http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/17/what-the-president-said Comments On: What the President Said 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 08:45:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Dan in Lynnwood WA]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:18:07 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Mugwumpt]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:29:53 -0700 The Stranger I agree with you. And, more importantly, your reading of the passage is accurate. Those cases are cited as authority for a legal argument regarding state autonomy on a state issue, not to draw a moral comparison.

It's possible that those particular cases were slightly more desirable as authority because of their facts, selected as a deliberate stroke of advocacy. But, there's undoubtedly a limited variety of types of marriage where state recognition differed and the matter was litigated. And, by nature of the issue, those cases had to involve marriages that garnered less than universal acceptance.

One last thing: Congress is well within its authority to repeal DOMA--as a separation of powers issue, this brief does not make it more difficult for Congress to legislate.
Posted by California]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:01:44 -0700 The Stranger I agree with you. And, more importantly, your reading of the passage is accurate. Those cases are cited as authority for a legal argument regarding state autonomy on a state issue, not to draw a moral comparison.

It's possible that those particular cases were slightly more desirable as authority because of their facts, selected as a deliberate stroke of advocacy. But, there's undoubtedly a limited variety of types of marriage where state recognition differed and the matter was litigated. And, by nature of the issue, those cases had to involve marriages that garnered less than universal acceptance.

One last thing: Congress is well within its authority to repeal DOMA--as a separation of powers issue, this brief does not make it more difficult for Congress to legislate.
Posted by California]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:01:39 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Calpete]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:37:06 -0700 The Stranger
For everyone saying "Look! Obama's all for gay rights! Look at what he's saying now!" a couple points.

First, notice that the President had ZERO to say on the subject and had taken ZERO action until people like Dan started getting pissed off and the fundraising threatened to dry up. If that's not an endorsement of everything Dan's been doing here (along with plenty of others), I don't know what is.

Second, merely saying a few pretty words in a press conference does nothing to get legislation pushed through Congress. Bills have to be introduced, co-sponsored collected, votes corralled, compromises made and so forth. It takes some effort and some of that will have to come from the White House (although there's no reason why people like Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin can't do a lot of the heavy lifting). It also means that the House and Senate leadership has to be on board and convinced to make this a priority.

Third, yes, a lot of the pushing has to come from us. But part of that pushing is identifying who in government are our real friends (i.e. those that take action), who is not (i.e. those who claim to support LGBT rights and take the money and run), and who are our outright enemies. Yes, we have to call our representatives. We also have to be smarter about who we give our money to. Why reward the DNC when there are plenty of conservative Democrats who won't stand by us? We then lose say over who gets help and who doesn't. Isn't it better to target our funding to those who will help us?

There are a lot of Pride celebrations happening this month. It's time that this community forgot about begging for help from politicians. Most will do the absolute bare minimum to keep the money and votes flowing. So take advantage of the season to get out there and volunteer with a group or even work on your own to MAKE them enact our agenda. Raise money and tell the politicians that they only get it if they actively support equality. Collect signatures and show them how many people, straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual, whatever support equality. Quit relying on Obama to make everything right and get out there and do it yourself.
Posted by Corydon]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:28:53 -0700 The Stranger does something that gives (lasting) equal rights (to all) gay people he is undeserved of our support as gay people.
Posted by Carollani]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:05:49 -0700 The Stranger Posted by gregory gookins]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:56:06 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Kevin Erickson]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:37:25 -0700 The Stranger Posted by The CHZA]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:31:32 -0700 The Stranger I believe you are incorrect. The memo that Fiercy signed today does not include healthcare benefits. Only an act of Congress could make that possible.
Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:22:37 -0700 The Stranger
Good for you for continuing to hold the Obama and his administration to their promises. The extension of ALL benefits accorded to the opposite sex spouses of federal employees to same sex partners is a very important step that needs to happen NOW.

That said, your continued repetition of this claim that the DOJ brief filed last week "equated same sex marriages to incestuous ones" is bullshit. It's either a deliberate misreading of the brief or an ignorant misunderstanding of the legal arguments in it. Either way, it's wrong, and it makes you look like you are seeking a source of false outrage.

Here's the passage from the brief (apologies for the lengthy "legalese"):

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").

So, does this passage "compare same-sex marriages" to the marriage of an uncle to a niece, or of first cousins, or of sixteen year olds? Yes, it does. It compares them on the basis that some jurisdictions approve those marriages and others do not. IN THAT RESPECT, THEY ARE ALIKE. Not in all respects. Nowhere in the brief does the government make any kind of "same sex marriages are morally wrong, like incestuous ones" argument.

This is an argument in a 35 page legal brief that says: "some marriages are valid in some places and not others." Reading it as more is taking it grossly out of context and takes away from, rather than adding to, your credibility. Stop it. Please.
Posted by Morrolan]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:17:30 -0700 The Stranger
As for the millions of Americans without health insurance who do not fit in this category? Who cares, they're not gay.
Posted by seandr]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:57:25 -0700 The Stranger
At the end of Obama's first (and with luck last) term gay people will not have their rights, there will be no single payer health care plan, and we will still be in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:53:27 -0700 The Stranger Jizz-a-belle,
Don't be sorry. I'm not offended one bit.
The first amendment is a wonderful thing.
Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:45:06 -0700 The Stranger
But why is that proof that Obama is hedging or skirting the issue by claiming that the DOJ's mission is beyond the reach of the WH? That previous admin's were willing to go where his isn't doesn't mean he's being coy. It means maybe his admin has more respect for the rule of law. He was a friggin' constitutional law professor at the U of Chicago, and editor of the Harvard Law review. Thus has more pre-presidential experience with the courts, and hence respect for/understanding of them, than all 4 of his predecessors combined.

To reiterate: This means you can't judge Obama's level of respect for what the rules of the game are in the DOJ by the standards of his predecessors.
Posted by Montdidier]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:43:09 -0700 The Stranger
Thanks again Will in Seattle!!!
Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:42:09 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Jizz-a-belle]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:26:19 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Jizz-a-belle]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:26:14 -0700 The Stranger
Thanks Will for your inspiration!
Posted by Mark in Colorado]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:13:29 -0700 The Stranger Posted by AnonymousCoward]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:12:25 -0700 The Stranger
@5 may well be correct about Obama's unspoken plans, but it's important to treat this as a priority and not something he can get to when it's convenient for him politically.

@13 is right on.
Posted by thegeneral]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:57:11 -0700 The Stranger
Action NOW!
Posted by Baconcat]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:51:54 -0700 The Stranger
Jeebus, ‘murrikins like to think of themselves romantically as revolutionaries and rebels, but we really are a sad, jello-brained, authoritarian culture.

The DOJ is under no obligation to argue in favor of laws the administration considers to be unconstitutional. Try the Googles.
Posted by Original Andrew]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:51:13 -0700 The Stranger
Good for you! In doing that, you're doing a hell of a lot more to affect change than any one of Dan Savage's hissy fit Slog rants.

Doers make things happen, not whiners and finger-pointers.
Posted by Confluence]]> Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:47:26 -0700 The Stranger