http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/12/obama-defends-doma Comments On: Obama Defends DOMA by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:45:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by duh]]> Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:28:09 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Tito]]> Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:40:44 -0700 The Stranger Posted by TFoster]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:36:43 -0700 The Stranger Posted by realsupergirl]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:13:04 -0700 The Stranger Posted by stevema14420]]> Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:53:31 -0700 The Stranger http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Posted by Jacky B]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:31:51 -0700 The Stranger Obama's political scheme is to level the playing field economically i.e. to rob from the "haves" to give to favored groups that include the "have-nots". More important, Obama wants a nation of economically dependent serfs. African-American religious "pastors" rarely fight for gay rights. Obama sat spellbound in the Church of Rev. Wright for twenty years. He studied Rev. Wright' ability to "win over" the congregation. Obama applied those techniques to political campaigns. (Politicians in Iran report borrowing from Obama's campaign playbook; they should research the Rev.wright playbook to find the political green-leaf clovers that Iran needs...) Obama robbed the Annenberg trust while "serving" as Chairman and dispersed Walter and Leonore's money - the "mother's milk of politics" - around Chicago. He wrapped himself up with domestic terrorists' and corrupt politicians who prefer to call you MOTHERF----- rather than brother. Obama is a fake. Obama does not deserve the Presidency of the United states of America.
Posted by CitizenStrange]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:21:48 -0700 The Stranger Posted by CitizenStranger]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:49:56 -0700 The Stranger
He upheld it because, technically, it's the letter of the law and challenging it will take a lot of effort and may not result in much of a reward. By upholding it, he can also prevent the right from building up enough political groundswell to oust the Dems from Congress in 2010, and if they can get Sotomayor on the bench, then things will be a in a better place to strike it down for good.
Posted by Gomez]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:58:00 -0700 The Stranger
So, what are we all gonna DO about it? Are we writing our representatives, calling above # for the White House comment line (read #68), trying to do the comment form @ Whitehouse.gov? I just tried to submit a long letter, the auto-mailer wasn't working. Guess snailmail & phone calls will have to do.

Wanna have an impact? Take the 2 seconds it takes you to craft something witty, snarky, idiotic or pithy to say HERE, & submit it to someone who can do something. & your local paper, letter to the editor. Some people still read 'em: lots of older people, the kind that vote. Do something. In Email form it's as easy as slogging.

*hops off soapbox* Sorry. Angry. I mean, a Bush staffer wrote it..everything old is new again. This feels eerily similar to what it felt like when the Clintons were first elected..we wondered what they were doing about gay rights..remember?
Posted by Eva Hopkins]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:28:58 -0700 The Stranger Posted by M@ SF]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:56:16 -0700 The Stranger Posted by SecretBYUBottomBoy]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:12:29 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Pam]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:10:12 -0700 The Stranger
There's plenty to be mad at here, folks, but that's not it. @62 is right. The question before the court is whether DOMA is constitutional, not whether it's good or right. Under current precedent, it is constitutional. The Supreme Court would need to recognize equal protection claims based on sexual orientation--something they've never done before--for DOMA to be ruled unconstitutional
Posted by ncqueer]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:33:42 -0700 The Stranger Posted by mm8231]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:52:59 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Michael of the Green]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:09:14 -0700 The Stranger
Technically, you know, his promise to get DOMA "repealed" has nothing to do with challenging its constitutionality in court, so he hasn't really reneged on any commitment he made.

Welcome to the world of Obamian nuance.

Heh.
Posted by AbelToLeap]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:58:38 -0700 The Stranger I just read this week that Washington state doesn't recognize marriages between anyone related closer than a second cousin. I never thought about that angle the DOJ used in defending DOMA. Wow.

Also, I find it odd that Obama's father, Barack Sr. was technically a polygamist when he married Barack Jr.'s mother Stanley Ann Dunham. Barack's father had a wife in Kenya at the time. She is currently living in England. Bit of irony there.
Posted by lark]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:51:33 -0700 The Stranger
White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111

DOJ Switchboard (ask for Office of Public Liaison): 202-514-2000

These people work are responsible to the citizens of this country...We need to make them aware of our disappointment.

Posted by Keeping them honest]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:45:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by EricaP]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:58:19 -0700 The Stranger Posted by very bad homo]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:04:56 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Mr. Poe]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:57:29 -0700 The Stranger
When is that march on Washington, again?

The Stranger should have a fundraiser to create a Slogger Scholarship Fund to send broke-azz queers to DC for the event.

Sincerely,
Broke-azz Queer
Posted by Violet_DaGrinder]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:42:55 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by cpt. tim]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:35:29 -0700 The Stranger
Get outraged, by all means, about the fact that there has been little or no action taken toward the repeal of DOMA. This brief is not something to get outraged over.

The first part, quoted by Dan above, is an argument about a possible "rational basis" for the statute. A rational basis is all that congress needs to pass most statutes. This is an INCREDIBLY easy standard to pass. Here's what the Supreme Court has most recently said about the standard:

"[The government], moreover, has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the
rationality of a statutory classification. A legislative choice is not subject to
courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by
evidence or empirical data. [T]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative
arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it, whether or
not the basis has a foundation in the record. Finally, courts are compelled under
rational-basis review to accept a legislature's generalizations even when there is an
imperfect fit between means and ends."

This is a very, very low standard.

Further, the government's brief goes on, right after the part Dan quoted to say:

"Indeed, under rational basis scrutiny, Congress is entitled to respond to new social phenomena one step at a time, and to adjust national policy incrementally. DOMA reflects just such a response. It adopts on the national level, and permits on the state level, a wait-and-see approach to new forms of marriage. DOMA thus maximizes democratic flexibility under our federalist scheme, by simply preventing some States from requiring other States and the federal government to grant benefits to forms of marriages that, under their own constitutions, state or federal governments are not obligated to recognize. Because it is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, plaintiffs cannot overcome the "presumption of constitutionality" that DOMA, like all federal statutes, enjoys. See, e.g., Califano v. Gautier Torres, 435 U.S. 1, 5, 98 S. Ct. 906, 55 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978)."

The part quoted (and ridiculed) by Dan was not an argument that DOMA is good policy for the reasons stated. Just that congress was within it's powers to make that (potentially quite bad) policy.

Dan, I read the whole brief. Nowhere does it analogize gay marriage to "child rape and incest." That's sensationalist and an unfair characterization.

Again - get mad by all means! Barbara @59 has the right idea. Write to your congresspeople to get them to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA. Write to Obama to get him to support it. Don't take this brief as more than it is - a dry legal argument far afield from the discussion of what is or isn't good policy.
Posted by Morrolan]]> Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:32:19 -0700 The Stranger