http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/12/no-one-could-have-predicted Comments On: No One Could Have Predicted 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 02:30:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss here. The main complaint here, I believe, is not that DoJ defended DOMA, but that it had several choices about how to defend DOMA, and it selected some of the most inflammatory, insulting and demeaning arguments. Not even Professor Tribe would argue that DoJ is constitutionally mandated to humiliate gays and lesbians.
Posted by kk in seattle]]> Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:42:51 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Cochise.]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:19:16 -0700 The Stranger I hear the Church of Satan has an opening...
Posted by the real one- not the Catholic Church]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:43:28 -0700 The Stranger
Ron Paul?

really!?
Posted by hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:42:23 -0700 The Stranger
Ron Paul voted against something? Shocker.
Posted by doceb]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:00:24 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Zoroastronomer]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:08:25 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Jizz-a-belle]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:18:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Carollani]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:57:48 -0700 The Stranger Posted by laurelgardner]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:51:08 -0700 The Stranger
The brief compares gay marriage to incestuous and underage marriages on page 18, lines 2-11 (quoted below). It's definitely not your typical right-wing-lunatic gays-are-gonna-want-to-marry-your-cat-next rant though. More a legitimate look at how courts have treated past differences in marriage law between states, with differences in age & consanguinity requirements as the examples.

"And the courts have widely held that certain marriages
performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the
forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to
niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the
public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of
16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in
light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage
marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held
invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in
statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void")."
Posted by Cerc]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:49:44 -0700 The Stranger
YES!!! He is our Secretary of Defense. He's a Republican. Perhaps you've heard of him?

That gets to a bigger point: it is really important to challenge Obama on his refusal to endorse gay rights. But it is also really important to connect this challenge to other campaigns to keep Obama true to his campaign promises, and to the hope we all had in him.
Posted by Trevor]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:48:08 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Heather at Work]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:56:10 -0700 The Stranger
Barack Obama's birth parents, a black man and white woman, married in 1961 in one of the few states that never enacted anti-miscegenation laws. In many states at that time they could have been arrested for living as an inter-racial couple. It's bizarre to me that Obama either can't see the parallels between the current fight for marriage equality to that of the 50s and 60s for interracial couples, or that he's choosing to ignore it. It feels like he got his place at the front of the bus, and now he's giving the rest of us stuck in the back the finger. I guess at least we know where we stand now... still no friends in the White House, and we need to press on as before to secure our rights. Hopefully Obama's antipathy towards marriage equality doesn't turn into outright hostility, which is starting to actually look like a reality. Fuck this really ruined my weekend.
Posted by President Obama, please refund my donations]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:49:37 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Cid]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:46:10 -0700 The Stranger
That is an incredible stretch. And those are Congress' words, from a committee commenting on the DOMA statute, not the words of the author of that brief.

Another way of reading that same language is that it's saying that there are all kinds of relationships in the world between people who love each other that we don't recognize as marriage. Therefore, love itself, even true, deep love, is not enough for us as a society to be willing to call the loving relationship a marriage. That's true.

Most of us here, myself included, think that a loving committed relationship between two adults, not closely related by blood, regardless of whether the two people are of the same or different sexes, should be acknowledged by society and the government as a marriage. Others don't think that. It's our legislators' job to decide that, to define what relationships the law will and won't acknowledge as marriages. There are some permissible and unpermissible lines they can draw.

The language in the brief you cite is not hate speech. Finding a comparison between gay marriages and child rape or incest in it just makes the community look hysterical and paranoid. I realize the gay community has good reason to be paranoid. That doesn't mean it's helpful here.


Posted by Morrolan]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:39:11 -0700 The Stranger http://www.bilerico.com/2009/06/obama_ad…

"With our own orgs unwilling to push this lawsuit because they consider it strategically unsound and a poorly written suit, why are we shocked the administration would seek to get it thrown out of court?"
Posted by Kevin Erickson]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:59:43 -0700 The Stranger
As Tribe and Raben pointed out, the issue is not whether or not Obama (or, more accurately, U.S. Attorney West and Mr. Simpson) believe the law should be found unconstitutional. The issue is whether it is so clearly unconstitutional that no court could possible hold it to be constitutional, thereby removing the obligation to defend it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but that does not imply that whatever the President believes to be unconstitutional is automatically unconstitutional. As Justice Marshall wrote over 200 years ago, "It is emphatically the *province and duty of the [Judiciary] to say what the law is. . . . if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case. . . *the Court* must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case."

It's not the DoJ's job to decide what's constitutional and what isn't. The DoJ's job is to argue for the constitutionality of legally enacted legislation as representatives of the United States government, and allow the courts to decide whether or not it is constitutional. Your position would allow the President through the Department of Justice to repeal any piece of legislation he or she didn't like, simply by refusing to defend it. Hopefully you can see why that's bad.

Of course, you clearly don't want to actually learn anything about the issue, so please, feel free to keep getting angry at the keyboard. I'm sure that'll be an effective strategy for political success.
Posted by AnonymousCoward]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:34:19 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Simone]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:26:06 -0700 The Stranger Then Obama came along and gave me hope for something better. Freedom, equality and dignity.
After reading this brief, I guess I got what I wanted. The government isn't activley after my rights or on a public propaganda campaign against me, they are just going to do nothing. At least they talk nice about us now though. What a huge dissapointment. Status quo.
Posted by Rin1010]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:25:23 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Bill W.]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:04:21 -0700 The Stranger
"@28: I guess Laurence Tribe needs to go back to law school too: "Under the traditions of the solicitor general’s office,"

-- so what you mean is it's an optional tradition in the first place, not the legal requirement you said when you tried to misinform everyone before

"the government does have an obligation"

you don't have an obligation based on mere tradition anyway btw

"to provide a defense in any lawsuit where there is a plausible argument to be made,"

RIGHT SO THE GOVT. COULD CHOOSE TO DEFEND THE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT WILL TREAT GAYS AS FULLY EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS AND THE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT MANDATES FULL FAITH AND CREDIT

"even if the president does not agree with the law." --

You just don't answer the basic issue, which is that the constitution is the law too and it's SUPERIOR to DOMA so if the president believes DOMA CONFLICTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION HE HAS TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND ATTACK DOMA YOU IDIOT.

Or, he can choose to do so.

You do agree the constitution is the law don't you? Let's just start from there, oay?
Posted by PC]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:49:26 -0700 The Stranger
And, btw, I predicted months ago that not purging the justice department would cause all sorts of problems. Really, I did....
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:49:10 -0700 The Stranger please stop with the craven apologies.

"Is it really fair to expect the new President to check out the credentials of every employee of every department of the government? We have to flip out because some mid-level holdover wing-nut wrote a legal opinion that reveals more about his own fears and biases (and those of the administration that hired him) than it, necessarily, does about the administration that hasn't gotten around to firing him?"

You are so naive and misinformed.

Inside the DOJ there are obviously high profile cases and lower profile cases. A case on DOMA and gay rights that could go to the supreme court is obviously a high profile case and obviously the top level people have to be supervising the briefs written and legal positions taken.

Otherwise they are like criminally negligent.

this is not some warrant application for the 100,000 coke case the DOJ is handling. The DOJ and Obama KNOW that the issue of DOMA is going to the Supreme Court from one of several cases percolating their way up right now.

Please stop misinforming people. Thank you.
Posted by PC]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:44:51 -0700 The Stranger Posted by wallydanger]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:16:52 -0700 The Stranger http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ekti…
Posted by Kevin Erickson]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:02:18 -0700 The Stranger