Friday, June 12, 2009
Politics / Homo / News Barney, Tammy, Jared: Pull Out of the DNC Fundraiser
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:27 AM
I agree—see my previous post—with John:
Is the DNC crazy? They're actually going to hold a gay fundraiser, this month, and have Vice President Biden there. Seriously? After what the Obama/Biden administration just did to the gay community today—comparing gay marriages to incest—our leaders are going to honor them, and ask for our money for them, during the Stonewall anniversary?If the DNC lets Biden into a room full of gays any time soon, well, they're nuts. I can only imagine the protests that are going to greet Biden outside, and inside, that room. Barney, Tammy, Dean and Jared ought to be pulling out of this event, now.
More from John:
[This brief] reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't)....And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories.
Share via
3
Hahaha, my conscience is clear! I never voted for that jive talking, rooster strutting, Uncle Tom, fu*k face... And all of you wit Obama fecal matter all over your face from all that Obama a$$licking... Now listen to you.
5
Let's see: the last time a democratic president took on a major gay rights issue, he got slapped down so hard that the republicans took congress for a dozen years.
So Obama is a coward for not doing what is right here, and he's foolish for believing that the same thing would happen to him.
So Obama is a coward for not doing what is right here, and he's foolish for believing that the same thing would happen to him.
6
Where's the best place to submit comment/a letter on this? I donated a fair amount of money to Obama, and would like to (calmly and rationally) tell his organization that I won't be donating any money for re-election unless his track record on gay rights improves.
Yeah, I know that I shouldn't be shocked that a politician broke his campaign promises. Politicians promise to do lots of things. But, it's especially egregious that he said "I am going to work to repeal this thing", and now he is actively doing the opposite. I expect the type of broken campaign promises where they say, I'm going to do x, and then they just don't do it. But to actively work against x? That shows a dramatic lack of character. I had a fair amount of trust in Obama that just went up in smoke...
Yeah, I know that I shouldn't be shocked that a politician broke his campaign promises. Politicians promise to do lots of things. But, it's especially egregious that he said "I am going to work to repeal this thing", and now he is actively doing the opposite. I expect the type of broken campaign promises where they say, I'm going to do x, and then they just don't do it. But to actively work against x? That shows a dramatic lack of character. I had a fair amount of trust in Obama that just went up in smoke...
7
Julie, I would think the first place would be the DNC. Let them know. Then let your Oregon Senators know. Let everyone know.
8
Ha!... I told you this would happen. Are those scales falling from your eyes yet? So far this Fierce Advocate For Gay Rights is proving to be a Fierce Advocate Against Gay Rights. Man, he's made suckers out of all of you.
Could Slog please start keeping a running Fierce Advocacy of Obama score card? Maybe two columns. One listing actions his administration has taken to deny our rights and one listing actions his administration has taken to defend our rights.
So far it's looking like "Deny" by 3 or 4 to 0...
Could Slog please start keeping a running Fierce Advocacy of Obama score card? Maybe two columns. One listing actions his administration has taken to deny our rights and one listing actions his administration has taken to defend our rights.
So far it's looking like "Deny" by 3 or 4 to 0...
9
Yeah, that's not an overreaction/blatant misreading AT ALL.
Someone needs to explain to you and Aravosis the concepts of bureaucracy, the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution. Christ, you motherfuckers are a bunch of idiots.
Incidentally, if the president got to pick and choose what laws to enforce/defend and what laws to ignore, the FDA, USDA, EPA, and Depts. of Education, Agriculture, and Labor would have been completed eliminated the first year of Reagan's administration. Do you motherfuckers know nothing?
The Republicans have been waging an all out war against the regulatory bureaucracy for 30 years and it still mostly remains intact. Someone with a modicum of common sense, intelligence, and rationality might learn something from that.
After what the Obama/Biden administration just did to the gay community today—comparing gay marriages to incest
Yeah, that's not an overreaction/blatant misreading AT ALL.
But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent."
Someone needs to explain to you and Aravosis the concepts of bureaucracy, the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution. Christ, you motherfuckers are a bunch of idiots.
Incidentally, if the president got to pick and choose what laws to enforce/defend and what laws to ignore, the FDA, USDA, EPA, and Depts. of Education, Agriculture, and Labor would have been completed eliminated the first year of Reagan's administration. Do you motherfuckers know nothing?
The Republicans have been waging an all out war against the regulatory bureaucracy for 30 years and it still mostly remains intact. Someone with a modicum of common sense, intelligence, and rationality might learn something from that.
10
Maybe if you all withold funding to the DNC you can put the money toward paying off the Gay Pride debt to the City of Seattle?
11
Please, please write your congressional representative about this! Those guys are up for election every couple of years, and your vote has a LOT more influence on whether or not they get re-elected than it does in the U.S. Presidential election. Congressional reps have a lot more vested interest in keeping their constituents happy than the president does. If this is a Congressional matter, encourage your Congressional representative to put forth legislation that will repeal DOMA.
This is currently in the works, and it doesn't look like something good to me, but I'm just a dumb blonde, not a lawyer. If your Rep. is a cosponsor, I'd be writing a nasty letter right now, if I were you.
H.R.1269
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Sponsor: Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] (introduced 3/3/2009) Cosponsors (19)
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/3/2009--Introduced.
Marriage Protection Act of 2009 - Amends the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution, of the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act declaring that no state shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other state.
This is currently in the works, and it doesn't look like something good to me, but I'm just a dumb blonde, not a lawyer. If your Rep. is a cosponsor, I'd be writing a nasty letter right now, if I were you.
H.R.1269
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Sponsor: Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] (introduced 3/3/2009) Cosponsors (19)
Latest Major Action: 3/16/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/3/2009--Introduced.
Marriage Protection Act of 2009 - Amends the federal judicial code to deny federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution, of the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act declaring that no state shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other state.
12
Can we all relax a little bit? Reading the AMERICAblog post, you would think that Obama wrote the brief (and relished doing it). It was actually written by some random DOJ lawyer, he almost certainly (and rightly - he's got more important things to do) hadn't read the brief before it was submitted. It reflects his policy only to the extent that he says he favors the repeal of DOMA, but will defend it in court until Congress acts. One could argue that this is somewhat cowardly, but it is a refreshing change from the last eight years in terms of respect for the rule of law.
The brief is a legal document, and needs to be read as such. The incest cases are brought up not to label homosexuality as incest, but to address a specific point of law, i.e. whether States must recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The incest cases are the relevant precedent. Likewise, there is no federal precedent for viewing homosexuality as a suspect classification - this was explicitly denied in Lawrence vs. Texas - so simply stating this isn't necessarily a slap in the face to gay people.
Fundamentally, this is just a legal document intent on making the strongest possible case. It doesn't tell us anything about the Obama administration's views on homosexuality or gay marriage except that he's committed the policy he set out, which is to wait for Congress to pass the relevant legislation. Frankly, health care should be the important issue for everyone, gays included, so I think it's entirely reasonable that he should be making that his top priority, rather than the repeal of DOMA or DADT. And I say all this as a gay person, though perhaps that isn't relevant.
The brief is a legal document, and needs to be read as such. The incest cases are brought up not to label homosexuality as incest, but to address a specific point of law, i.e. whether States must recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The incest cases are the relevant precedent. Likewise, there is no federal precedent for viewing homosexuality as a suspect classification - this was explicitly denied in Lawrence vs. Texas - so simply stating this isn't necessarily a slap in the face to gay people.
Fundamentally, this is just a legal document intent on making the strongest possible case. It doesn't tell us anything about the Obama administration's views on homosexuality or gay marriage except that he's committed the policy he set out, which is to wait for Congress to pass the relevant legislation. Frankly, health care should be the important issue for everyone, gays included, so I think it's entirely reasonable that he should be making that his top priority, rather than the repeal of DOMA or DADT. And I say all this as a gay person, though perhaps that isn't relevant.
14
Lawyers that they are, they've now uncovered a doozy of a lie a DOJ spokesman told Politico today, that DOJ had no choice but to defend DOMA. John and Joe list all the presidents whose DOJ's joined plaintiffs in fighting unconstitutional federal laws. They do a nice evisceration:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama…
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama…
15
@9
So defending untested laws (that are arguably unconstitutional) intended to deny basic rights to individuals is morally equivalent to not dismantling regulatory organizations created by constitutionally tested laws intended to protect individuals?
Good to know where you stand.
So defending untested laws (that are arguably unconstitutional) intended to deny basic rights to individuals is morally equivalent to not dismantling regulatory organizations created by constitutionally tested laws intended to protect individuals?
Good to know where you stand.
17
@9, 12
Thank you for being the voice of reason.
For those of you with your panties all up in a wad, read 12's comment again.
Thank you for being the voice of reason.
For those of you with your panties all up in a wad, read 12's comment again.
18
Who the fuck are you, Savage, or John for that matter, to interpret a LEGAL brief. Where did you go to law school again? Give me a fucking break. The brief does not say anything of the sort, legally speaking.
19
Obama's actions in the last three months are causing me to reluctantly, regretfully but inescapably reach the conclusion that the first impressions following the passage of Prop. 8 in California, that African Americans are just as bigoted and prejudiced against GLBT people as white evangelicals and Mormons, are true.
What other explanation could there be for Obama's outright hostility towards us? He knows he needs the African American community to turn out in 2010 and 2012 and he'll put their prejudice over our rights every time as a result. It's a simple numbers game with him.
What other explanation could there be for Obama's outright hostility towards us? He knows he needs the African American community to turn out in 2010 and 2012 and he'll put their prejudice over our rights every time as a result. It's a simple numbers game with him.
20
@15
It's not a law which is intended to deny the civil rights of certain individuals.
Read the brief in its entirety.
Also, try cramming a few less words into your questions next time. You lost me by line 3.
It's not a law which is intended to deny the civil rights of certain individuals.
Read the brief in its entirety.
Also, try cramming a few less words into your questions next time. You lost me by line 3.
21
General political strategy question: How do you hurt the party in power without bringing gains to the other party?
22
This is terrible news and supporters should be disappointed by Obama's performance on LGBT issues. All I can say is he better get healthcare reform passed with a public option. Hopefully all this will change after that because this is all just an act to build political capital. It's the only reason other than he's a bald faced liar.
If he does not change his tact on DOMA and DADT he will be judged by history as a bigot.
If he does not change his tact on DOMA and DADT he will be judged by history as a bigot.
23
@16, he's punting it to Congress because these problems need to be solved by the legislature - both DOMA and DADT need to be repealed. The alternatives aren't great: Option 1 is for the courts to strike them down, which seems unlikely with the current SCOTUS setup, even if the DOJ submitted a different brief. Option 2 is to use the executive powers to subvert them in whatever ways are possible, which is not something Obama wants to do, given the recent historical precedent.
24
What, you think the GOP will carry your water?
Yeah, sure ... pass me some of that crazy juice you're drinking.
Yeah, sure ... pass me some of that crazy juice you're drinking.
27
@18 Dan may not be a lawyer but John Aravosis most certainly is, and more to the point has been deeply involved with GLBT issues as an attorney for more than ten years. So what's your experience?
28
@16
He's punting stuff to congress because he believes that the definition of marriage should come from the bottom-up, rather than the top-down. I agree. If everybody in the society is pro-gay marriage, then their representatives will have to vote in favor of it in Congress.
I think he recognizes that we're not there yet, but we're on our way. It's not up to him alone though.
He's punting stuff to congress because he believes that the definition of marriage should come from the bottom-up, rather than the top-down. I agree. If everybody in the society is pro-gay marriage, then their representatives will have to vote in favor of it in Congress.
I think he recognizes that we're not there yet, but we're on our way. It's not up to him alone though.
29
Hey Drone,
One of the positions that folks are taking on this brief is that its arguments unwittingly erode Lawrence v. Texas. This sounds alarming to me. But, I concede that I haven't read the brief in detail and I am not a lawyer. Can you explain how the argument that it erodes Lawrence v. Texas is incorrect? P.S. I am not asking facetiously. I really want to know. There is a lot of blather on this brief building up on the internets, so such arguments need to be aired.
One of the positions that folks are taking on this brief is that its arguments unwittingly erode Lawrence v. Texas. This sounds alarming to me. But, I concede that I haven't read the brief in detail and I am not a lawyer. Can you explain how the argument that it erodes Lawrence v. Texas is incorrect? P.S. I am not asking facetiously. I really want to know. There is a lot of blather on this brief building up on the internets, so such arguments need to be aired.
30
Hey Drone,
One of the positions that folks are taking on this brief is that its arguments unwittingly erode Lawrence v. Texas. This sounds alarming to me. But, I concede that I haven't read the brief in detail and I am not a lawyer. Can you explain how the argument that it erodes Lawrence v. Texas is incorrect? P.S. I am not asking facetiously. I really want to know. There is a lot of blather on this brief building up on the internets, so such arguments need to be aired.
One of the positions that folks are taking on this brief is that its arguments unwittingly erode Lawrence v. Texas. This sounds alarming to me. But, I concede that I haven't read the brief in detail and I am not a lawyer. Can you explain how the argument that it erodes Lawrence v. Texas is incorrect? P.S. I am not asking facetiously. I really want to know. There is a lot of blather on this brief building up on the internets, so such arguments need to be aired.
31
Come on Dan, you're way way too smart to be looking to Aravosis for analysis. He's great at rallying the troops, but terrible as a strategist. I've been saying this for a while, but please please please stop reading that guy.
Drone's analysis is right on.
Another bonus of making the legislature do it is because the more victories we win through legislative processes rather than the courts, the less it will create the stupid manufactured fury around judicial activism, which just adds fuel to the anti-gay/anti-judicial hate machine.
Drone's analysis is right on.
Another bonus of making the legislature do it is because the more victories we win through legislative processes rather than the courts, the less it will create the stupid manufactured fury around judicial activism, which just adds fuel to the anti-gay/anti-judicial hate machine.
32
For a more balanced look at this, from a law professor and supporter of gay rights, see:
http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunt…
http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunt…
36
@29
I'm not a lawyer either, so I've not read either Lawrence v. Texas or this brief in full. Nevertheless, I can give you what I've gleaned from being a grad student with too much time on his hands and an interest in SCOTUS. Laws that single out certain groups (for instance, laws that affect smokers) must have what's called a 'rational basis' to not run afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The rational basis test is very weak; the government just has to show it has a vaguely legitimate interest in enacting the law. The decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck did not extend suspect classification to sexual minorities (though, I think I oversold it when I said 'explicitly' above), which would apply strict scrutiny review in addition to rational basis review to laws that singled out sexual minorities. Strict scrutiny originated from cases dealing with race, and is, well, stricter. According to wikipedia, some observers think that the rational basis test used in Lawrence was a different flavor from the standard test, so this could be what people are concerned about with regards to this brief here, but I don't know enough about that to comment.
I'm not a lawyer either, so I've not read either Lawrence v. Texas or this brief in full. Nevertheless, I can give you what I've gleaned from being a grad student with too much time on his hands and an interest in SCOTUS. Laws that single out certain groups (for instance, laws that affect smokers) must have what's called a 'rational basis' to not run afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The rational basis test is very weak; the government just has to show it has a vaguely legitimate interest in enacting the law. The decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck did not extend suspect classification to sexual minorities (though, I think I oversold it when I said 'explicitly' above), which would apply strict scrutiny review in addition to rational basis review to laws that singled out sexual minorities. Strict scrutiny originated from cases dealing with race, and is, well, stricter. According to wikipedia, some observers think that the rational basis test used in Lawrence was a different flavor from the standard test, so this could be what people are concerned about with regards to this brief here, but I don't know enough about that to comment.
37
I'm over it. I supported Obama for many reasons, but one of them was because I firmly believed (after living in DC for the better part of the Clinton administration) that Hillary would be, um, exactly what Obama is now for gay rights. Namely someone who talked a good game, but didn't actually want to play at all.
On the other hand, the alternative is worse, and Obama (and both Clintons, and way too many others) know it. They know where my vote's going--but my money and time are staying with me.
On the other hand, the alternative is worse, and Obama (and both Clintons, and way too many others) know it. They know where my vote's going--but my money and time are staying with me.
38
@30
The brief's discussion of Lawrence does not argue to narrow the holding there. Lawrence held that a state could not outlaw consensual sodomy between adults in private. The Supreme Court, in Lawrence itself, said that the case before it did "not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."
The brief just points to that and says that the holding of Lawrence was about privacy for sexual conduct in private, not about a right to government recognition of a relationship. That's just true.
BTW - I am a lawyer, member of the ACLU, and have represented plaintiffs in a number of civil rights cases. I am a strong advocate of gay marriage.
The brief's discussion of Lawrence does not argue to narrow the holding there. Lawrence held that a state could not outlaw consensual sodomy between adults in private. The Supreme Court, in Lawrence itself, said that the case before it did "not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."
The brief just points to that and says that the holding of Lawrence was about privacy for sexual conduct in private, not about a right to government recognition of a relationship. That's just true.
BTW - I am a lawyer, member of the ACLU, and have represented plaintiffs in a number of civil rights cases. I am a strong advocate of gay marriage.
40
A timely flashback: John Aravosis reviews the holocaust museum:
"Way too long and honestly kind of boring!"
"Way too long and honestly kind of boring!"
41
@37
And that is exactly why the Democrats will never do anything to defend gay rights. Why kill a goose that lays golden eggs?
And that is exactly why the Democrats will never do anything to defend gay rights. Why kill a goose that lays golden eggs?
42
you mean like how the anti-choicers never get what they want from GOP Presidents or majority control of House/Senate?
43
@42: But W overturned Roe v. Wade and then ate Dr. Tiller's head!
Actually, here's a thought-- why aren't we going after Congress for action? If this is indeed the wrong tree to bark up, why are we still yapping at it? Send reams of letters to our senators and reps, just flood them out. Tell them that they need to have something for Obama to sign sooner than later.
Have someone (Patty Murray?!) draft the legislation like they did for Kennedy with CRA64 and have him hand-deliver it to Barney Frank and say "YOUR PROBLEM NOW, JOWLSY."
Actually, here's a thought-- why aren't we going after Congress for action? If this is indeed the wrong tree to bark up, why are we still yapping at it? Send reams of letters to our senators and reps, just flood them out. Tell them that they need to have something for Obama to sign sooner than later.
Have someone (Patty Murray?!) draft the legislation like they did for Kennedy with CRA64 and have him hand-deliver it to Barney Frank and say "YOUR PROBLEM NOW, JOWLSY."
44
@ 11,
Thanks for the information. Here's what I learned so far about it, and it isn't much.
HR 1269 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1269
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 3, 2009
Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. CARTER, Mr. AKIN, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. LINDER, and Mr. POE of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
‘No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C of this section.’.
(b) Amendments to the Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.
www.govtrack.us
More...
Thanks for the information. Here's what I learned so far about it, and it isn't much.
HR 1269 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1269
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 3, 2009
Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. CARTER, Mr. AKIN, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. LINDER, and Mr. POE of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
‘No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C of this section.’.
(b) Amendments to the Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.
www.govtrack.us
45
H.R. 1269
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN5]
Cosponsors [as of 2009-05-06]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC3]
Rep. John Linder [R-GA7]
Rep. Ralph Hall [R-TX4]
Rep. Robert Latta [R-OH5]
Rep. Joe Barton [R-TX6]
Rep. John Boozman [R-AR3]
Rep. James Marshall [D-GA8]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX2]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH4]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R-LA5]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX14]
Rep. Samuel Graves [R-MO6]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R-TX5]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO2]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R-IL16]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.
46
All this on the same day of the Loving decision anniversary. Nice touch President "Fierce Advocate" B.O.
47
Thanks #36 and #38. The Boxturtle Bulletin also has a more measured reading of the brief.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
It is not comprehensive, but it does begin to dissolve some of the more inflated claims made about the brief without dismissing its demoralizing effect.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
It is not comprehensive, but it does begin to dissolve some of the more inflated claims made about the brief without dismissing its demoralizing effect.
48
@39
I agree with Sullivan that "the Obama administration is now more indifferent to gay rights than some Republicans."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
And he has Obama's cock so far down his throat that I'm amazed he can say anything at all critical.
I agree with Sullivan that "the Obama administration is now more indifferent to gay rights than some Republicans."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
And he has Obama's cock so far down his throat that I'm amazed he can say anything at all critical.
49
FYI: Joe at JoemyGod just posted a press release made jointly by the ACLU, Lamda Legal, GLAD, HRC, NGLT, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights that expresses their dismay at the Administration's brief.
http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/
http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/
50
@43 for the highly insightful win.
Look, whine about the DNC and the WH all you want, but the reality is that the House and Senate are yanking your chains and you can't even get our own state delegations to carry your water on these issues.
Look, whine about the DNC and the WH all you want, but the reality is that the House and Senate are yanking your chains and you can't even get our own state delegations to carry your water on these issues.
51
I love the argument given by the attorney in Loving vs. Virgina. So simply put. Every family deserve the same.
"The Lovings have the right to go to sleep at night knowing that if should they not wake in the morning, their children would have the right to inherit from them. They have the right to be secure in knowing that, if they go to sleep and do not wake in the morning, that one of them, a survivor of them, has the right to Social Security benefits. All of these are denied to them, and they will not be denied to them if the whole anti-miscegenistic scheme of Virginia... [is] found unconstitutional."
"The Lovings have the right to go to sleep at night knowing that if should they not wake in the morning, their children would have the right to inherit from them. They have the right to be secure in knowing that, if they go to sleep and do not wake in the morning, that one of them, a survivor of them, has the right to Social Security benefits. All of these are denied to them, and they will not be denied to them if the whole anti-miscegenistic scheme of Virginia... [is] found unconstitutional."
52
@50: The Supreme Court protects the Constitution as it stands, The Congress protects its home district (that's us!), but the President protects his votes.
I was pretty hopeful that he'd do those superhuman things Presidents sometimes do (FDR), but he hasn't. Obama, who speaks so glowingly of Kennedy, is emulating the most ironic aspects of his presidency.
Kennedy never moved an inch on Civil Rights until forced, regardless of how fabulous he felt society was or would be if everyone had rights. He argued against the CRM repeatedly and without cessation, saying openly he didn't want to alienate the south. It wasn't until he had to confront George Wallace that he finally realized that it wasn't going to stop without his action and finally told an idle and ready Congress to do it, and they delivered him a bill that he retooled and sent back to them. Then we got the CRA of 1964.
Kennedy also wiretapped MLK Jr., by the way.
I think we expect too much of a single branch when we need to shake all three at once. Probably why Obama is running defense for the Judicial and leaving the Legislative open.
Oh, and remember how the HRC and several major GLBT groups stressed that they were absolutely against any kind of federal case? Oh yeah, maybe...
I was pretty hopeful that he'd do those superhuman things Presidents sometimes do (FDR), but he hasn't. Obama, who speaks so glowingly of Kennedy, is emulating the most ironic aspects of his presidency.
Kennedy never moved an inch on Civil Rights until forced, regardless of how fabulous he felt society was or would be if everyone had rights. He argued against the CRM repeatedly and without cessation, saying openly he didn't want to alienate the south. It wasn't until he had to confront George Wallace that he finally realized that it wasn't going to stop without his action and finally told an idle and ready Congress to do it, and they delivered him a bill that he retooled and sent back to them. Then we got the CRA of 1964.
Kennedy also wiretapped MLK Jr., by the way.
I think we expect too much of a single branch when we need to shake all three at once. Probably why Obama is running defense for the Judicial and leaving the Legislative open.
Oh, and remember how the HRC and several major GLBT groups stressed that they were absolutely against any kind of federal case? Oh yeah, maybe...
53
@48, eeww! That's not a pretty picture. But I suppose neither is the image of the Obama minions' heads shoved up the ass of the Chosen One (i.e. Loveschild, Will in Seattle,...).
54
Gosh golly gee! I just feel lucky he hasn't rounded us up and put us into concentration camps! Defending laws that deny us rights is more than we deserve! Where can I line up for the conversion ceremonies and public floggings?
At what point do the pro-Obama gays stop defending his blatant disregard for his own promises? What does he have to do for you to stop acting like abused wives or beaten dogs, and repeating with your heads down "I know he loves me, he's just forced to do this."
You disgust me.
At what point do the pro-Obama gays stop defending his blatant disregard for his own promises? What does he have to do for you to stop acting like abused wives or beaten dogs, and repeating with your heads down "I know he loves me, he's just forced to do this."
You disgust me.
55
And now that I've got that out of my system, I have to say this makes me feel a lot better about my vote for Nader (in a state that was definitely going for Gore) in 2000. We need more choices because this two party will inevitably, always, be more of the same. I am tired for having to choose between the lesser of the two evils.
56
@54: What about the delusional gays who think any president they're voting for is going to save the day?
57
It’s really weird reading the comments Obama supporters desperately contorting themselves into various pretzels trying to justify and rationalize his declaration of open war on the gay community.
Everything from how stupid we were to believe the lies that he told us, to how he has some great masterplan for our lives (um, messiah-complex much?). Even worse are the too-far-gone-to-save, Stockholm syndrome suffering gay people who still support him by claiming that he’s just upholding the law (ugh, that repulsive legal positivism rears its ugly head again).
I don’t give a flying fuck what his & his (In)Justice’s motives are. They did everything but end that brief with “DIE FAGS!” They can suck it, and my only regret is that I can’t convey that sentiment in person.
We have to accept the fact that we’re dealing with an Administration that’s openly hostile to our needs and that hasn’t changed from the worst of the Caligutard years.
Everything from how stupid we were to believe the lies that he told us, to how he has some great masterplan for our lives (um, messiah-complex much?). Even worse are the too-far-gone-to-save, Stockholm syndrome suffering gay people who still support him by claiming that he’s just upholding the law (ugh, that repulsive legal positivism rears its ugly head again).
I don’t give a flying fuck what his & his (In)Justice’s motives are. They did everything but end that brief with “DIE FAGS!” They can suck it, and my only regret is that I can’t convey that sentiment in person.
We have to accept the fact that we’re dealing with an Administration that’s openly hostile to our needs and that hasn’t changed from the worst of the Caligutard years.
58
@56: I was just hoping for him to vaguely keep his promises. Hillary's track record of not keeping her promises to gays (from her time as a New York senator -- I saw it happen first hand) was one of the big reasons I supported her over Obama. I feel deceived and I think, rightly so.
Are you saying we shouldn't believe his promises. Or we should believe in a "nuanced" lowest, common denominator version of them?
Chist. I managed to stay off Slog for one week and then this sucked me back in.
Are you saying we shouldn't believe his promises. Or we should believe in a "nuanced" lowest, common denominator version of them?
Chist. I managed to stay off Slog for one week and then this sucked me back in.
59
@56: AND OOPS -- I meant "Hillary's track record of breaking promises was one reason I supported Obama over her."
60
@57 Open war? Seriously? Yes, he promised to repeal DOMA and DADT, and so far, he hasn't. But, you know, I think he's totally right to have health care as his top priority. How many difficult pieces of legislation can one administration shepherd through in six months? It's not necessarily going to be easy to get either of those repeals through the Senate.
62
@60: I'm with OA. We can only judge him by what he's done. Was there a compelling reason for the release of that brief? If this is all about the White House being busy, why have they made time to ESSENTIALLY speak against gay rights?
63
@61 -It seems almost objectively true that health care is more important than DOMA. In what universe does people being denied some tax breaks count as more important people being forced into bankruptcy for basic health care (or, you know dying from inadequate health care)? These are terrible comparisons to make, and I think I'm probably slipping into internet commenting hysteria, but I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that health care is very. fucking. important. When Obama's prioritizing funding for the arts (sorry Jen G.) over gay rights, I'll be more worried.
@62 The white house isn't making time for this. This was some dude from the DOJ writing a brief. I bet no-one anywhere near the president saw it (though it does reflect Obama's position in favor of a legislative rather than judicial resolution of these issues).
@62 The white house isn't making time for this. This was some dude from the DOJ writing a brief. I bet no-one anywhere near the president saw it (though it does reflect Obama's position in favor of a legislative rather than judicial resolution of these issues).
64
Everyone who is going over the top with how terrible this is needs to chill out.
@57 - Open War? The brief all but says "Die Fags"? You need to ramp that way back and read the thing before you make statements like that.
@62 - Compelling reason to release the brief? It's a court case in active litigation. The DOJ has to meet court deadlines. They wrote a brief for that reason.
DOMA is terrible policy. Obama has said that. He says he wants it repealed. To get it repealed, there needs to be a bill introduced in congress, it needs to be debated and passed, Obama needs to sign it.
The Republican homophobic dirtbags that passed DOMA are SMART Republican homophobic dirtbags with smart Republican homophobic dirtbag lawyers. They wrote a bill (DOMA) that is terrible policy, but that IS constitutional. There are a LOT of those out there.
@57 - Open War? The brief all but says "Die Fags"? You need to ramp that way back and read the thing before you make statements like that.
@62 - Compelling reason to release the brief? It's a court case in active litigation. The DOJ has to meet court deadlines. They wrote a brief for that reason.
DOMA is terrible policy. Obama has said that. He says he wants it repealed. To get it repealed, there needs to be a bill introduced in congress, it needs to be debated and passed, Obama needs to sign it.
The Republican homophobic dirtbags that passed DOMA are SMART Republican homophobic dirtbags with smart Republican homophobic dirtbag lawyers. They wrote a bill (DOMA) that is terrible policy, but that IS constitutional. There are a LOT of those out there.
65
Yeah, in terms of what will help queer people have better lives sooner, universal health care is absolutely a higher priority than DOMA.
Furthermore a legislative strategy will mean gay rights will advance faster after DOMA falls than if a court ruling overturned it.
Furthermore a legislative strategy will mean gay rights will advance faster after DOMA falls than if a court ruling overturned it.
66
drone, thank you for your persistent attempts to apply reason here. it's refreshing - and i know it hasn't been easy. i'm too lazy (and not adequately informed) to fight the good fight. rah, rah, drone! your words are hereby saved under "favorites".
[i can tend to be a little too ironic in my comments, but none is meant here. love you]
[i can tend to be a little too ironic in my comments, but none is meant here. love you]
67
@66 - that's sweet of you :)
IMO, Morrolan is doing a much better job of that over in the comments for http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
IMO, Morrolan is doing a much better job of that over in the comments for http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
68
I just think applying this language of scarcity is incorrect and disingenuous: "too busy for gay rights," "waiting to have the political capital," "waiting for second term" etc. etc. I'm not saying he needs to be actively making things better right now, but documents like this and his behaviors around DADT seem to indicate an antipathy towards the gays. Not as much of an antipathy as the Republicans, but an antipathy nonetheless.
69
@68 - Right now so much of this seems like an exercise in reading tea-leaves. By your analysis, Obama doesn't like us because he hasn't moved legislatively on any of these issues, and has also taken some fairly symbolic stands against gay rights: submitting a different brief in this case wouldn't necessarily bring us closer to getting rid of DOMA. Likewise, unilaterally suspending DADT would be good (and would actually affect people's lives, I suppose), but as I understand it this would be limited to wartime, and is problematic with regard to the theory of executive power that Obama espouses. You discount his symbolic stands for gay rights (LGTB Pride month, openly gay cabinet members, etc.). I would argue there are legitimate reasons for taking this route that don't involve ill-will towards gay people, and that his real views on gay rights show through in the positive symbolic acts thusfar. Hopefully we'll know who's right before 4 years from now.
70
drone, thanks for pointing out morrolan (you're right - brilliant), but can i suggest that you consider hoping for another symbolic gesture during this month (not four years) that includes at least a modicum of substance? this is his first year. it would matter.
71
Dem civilians should stop sending the DNC checks, but for a completely different reason: They have giant warchests worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Obama himself is so filthy rich that, once he leaves office, he will never have to do anything ever again.
Quit sending these wonks your hard earned money. They've already got millions, and if they can't spend the millions they have efficiently, then fuck them. You'd be better off, Dan, sending me $1000 checks. And I'm not being facetious: Your big checks don't make any difference in the efforts of the Darcy Burners and Barack Obamas of the world. Quit wasting your money like a retard.
Quit sending these wonks your hard earned money. They've already got millions, and if they can't spend the millions they have efficiently, then fuck them. You'd be better off, Dan, sending me $1000 checks. And I'm not being facetious: Your big checks don't make any difference in the efforts of the Darcy Burners and Barack Obamas of the world. Quit wasting your money like a retard.
72
And because it just occurred to me that I might be misunderstood... no, Dan, I'm not asking you for money :P Just saying to try and throw your money towards people and orgs that will do some actual good with it, not just fuel a giant ad campaign directed at a populace that's already made up their minds. Suggestion: Help support a local youth/homeless/disadvantaged/etc shelter or help keep a good arts org going instead.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (72) RSS