Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, June 12, 2009

No One Could Have Predicted

Posted by on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Folks who read the DOMA brief the Obama administration filed in California this morning—the one that compared gay marriage to incest and child rape and rehearsed numerous anti-gay arguments favored by the religious right—said that it read like it was written by the Bush administration. It went way beyond the half-hearted perforce defense of DOMA that folks were braced for. It was breathtakingly bigoted, like something written by a graduate of Jerry Falwell's madrassa, Liberty University. Well guess what? It was written by the Bush administration.

W Scott Simpson, a Bush administration holdover, [filed the DOMA brief]. You can read a previous decision of his here (PDF) from 2008. So it becomes clearer. The harsh rhetoric, the gratuitous attacks on our relationships ... they were written by someone who was given an award by Alberto Gonzales for his defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act.

And guess what else? He's a Mormon.

Do you think the Obama administration is letting Bush holdovers work on healthcare reform? Do you think they're letting Bush holdovers work on Iraq policy? Do you think they're letting Bush holdovers work on economic policy? Do you think they're letting Bush holdovers manage Sotomayor's confirmation process? Of course not. Because all of those things matter to the Obama administration. They give a shit about healthcare and Iraq and the economy and the Supreme Court nominee. They don't give a shit about gay rights—they don't give a shit about gay soldiers being hounded out of the military or gay spouses being turned away from their partners' sickbeds or binational gay couples facing deportation or the HIV travel ban or gay parents or anything else that touches our lives. Or as the always-cooler-headed-than-me Andrew Sullivan put it...

I suspect that this was a function not of malevolence but of negligence. The truth is: this administration is not hostile to gay equality; it just doesn't give a damn about it.


Comments (62) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
sirkowski 3
Well, well, well! So it wasn't Obama after all.
Posted by sirkowski on June 12, 2009 at 7:04 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 4
Will in Seattle and Loveschild must be creaming themselves!!
Posted by Mark in Colorado on June 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM · Report this
Balt-O-Matt 6
This is the work of the Obama administration, and apparently Obama's cool with it. I can live with that. I can also live without supporting Democrats.
Posted by Balt-O-Matt on June 12, 2009 at 7:26 PM · Report this
He's a civil service employee, Dan. Your examples are all the sort of things that would be handled by political appointees. Responding to a federal lawsuit isn't one of those things.

It'd be nice if you actually bothered to learn about things before you wrote these diatribes.
Posted by AnonymousCoward on June 12, 2009 at 7:33 PM · Report this
Reality Check 8
Where's my beating a dead horse icon?

Jesus Christ find a new topic already...

I think you now have enough separate threads making essentially the same point that you have your panties in a wad over DOMA.

We get it. Enough already.
Posted by Reality Check on June 12, 2009 at 7:36 PM · Report this
stevema14420 9
In the spirit of conservative talk shows, the next mormon to show up at my door is going to fucking regret it. You want my guns? This is how you'll get them.
Posted by stevema14420 on June 12, 2009 at 7:37 PM · Report this
stevema14420 10
7 - Remember the scandal during the Bush Admin. about about the AG's office hiring only conservatives who voted for Bush? These career attorneys who were hired in a way that broke the law should not be employed anymore. Remember Monica Goodling's litmus tests to job candidates?

Remember the firing of select US Attorneys because they didn't go after questionable cases involving Democrats?
Posted by stevema14420 on June 12, 2009 at 7:44 PM · Report this
@8. Say "Get over it" when you are denied the ability to visit a partner in the emergency room.
Say it again when you cannot sponsor your spouse for U.S. Citizenship because you two do not classify as a "married couple".
Say it one more time when you are denied the basic and simplistic benefit of getting a family discount at a State-run waterpark because you don't fit the criteria of "traditional." Don't forget to explain to your kids why they cannot swim at the waterpark because you and your spouse cannot afford it without the discount.
And don't forget to "Get over it" when you and your monogamous spouse are thrown in the same category as child molesters, but your neighbors aren't, nor even questioned.

Whatever you have against two adults that love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, get over it.
Posted by Drew2u on June 12, 2009 at 7:44 PM · Report this
@10: Yes, I remember that scandal quite well. I wanted to work for DoJ at the time, but my resume was sufficiently liberal that there wasn't a shot in hell of getting a position, so I didn't bother to apply. The problem is that there's not really a good way to fire those people just on the basis of who hired them.

None of this changes the fact that the DoJ is constitutionally obligated to defend federal law against challenge, nor does it change the fact that the opinion does not "compare gay marriage to incest and child rape."
Posted by AnonymousCoward on June 12, 2009 at 7:53 PM · Report this
Reality Check 14
@11 I understand perfectly the merits of the issue, and I'm on your side.

But how many different threads are needed over and over and over? It's like The Stranger has to go troll every other gay website on the net for their soundbites to add to the mix of outrage.

I think a whole bunch of folks read waaaaayyyyy too much in Obama's earlier comments and are now realizing that there is a vast chasm between expectations and reality.

Andrew Sullivan's comments at the end of this post are probably the most articulate and spot on.

It would be prudent to take smaller incremental steps as you make progress. I've been told that is bullshit before, but it is true. As a fringe minority, you will not sway public opinion as quickly as you'd like, and it will take time to enact lasting change.

Patience grasshopper... it will come...
Posted by Reality Check on June 12, 2009 at 7:55 PM · Report this
I bet you're straight.
I bet you didn't leave your completely cool and gay-embracing city to walk through western Pennsylvania in the rain, being chased by pit bulls, laughed at by toothless stupid people, facing them and talking them down and eventually having them come around to maybe vote for OBAMA all in the name of CHANGE. Change for everyone.
Including me. A gay man.
He had his chance. He decided to seek the constitutionality of DOMA on the date of
Loving vs. Virginia
the Stonewall Riots.
Obama's message was clearly sent: it's okay to hate us.
Posted by nycwill on June 12, 2009 at 8:04 PM · Report this
whoops! sorry 11, I meant @8
Posted by nycwill on June 12, 2009 at 8:07 PM · Report this
@15: There was no decision here. This was a non-discretionary duty of the DoJ.
Posted by AnonymousCoward on June 12, 2009 at 8:10 PM · Report this
Baconcat 18
@15: Loving v. Virgina is not applicable to DOMA in light of Baker v. Nelson.

You have to approach this very carefully, and although getting them to consider the question would put a lot of state-level rulings in limbo, Congress really is the best place to take this. Have you taken time to write your Senators and Reps yet?

The DOJ's brief was just shitty is all, it's akin to telling your kid their puppy died "and oh yeah, it's because you didn't feed it properly". True or not, it's still really fucked up to say to someone you keep saying you love.
Posted by Baconcat on June 12, 2009 at 8:22 PM · Report this
Dan, I'm pretty sure the Secretary of Defense is a Bush hold-over.
Posted by UnoriginalAndrew on June 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM · Report this
DavidC 21
This may be a blessing in disguise. There is a good chance that Obama didn't know anything about that brief until now. Hopefully he'll be embarassed enough to finally act.
Posted by DavidC on June 12, 2009 at 8:30 PM · Report this
geithner, also, is a holdover (as pointed out by my mother, who is smarter than i am).
Posted by Valkyrie on June 12, 2009 at 8:34 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 23
@18 Baconcat

I would love to spit in your face.
Posted by Mark in Colorado on June 12, 2009 at 8:46 PM · Report this
Bauhaus I 24
Looks like it's time for all us middle-aged, past-our-primers to lace up the ol' Docs and do some marchin' again. And this time I want to see some good old-fashioned militancy.
Posted by Bauhaus I on June 12, 2009 at 8:48 PM · Report this
pissy mcslogbot 25
"This may be a blessing in disguise. There is a good chance that Obama didn't know anything about that brief until now. Hopefully he'll be embarassed enough to finally act."

or have enough ammo to now claim that this is not where his admin stands, and distance himself to the point of introducing or at least nudge-nudging the legislation to repeal the stupid DOMA.
Posted by pissy mcslogbot on June 12, 2009 at 8:48 PM · Report this
Dan, please stop using the word madrasa in derogatory sense. Madrasa in Arabic simply means school, nothing less, nothing more, no sinister connotations whatsoever.
Posted by tazzo on June 12, 2009 at 8:53 PM · Report this
Hey anonymous coward douchebag:

The president and the DOJ are our lawyers.

They must uphold the constitution.

They have a duty to enforce it.

This means when a law violates it, like DOMA, they have the duty to OPPOSE THAT LAW in court; indeed, they would be obligated to not carry out that law. If they really thought it was illegal.

Because you're missing the notion that unconstitutional laws are not legal and are a nullity douchebag.


You think if Congress passes a law saying "balck people are inferior, and it's required to put them in the back of the bus" then the DOJ has some kind of duty to support that law in court? Are you fucking insance?

You're a lawyer? WTf? My god we're lucky you didn't get hired by the DOJ. You don't seem to understand the notions that a law that is contrary to the constitution is.....ilegal.

Time to go back to Con Law 101 dude.

Posted by PC on June 12, 2009 at 8:56 PM · Report this
@28: What you're not getting is the difference between a clearly unconstitutional law (such as the one you propose, or the specific cases cited elsewhere), and a law that, while unconstitutional (namely, DOMA), is not so definitely unconstitutional as to make any argument for its constitutionality frivolous.

If the DoJ *can* make an argument that a law is constitutional, it has an obligation to do so. If it were otherwise, the DOJ could repeal any law it didn't like simply by refusing to defend it against challenge, regardless of the merits. Instead, they defend the law in court and leave it for the courts to determine constitutionality, as is "emphatically [their] province and duty."

Unconstitutional laws are not a nullity until such time as they are declared unconstitutional by the courts.

To explain another way: if a right-winger were to have challenged federal hate crimes laws during the Bush Administration, would you have thought it was acceptable for the DoJ to cede the issue, and allow the law to be declared unconstitutional by default?

Again, I refer you to… . The fact that the DoJ has this obligation isn't even controversial - it's well-settled.
Posted by AnonymousCoward on June 12, 2009 at 9:09 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 30
So, you actually expect us to have rooted out all the gay-hating Mormon Red Bushies who burrowed into the Fed in less than six months?

It's like weasels - you pop on the head when they pop up.
Posted by Will in Seattle on June 12, 2009 at 9:11 PM · Report this
@28: I guess Laurence Tribe needs to go back to law school too: "Under the traditions of the solicitor general’s office, the government does have an obligation to provide a defense in any lawsuit where there is a plausible argument to be made, even if the president does not agree with the law." --…
Posted by AnonymousCoward on June 12, 2009 at 9:15 PM · Report this
stevema14420 32
Geihtner is not a holdover, he was chair of the NY Federal Reserve bank before becoming Secretary of Treasury. The Federal Reserve appoints people with no input from the government.
Posted by stevema14420 on June 12, 2009 at 9:39 PM · Report this
seandr 33
Anonymous Coward - a sincere thanks for your insight into the mechanics of these cases.

Given what I know about Obama's background and education, I know he's personally sympathetic to gay rights, just as Bill Clinton was. The real question is whether his neglect is due to cowardess or calculation.

I bet Barney Frank could speak to that. Dan, surely you can get a few friendly words on the record from Barney, no? Or maybe your buddy Andrew Sullivan?

It would be really nice to lay to rest all the speculation about Obama's motives.
Posted by seandr on June 12, 2009 at 9:41 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 34
Hey--Will in Seattle, I'll be in Seattle in August.
Wanna have coffee somewhere?!
Posted by Mark in Colorado on June 12, 2009 at 9:53 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 35
Sorry about that Will in Seattle, I just threw-up in my mouth a little bit thinking of the possible experience. I officially retract my offer.
Posted by Mark in Colorado on June 12, 2009 at 9:57 PM · Report this
Apparently The Stranger couldn't have predicted it. Although even from early on in the presidential campaign he showed how awful he'd be for civil rights, especially for gays and lesbians, ya'll still kissed his ass and even had a fucking Inauguration party for him.

But this isn't the only time you were fooled, is it? How'd that Iraqi invasion work out for you? Are we finally safe now from Saddam's WMDs?

Posted by Pex on June 12, 2009 at 9:58 PM · Report this

No one could have predicted? Really?

Are you that fucking gullible?

Reverend Wright? William Ayers? ACORN? You didn't see it from this guy?

He practically left you a map to politics-as-usual, but you wrapped it up in a "Si se pude!" t-shirt and called it "Change."

Jesus people: He's the product of CHICAGO FUCKING POLITICS! You don't think he's gonna' shine you?

(How naive)

PS - Skip the replies about Bush. Don't bother. I'm not defending him. I'm merely pointing out that this guy is cut from the same cloth.

Now proven.
Posted by Zok on June 12, 2009 at 10:24 PM · Report this
Baconcat 38
@23: I'm sorry, but are you stupid? Do you know why Loving v. Virginia is not applicable? Do you even know what Baker v. Nelson is and why it's the reason we're here now?

Learn your history.
Posted by Baconcat on June 12, 2009 at 10:33 PM · Report this
Jeeze Dan.

The brief did NOT compare gay marriage to incest and child rape. Please go read the brief:…. Now quote for me where it says that gay marriage is like incest and child rape. It doesn't, and it's really irresponsible for you to keep spreading that bullshit. That's a Limbaugh tactic, and it's beneath you.

As to the fact that one of the DOJ lawyers on the brief was appointed during the Bush administration, what that says to me is that Obama didn't come in like the Bushies and do a bunch of improper and illegal politicization in the DOJ.

It really doesn't advance your cause to scream and yell about terrible facts that aren't true. You have a legitimate beef that Obama has not priortized gay rights issues. Sticking to the facts in a calm and intesive way will do a lot more good than creating a bunch of crazy drama on the basis of a totally whacked out version of events.
Posted by Morrolan on June 12, 2009 at 10:58 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 40
@38 it's called irony. You're hung up in the details.
Why do you even post comments here?
Does this even really matter to you?
Posted by Mark in Colorado on June 12, 2009 at 10:58 PM · Report this
Mark in Colorado 41
@39 do most if not all bigots ever admit that they are bigots?
Why is it that fake friends like you and others here keep posting comments? Why not just go about your life and stop worrying about what we think?
Posted by Mark in Colorado on June 12, 2009 at 11:03 PM · Report this
memorex 42
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? Beltway appointees hold high-level positions, they aren't middle managers.
Posted by memorex on June 12, 2009 at 11:06 PM · Report this
I'm afraid there are a lot of holdovers and/or poor compromisers in too-important roles in the Obama administration. I don't know this of course but I am afraid of it. Listen to Darius Rejali, a torture expert at Reed College, to get a scary picture of how it will take the CIA a generation to recover from losing most of its employees who were unwilling to condone torture while retaining the ones who thought they could live with that.

On the plus side: negative economic reports seem to give wings to Obama's reforms. If we handle the next four years right, 30 years down the road factors other than fear will move the better-educated, better-informed U.S. public.
Posted by Amelia on June 12, 2009 at 11:08 PM · Report this
Baconcat 44
@40: I'm so sorry that you're a miserable person.

At least you've given up, it beats fighting, right?
Posted by Baconcat on June 12, 2009 at 11:12 PM · Report this
Bush's fault!
Posted by faggot on June 12, 2009 at 11:36 PM · Report this

I am posting here because I CARE that we on the right side of these issues do not give in to the temptation to sensationalize and froth at the mouth like the bigoted hate mongers on the other side.

That starts with sticking to the FACTS rather than MAKING STUFF UP and screaming about it.I n the short, medium and long runs, we will be a lot better off if we claim the high ground and stick to rational, fact based discourse.
Posted by Morrolan on June 13, 2009 at 12:01 AM · Report this
SecretBYUBottomBoy 48
Dan- It must be tough living in your household right now. How many times can Terry say "I told you so" before you lose your mind??


Posted by SecretBYUBottomBoy on June 13, 2009 at 12:35 AM · Report this
Giving a shit about the supreme court IS caring about gay rights.

Has everyone taken a moment to write their congressmen/senators in favor of the repeal of DOMA?
Posted by Kevin Erickson on June 13, 2009 at 1:06 AM · Report this
You still worried about Obama getting assassinated, Dan?
Posted by idaho on June 13, 2009 at 1:37 AM · Report this
wallydanger 53
"If you're not WITH us, you are AGAINST us".
Posted by wallydanger on June 13, 2009 at 6:16 AM · Report this
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 on June 13, 2009 at 7:44 AM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 55
What I don't get is what's in it for the administration? The religious nutcases are never going to like him - he's the new Hillary Clinton in those circles. So why even take up the argument? I can see them doing nothing for political expediency, but actively courting these people on this issue will get him absolutely nowhere.

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 on June 13, 2009 at 7:49 AM · Report this
Hey douchebag coward:

"@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,"


"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 on June 13, 2009 at 7:49 AM · Report this
Bill W. 57
Bush switched appointees over to civil servant employees so Obama could not easily touch them before he left.
Posted by Bill W. on June 13, 2009 at 8:04 AM · Report this
Rin1010 58
I often said that I would just be happy when the neo-cons and their gay bashing were gone from power. The power to smear, bash, ridicule and degrade me and people like me. The power to make unconstituional laws and push their right wing agendas down my throat. Just leave us the F**K alone.
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 on June 13, 2009 at 8:25 AM · Report this
Simone 59
Wow, talk about laziness.
Posted by Simone on June 13, 2009 at 8:26 AM · Report this
@56: No, it's a constitutional requirement. It's just not enforceable through the courts, because you (probably) couldn't bring a writ of mandamus to force the issue.

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 on June 13, 2009 at 8:34 AM · Report this
As is often the case, The Bilerico Project has good coverage, of the non-hysterical sort:…

"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 on June 13, 2009 at 8:59 AM · Report this

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 on June 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM · Report this
"Do you think they're letting Bush holdovers work on Iraq policy?"

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 on June 13, 2009 at 11:48 AM · Report this

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 on June 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM · Report this
37 - Bill Ayers? If anything, an association between Obama and the radical left should have been a sign of good things to come for the LGBT community. Anarchists are pro-gray and hosted some of the first gay rights publications in this country.
Posted by laurelgardner on June 13, 2009 at 2:51 PM · Report this
Carollani 69
I'd like to make an announcement. *ahem* I am officially no longer listed as a member of the LDS (Mormon) church. I just got the confirmation letter that I requested over six months ago. I'm free, lordy lordy, I am free.
Posted by Carollani on June 13, 2009 at 4:57 PM · Report this
Zoroastronomer 71
To all you Ron Paul haters out there, I just have to remind you that he voted against DOMA. So he doesn't agree with the idea of gay marriage. He admits it. He also admits that it is none of his business, like a true American should. He recognizes the rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit, and doesn't want federal interference. If the states want to make their own laws, good for them, keep the federal government out of it.
Posted by Zoroastronomer on June 14, 2009 at 8:08 AM · Report this

Ron Paul voted against something? Shocker.
Posted by doceb on June 14, 2009 at 9:00 AM · Report this
Cochise. 75
@41 who is "we"? You and Dan? Do you even know him? STFU k?
Posted by Cochise. on June 14, 2009 at 9:19 PM · Report this
kk in seattle 76
AnonymousCoward @ 7, 13, 17, 29, 31 and 60: You might actually review some cases where DoJ has declined to defend laws, a few of which are cited 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 on June 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy