addressed in Congress, it can take up to seventeen months for a bill to pass, in that amount of time, midterm elections are at hand & time is slipping away. ENDA, DOMA, DADT, dear god, give us something to go on besides a do-little "some benefits" memorandum.
He has enacted benefits for us, changed America's stance on the U.N. resolution for promoting protection for gays in the international community, he has spoken with Matthew Shepards mother, Judy, in regards to his commitment on signing the Matthew Shepard Act, DO YOU FUCKING THINK MCCAIN WOULD OF COMMITTED TO ANYTHING REMOTELY ABOVE!? I'm more afraid of Obama being pushed away by us "GAYS", whiney..and bitchy... and moaning about receiving liberties we do not work hard for but expect in a fucking Presidential ballot to magically appear! than I am about him upholding DOMA for now.
Of course I haven't forgotten the many issues other voters placed on their priority lists to put this intelligent & intriguing man into office.
Yes you have, because you clearly want Obama to be reckless with proceeding with an equality movement that is extremely fragile.Unless you believe the majority of America wants the gay community to have the right to get married, than I can't help you there because
it is far fetched from reality.
For those who wanted an end to the Iraq war; troop reductions, yes, but then escalation of the "other" war in Afghanistan., never an end in sight.
Yes, if you are like Bush and approach the situation as all of them being the Taliban or Al-Qaeda it will proceed as war with no end in sight. Afghanistan hasn't received the respect or outright commitment to understanding that we are dealing with tribal regions that are against each other,
you are dealing with a country that was scattered into ancient ways of governing after the USSR invaded. Afghanistan is extremely important not
to be left alone, because that is where Al-Qaeda spawn from, is it not common sense to attack the source? or go start a war with a country we
"thought" had nuclear "threatening" missiles?
Economic stimulus, bail out & buy outs & government takeovers that defy the imagination: so many zeros behind the numbers that the common worker cannot fathom the amount of debt their grand children will have to pay off.
What was the Republicans offer? I heard nothing new or restrictive, the Economic stimulus hasn't even taken to full effect, did you know once
we even come close to half way completion it will be the year 2016. He was elected to create that stimulus or else McCain's idea would have
come across more favorable. I believe that things would have been a lot worse if he had not done anything at all, yes! there are factors that are negative but that is predictable when you infuse it with us humans, imperfection, the outcome of doing nothing on the other hand is not predictable in
the sense of it being favorable, that is a risk the American public refuse to take in the 08 elections, remember?
The introduction of healthcare reform that no matter how's it decided or when it's passed, has little chance of finding the funding for it's success, let alone the negative connotations implied by "socialized medicine."
It is way too early to discuss this, he has not even declared to the public a full final draft of our new heath care system. What I do know is that the one we have now is an embarrassment for a super power.
except for Raul and Doug here, what a disappointing bunch of Bandwagon quitters...DOMA is his fault, but Man oh man QUIT on the only Guy who has any chance to get Marriage Rights on a more level ground than any of those Pathetic Conservative Party who Hates us...sad !!!
Sorry, Raul, no princess points coming from my end nor am I buying into the "this is not the time" broken record. Of course I haven't forgotten the many issues other voters placed on their priority lists to put this intelligent & intriguing man into office. For those who wanted an end to the Iraq war; troop reductions, yes, but then escalation of the "other" war in Afghanistan., never an end in sight. Economic stimulus, bail out & buy outs & government takeovers that defy the imagination: so many zeros behind the numbers that the common worker cannot fathom the amount of debt their grand children will have to pay off. The introduction of healthcare reform that no matter how's it decided or when it's passed, has little chance of finding the funding for it's success, let alone the negative connotations implied by "socialized medicine." Increasing welfare payments & extending unemployment benefits for the soaring numbers of those out of work, flip flopping on warrantless wiretaps & preserving the Patriot Act, yet wants to be "transparent," but doesn't want to expose or prosecute any previous administration officials who broke US law & violated Geneva Conventions & then changes his mind about the publishing of the Abu Ghraib torture photos (and rightly so in my own opinion), delaying the closing of GITMO though increasing foreign aid for countries that will take the detainees off our hands. From stem cell executive order to allowing a fellow Afro-American Attorney General to file a DOJ brief that tells the millions of us LGBT people who voted for him that we have no constitutional rights and in the meantime, trips to Europe, Mexico & Saudi Arabia. All of this & much much more in 5 months time, but those "fierce advocate" promises made to us go unanswered and make us feel as if we are not part of the change. Raul, you're right, timing is everything, but NOW is the time. On any controversial matters addressed in Congress, it can take up to seventeen months for a bill to pass, in that amount of time, midterm elections are at hand & time is slipping away. ENDA, DOMA, DADT, dear god, give us something to go on besides a do-little "some benefits" memorandum.
Have people forgotten that not everyone voted for Obama because of his stance on us? Those same people can become resentful for too much change, this is going to require commitment, patience, and above all participation'
My point is Ted, Obama can not infuse our equal rights during this turbulent time, I hate to admit it, but we are a burden "FOR NOW", not even Bush granted federal benefits to domestic partnerships, changed his stance on the U.N Gay resolution, etc. If you push too much of what we want, it can easily backfire on us, especially on him, like I said he isn't our savior. I'm pretty sure he will tackle DOMA and DADT at an appropriate time, there's a place and time for everything. First couple of months into his presidency is not good timing, I do not give a fuck what you have to say, you know it's true. If you want change, like V said in V for Vendetta, you need not look further than at your own mirror' LOL
"did you guys vote for Obama to grant you marriage when he believes marriage is between a man and a woman!?"
No, but one of the reasons I voted for Obama was that he believed in repealing DOMA, which would mean that were my state to grant same-sex marriages (I missed that boat, but regardless) my marriage would have the same consequences as a straight marriage and I wouldn't be taxed for things like health insurance for him. Also, Obama believes in federally recognized civil unions, so California may not even have to change its current marriage law. Also, along with repealing DOMA, he promised to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.
There are a number of Republicans (including McCain) who are also personally against gay marriage but are also against a federal constitutional ban, what's your point? If Obama continues to support DOMA, he's the same as they are as far as marriage rights.
Are you people serious!? there was money attached to this as Lynn perfectly put it, and how Austin perfectly stated before, our equal rights issue is far more complex than not sitting on the back of the fuck'in bus! You guys are acting like he put some sort of amendment into the constitution to redefine marriage to what he believes, did you guys vote for Obama to grant you marriage when he believes marriage is between a man and a woman!? c'mon people this is not his fight, it is our fight to win, to come together and confront, he isn't our savior for this'
6/20/2009 5:19 PM
4|-3
Kyle
I find anger in the idiocy of the Obama Administration. I sat down to talk with my mother about all of this-- and she simply stated.. that is what politicians do Kadyn-- fill your deepest hopes with the sweet lies of a false future.
Was she ever right. What even angers me more- is this was a Candidate I actually voted for! I understand he may or may not have represented us as to incest.. but what is even more important-- is he is telling us that there are more important things on his agenda--
I ask all of you.. what is more important than equal rights? If i cant have full benefits just like heterosexuals.. if I can not marry and it be legal and recognized in every state.. than damn if I should pay taxes, follow traffic laws, or any laws, or even have to sign up for the draft-- but wait we got Don't Ask Don't Tell-- and that is as unconstitutional as you can get. Talk about the most hypocritical government in the world. Its as if this Country just cant seem to get into the new century as almost every other country has.
I am so discouraged by this country-- I have no patriotism for the red white and blue. Welcome to the UNITED STRAIGHTS.. where all STRAIGHTS have rights and every one else is a lesser "breed" for a lack of a better word.
Anger fills my heart and my mind.
Frustration and rebellion are at the top.
Thank you Obama for really showing me you are no different than the liars we have voted into office before! Thank you for allowing me to regret voting for such a hypocritical individual.
You may be a bit better than McCain on our issues.. but how? When you say you support and will help change the future-- you must follow through to be better than your counterparts!
UGH!
6/20/2009 4:14 PM
2|-3
Austin
i fear the gay community is going to cause a further divide - pushing back gay marriage even further.
there are going to be those who recognize the politics behind this and continue to support the current administration and there are going to people who have their feelings hurt who pull back - splintering and splitting the power.
people need to wise up - and write letters and vote and push to have laws changed - but this really is a state by state issue - and it's not going to be handed over by the president so he can lose house in senate seats in 2010 or re-election in 2012. obama truly is a smart man. and like greg pointed out - this pulling back and lack of support and trying to make a statement against the DNC and future democratic candidates is only going to weaken the strong arm already in place working for us.
but i'm really like my president and after 6 months i'm not giving up my support of him - i don't fully agree with him on everything he does - but i will choose him over gay marriage in a vote any day -if it came to that.
my point is - many in the gay community are handling this very childishly. there are ways to gain strength - but i only see this as a way to weaken the community - and i don't think that's what the gay community wants as it tries to push gay marriage state by state in the near future.
i think this is the wrong time and the wrong battle and i fear the gay community is going to lose a lot more than they wish to gain if they continue with it.
i get stampp though - he might not be a complete idiot - he's a san diego politician trying to rise from the ashes - essentially riding the gay community to power again and once again one thinks because of this little move of "only support if you wish to - but i'm not going or giving mym money" is a move for the gay community. i don't think so.
Nice to see gays with courage and self respect. Not giving money to politicians is not radical activism, but money talks.
The DOMA brief was inappropriate.
6/20/2009 3:32 PM
2|-1
Ted
Austin, that's basically true. People also forget that even if Obama believes DOMA is constitutional, he can still be in favor of its repeal. The question of whether something is constitutional or legal and whether it is a good thing to do are not the same thing.
6/20/2009 3:13 PM
1|-2
Austin
here's the important part for those who don't wish to read the entire thing:
a) Obama and the Executive Branch are doing what’s done 99.9% of the time in defending a law passed by Congress and signed by another President.
b) Obama had a choice, to be that 0.1% of the time and take a stand in what was likely to be a losing cause by refusing to weigh in on DoMA, or to support the law. Whether we agree with it or not, Obama decided that this was not the time or the place, nor did he have the means or the will or the political capital or what have you, to dictate an end to DoMA on his own. Call him a coward or a political pragmatist, but he is on the record as wanting Congress to take the lead on these issues.
c) OBAMA DID NOT EQUATE GAY MARRIAGE WITH INCEST OR PEDERASTY. The brief made an argument by analogy with other cases, to prove a point using cases that had dissimilar facts but came to the same conclusion wanted by the writer. This happens ALL THE TIME in legal arguments, it is standard practice and says nothing about the writer’s personal beliefs about the case.
d) If you decide to argue a case, you can’t do it half assed. You have to do so zealously. In so doing, the brief employed the standard equal protection, fundamental rights, and public policy arguments that always come up in these marriage cases. We may not like the other side of these arguments, but they are what they are.
6/20/2009 3:10 PM
1|-5
Austin
i think someone should get a dose of reality - stampp - as his name might imply is an idiot. i think they've taken the legal brief to the extreme.
i don't think obama or the administration ever compared gay marriage or relationships to incest or pedophilia.
that's the first thing to get straight - but if you only read gay news and gay blogs it's difficult to realize this fact.
the brief never compared the two acts as being one in the same and anyone with a brain should recognize this.
please find other news sources - besides the blogs of outrageously, upset homos to fuel already incorrect belief systems.
and while you're at it chew on this, 'cause i'm tired of typing:
If you can't make the date, take a rain check and help anyway? SUZE ORMAN just signed on that way. ELIZABETH BIRCH signed on that way. Lots of others.
The DOMA brief ruined everything
Jan Brewer: 'I Misspoke' About Beheadings
Joe Farah's well-worn recipe for railing about conservatives 'destroying society's foundation'
