Friday, June 12, 2009
Politics / Homo / News Obama Defends DOMA
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Maybe he meant to say "fierce apathy." Or "fierce antipathy." Because if this shit is "fierce advocacy," Mr. President, we'll take benign neglect. Obama's Justice Department filed a brief late last night seeking the dismissal of a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act in a federal court in California. Obama didn't have to do this. Other presidents have refused to defend laws that they believed were unconstitutional or unjust. But Obama is defending DOMA. On what grounds?
If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."
Equality is just too expensive. Sorry, homos, yes we can no we can't.
There's more—and worse—at Americablog. Gay and lesbian people and organizations that are looking for something to get upset about might want to focus on Obama's broken promises and not Bruno's box office.
UPDATE: Not upset yet? Obama's DOMA brief compares gay marriage to child rape and incest. States refuse to recognize the marriages of uncles and nieces or adults and children, argues the Obama administration, therefore there's nothing unconstitutional about states refusing to recognize a marriage between two consenting adults who aren't related to each other. Or as Obama's Justice Department puts it...
The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
The States, of course, once argued that they could ban interracial marriage based on "the forum State's public policy." Would the Obama administration care to weigh in Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized interracial marriage? Obama's parents' marriage? Correctly decided or not?
Share via
2
Wait! According to Loveschild-Will in Seattle reasoning there are more important issues than this.
1. Stem-cell research
2. Lily Ledbetter Act
3. Economy
4. Torture
5. Healthcare
.....
1. Stem-cell research
2. Lily Ledbetter Act
3. Economy
4. Torture
5. Healthcare
.....
4
God dammit Obama (and his administration) is disappointing me almost every day it seems like. There's only one response I can think of to his actions; what a faggot.
5
As Jon Stewart said, paraphrased: That's not an argument against gay marriage, it's an argument against marriage.
6
He's always been this way about LBGT issues, folks. He's never made any promises to legalize gay marriage. But he was the better of two candidates, so we voted for him and hoped to gosh he'd grow some balls. Too bad that didn't happen.
7
@6 LNic...ah, but he did make promised regarding these issues.
This shit is getting old, and that argument is just about as terrible as it gets. In fact, it's so bad, in my shred of hope that I have left, perhaps the Obama administration is forwarding an argument that they know will lose?
This shit is getting old, and that argument is just about as terrible as it gets. In fact, it's so bad, in my shred of hope that I have left, perhaps the Obama administration is forwarding an argument that they know will lose?
8
This is just sickening...
I am simply hurt and disgusted with this. I hope for the best for this country, but I can no longer be an Obama supporter if this is the position the administration is going to take.
I am simply hurt and disgusted with this. I hope for the best for this country, but I can no longer be an Obama supporter if this is the position the administration is going to take.
10
First it was unspeakable. An unspeakable sin. Then it was a sickness. A sickness that could be cured. Then it turned out to be seemingly incurable, and it was forcibly acknowledged that people from every culture—from every belief—either conquered the idea that who they really were was wrong, and others in the more judgmental fields had succumbed to it, typically because of "outing." Then it became accepted, but only enough to grant same rights to us, just not in the same name, and [still] not in every state. Now it's just too expensive to consider full-fledged equality for us.
That's putting it mildly. Obama clearly doesn't think that homosexuality is right. If he did, he'd understand that we aren't being treated like people. What does all of this tell our kids? That we're different, and not in a good way. Not good enough to be equal. Great message you're sending, Obama. Way to save money.
Meanwhile, Obama has also sent other great messages involving money. Like he did with the bailouts. Don't worry, big companies. As long as you have a fuckload of employees, those are jobs for 'mericans, and if the product or service you provide is so shitty even retarded 'mericans won't buy it, we'll take care of you. That isn't wasting money at all, and as I said, it's a great message.
I love this. Thanks Obama. I could go on and on and on, but there's no point. All it takes is a podium for people to turn their brains off and drool in your presence. You're so perfect. Such a great, great President. America has more important things to deal with than equality. You can go back to wasting money now. Thank God you saved some here.
That's putting it mildly. Obama clearly doesn't think that homosexuality is right. If he did, he'd understand that we aren't being treated like people. What does all of this tell our kids? That we're different, and not in a good way. Not good enough to be equal. Great message you're sending, Obama. Way to save money.
Meanwhile, Obama has also sent other great messages involving money. Like he did with the bailouts. Don't worry, big companies. As long as you have a fuckload of employees, those are jobs for 'mericans, and if the product or service you provide is so shitty even retarded 'mericans won't buy it, we'll take care of you. That isn't wasting money at all, and as I said, it's a great message.
I love this. Thanks Obama. I could go on and on and on, but there's no point. All it takes is a podium for people to turn their brains off and drool in your presence. You're so perfect. Such a great, great President. America has more important things to deal with than equality. You can go back to wasting money now. Thank God you saved some here.
11
He is starting his own slide to a one term presidency. Is it any wonder that progressives lose to such screwed up Republicans?
12
For the next election, I will send him a note promising to send money for his campaign. And I'll send it right after he keeps his promises.
14
P.S. It turns out he and Mitt Romney have a lot in common. They both are fierce advocates of gay rights until it no longer suits their political goals.
15
re: Incest and marrying children
Those are very good points Obama raises-
he forgot Polygamy, however.
Those are very good points Obama raises-
he forgot Polygamy, however.
16
It is begining to appear that the personal integrity to keep ones promises, or even to consider the ramifications of making a promise to a community that one is not fully committed to following through with, alludes President Obama. I wonder does his conscience sear him, or does he cherry pick over the passages in the Bible that talk about keeping oaths and promises?
18
It may seem harsh but it's a reasonable argument that needs to be further looked at, in a time of economic crisis. Alongside with infringement issues that would arise and be brought upon the autonomy of the states when it comes to social issues. Which is a concept that has been afforded to the states by our Constitution.
19
we've been telling you girls that marriage benefits for gays was a budget buster and America's taxpayers don't really see how they have an interest in subsidising homosexual behavior anyway...
21
18, So would you be for banning all marriage for the sake of the economic crisis, or only for gay people?
Again, you don't know or understand what The Constitution says, (much like your lack of knowledge and understanding of the Bible) so you really shouldn't comment on such things.
Again, you don't know or understand what The Constitution says, (much like your lack of knowledge and understanding of the Bible) so you really shouldn't comment on such things.
22
This law sucks, but it is the law for now. I'd like some apples-to-apples examples, Dan, of when "other presidents have refused to defend laws that they believed were unconstitutional or unjust."
(P.S. Who did Terry "I Told You So" Miller support for President? Unless it was Dennis Kucinich he wasn't getting anyone more progressive that what we got now.)
(P.S. Who did Terry "I Told You So" Miller support for President? Unless it was Dennis Kucinich he wasn't getting anyone more progressive that what we got now.)
23
I know I'm a troll but remember a little over a year ago when I suggested the Democrats focus more on repealing the 22nd amendment and figuring out how to bring FDR back to life? Yeah, I think I still stand by that.
One thing you can say about the Democrats of today is this, They sure as hell aren't my grandparents Democrats, those Democrats back in the day were liberal and didn't give a fuck what anyone thought about it.
"They have said that the captians of industry have met their match, now let them say they have met their master!" FDR Madison Square Garden October 1936.
Oh and this one.. "My enemies are united in only one thing and that is their hatred of me. And I welcome their hatred!" FDR and I think it was the same speach.
Wake me up when we get real Democrats in positions of power.
One thing you can say about the Democrats of today is this, They sure as hell aren't my grandparents Democrats, those Democrats back in the day were liberal and didn't give a fuck what anyone thought about it.
"They have said that the captians of industry have met their match, now let them say they have met their master!" FDR Madison Square Garden October 1936.
Oh and this one.. "My enemies are united in only one thing and that is their hatred of me. And I welcome their hatred!" FDR and I think it was the same speach.
Wake me up when we get real Democrats in positions of power.
24
I just read Dan's update.....
At this rate I'll be glad to see him leave office on January 20, 2013. Seriously, this guy is looking more and more like the sterotypical homophobic black man.
At this rate I'll be glad to see him leave office on January 20, 2013. Seriously, this guy is looking more and more like the sterotypical homophobic black man.
25
@ Timothy- Nope, he asid he'd work for civil unions. That's about the extent of what he "promised". We were all doe eyed idiots, and we're getting what we deserve for grabbing the first non-white-non-conservative candidate that came our way. I just keep thinking: It should have been Hillary.
(It's going to take a gay president or a vocally and clearly pro-gay-rights president to get over this issue. Dan Savage 2012...???)
(It's going to take a gay president or a vocally and clearly pro-gay-rights president to get over this issue. Dan Savage 2012...???)
26
This is a calculated first term decision. Don't be surprised when the ball finally gets rolling in his second term.
It's lame, but the simple fact is that there are more bible-thumping "afeared of the gays" types in this country than actual homosexuals, and he just wants to maximize his time in office before making decisions as divisive as this one, so he's staying mum and letting it ride.
It's lame, but the simple fact is that there are more bible-thumping "afeared of the gays" types in this country than actual homosexuals, and he just wants to maximize his time in office before making decisions as divisive as this one, so he's staying mum and letting it ride.
27
And on another note, regarding his forcing things on the Congress like a drunken fratboy, why is he so afraid of things ending up in the courts, or speaking out against things that are sitting in the courts? He's said absofrigginglutely nothing about the fact that the Voting Rights Act is up for a major obliteration or that parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could be wiped out.
Hmmmm, one has to wonder, though...
Hmmmm, one has to wonder, though...
30
@26
You are so precious!
You naive little waif.
(no wonder the boys are able to con you into taking it in the ass)
You are so precious!
You naive little waif.
(no wonder the boys are able to con you into taking it in the ass)
31
@26: Yes, Manos, but DOMA isn't the only pooch he's screwed. One main reason he was elected was the fact that the law forbids states from enacting any rule that would disenfranchise voters based on race. Sitting in the court is the question of if the federal government can forbid any state or specially selected state, county, city or township from doing anything discriminatory, like the "vote challengers" we almost had. Saying "Voting Rights Act" was enough to get folks to back off.
And now? Oh yeah, let's just stay mum on this, Prezzie, since it's not like having votes challenged in predominantly democratic or minority precincts will harm your chances at re-election.
He's doing a lot of wrong lately.
Ho-hum, welcome to politics.
And now? Oh yeah, let's just stay mum on this, Prezzie, since it's not like having votes challenged in predominantly democratic or minority precincts will harm your chances at re-election.
He's doing a lot of wrong lately.
Ho-hum, welcome to politics.
32
@UPDATE
And there we go. He cooked his goose. Maybe not with America, and despite it's marginality, he cooked it with me. At this point I might as well have voted for a Republican, or tossed my vote out the door with Ron. Obama hasn't done a single thing in office worth praising. And this? This isn't even comparable to spitting in our faces. This is more comparable to chaining us to the back of a truck.
This is blatant homophobia, or at least homo-disgust. Marriage wasn't and isn't founded on procreation. Even if I were a homophobe, I'd still have the brains to admit that marriage's purpose is largely for stability and family support. But we can't have a family, because we're two of the same gender? You nailed it with Loving v. Virginia. How does Obama feel about anti-miscegenation?
America has no direct and respective need for anyone that isn't a white religious heterosexual, or black, albeit they have to share the exact attitude, views, and beliefs of all the whites. That C-c-c-c-c-ombo breaker image has completely lost its shine. Might as well paint Obama white.
This is so fucked.
And there we go. He cooked his goose. Maybe not with America, and despite it's marginality, he cooked it with me. At this point I might as well have voted for a Republican, or tossed my vote out the door with Ron. Obama hasn't done a single thing in office worth praising. And this? This isn't even comparable to spitting in our faces. This is more comparable to chaining us to the back of a truck.
This is blatant homophobia, or at least homo-disgust. Marriage wasn't and isn't founded on procreation. Even if I were a homophobe, I'd still have the brains to admit that marriage's purpose is largely for stability and family support. But we can't have a family, because we're two of the same gender? You nailed it with Loving v. Virginia. How does Obama feel about anti-miscegenation?
America has no direct and respective need for anyone that isn't a white religious heterosexual, or black, albeit they have to share the exact attitude, views, and beliefs of all the whites. That C-c-c-c-c-ombo breaker image has completely lost its shine. Might as well paint Obama white.
This is so fucked.
33
Dan's got it right.
There's failure to keep promises that a sin level one. Fairly typical for politicians btw and it doesn't mean they hate your guts.
Then there's mild opposition, as in defending an unjust law. Uh hoh that's more like a mortal sin.
Then there's this shit here -- the legal argument about public policy is like saying homosexual marriage is vile and so disgusting it's on a par with selling heroin to minors or recognizing a Saudi marriage of a man to 25 wives or enforcing a marriage contract made by a daddy when the birde was 12 years old to give her in marriage to a 60 year old buddy of the daddy.
If Obama is officially saying gay marriage is so vile and disgusting it's against public policy, that's so strong, it's time to go sit in at the Federal building a really raise a ruckus.
And I normally think marches and stuff like that is a waste of time.
Good luck and KBO.
There's failure to keep promises that a sin level one. Fairly typical for politicians btw and it doesn't mean they hate your guts.
Then there's mild opposition, as in defending an unjust law. Uh hoh that's more like a mortal sin.
Then there's this shit here -- the legal argument about public policy is like saying homosexual marriage is vile and so disgusting it's on a par with selling heroin to minors or recognizing a Saudi marriage of a man to 25 wives or enforcing a marriage contract made by a daddy when the birde was 12 years old to give her in marriage to a 60 year old buddy of the daddy.
If Obama is officially saying gay marriage is so vile and disgusting it's against public policy, that's so strong, it's time to go sit in at the Federal building a really raise a ruckus.
And I normally think marches and stuff like that is a waste of time.
Good luck and KBO.
34
This is really disappointing. And I'm usually an Obama defender. I can only hope that somehow someone will come to their senses in the administration and step in to stop this. We need to keep attention focused on this.
35
@26
If you praise, respect, or even try to explain a positive understanding with that thought process, you're condoning it as if it's good. We wanted change, he said he'd bring it, so we expect to see it. We didn't ask for play-around-with-the-idea-of-change until you think it's ready, or make-sure-you-stay-in-office. He got my vote, and he's lost the second one. I'm not voting for some sloth who decides to pick things up when the time comes around to get re-elected. And that's exactly what he'll do. He's all talk. Say a bunch of great shit, get in office, do whatever the fuck he wants. Office term coming close, say a bunch of great shit in commercials, do a thing or two to add some spice and get those votes back, stay in office, do whatever the fuck he wants.
Fuck that. Politics is slow, yes, and that won't change. But this isn't "slow," he isn't doing a fucking thing. The only thing he's been doing is testing my patience, and now it's done. Fuck him, and fuck you too.
If you praise, respect, or even try to explain a positive understanding with that thought process, you're condoning it as if it's good. We wanted change, he said he'd bring it, so we expect to see it. We didn't ask for play-around-with-the-idea-of-change until you think it's ready, or make-sure-you-stay-in-office. He got my vote, and he's lost the second one. I'm not voting for some sloth who decides to pick things up when the time comes around to get re-elected. And that's exactly what he'll do. He's all talk. Say a bunch of great shit, get in office, do whatever the fuck he wants. Office term coming close, say a bunch of great shit in commercials, do a thing or two to add some spice and get those votes back, stay in office, do whatever the fuck he wants.
Fuck that. Politics is slow, yes, and that won't change. But this isn't "slow," he isn't doing a fucking thing. The only thing he's been doing is testing my patience, and now it's done. Fuck him, and fuck you too.
36
So f'ing mad. Where the hell did my Barack Obama go?
How much control - or day-to-day knowledge - of what the DOJ argues does he have? Cause this really, really sucks.
How much control - or day-to-day knowledge - of what the DOJ argues does he have? Cause this really, really sucks.
39
Mr Poe, I just shot my load in my jeans after reading your last post.
Need to take a smoke break now...
Need to take a smoke break now...
40
I have never been so emotionally invested in a president before. On election night Poe, Abby, and I screamed when he was annouced the winner. As lame as it sounds I broke down crying, crying with relief that I thought we were really going to get some progressive changes.
And sure, parts of what Obama have been doing is good. Removing the gag rule, trying to shut down gitmo, fixing the economy in a way that only a democrat can. So in the beginning I was very hopeful. But this most recent turn reminds me why I didn't vote for Obama in the primary. My main complaint was the he was "pretty and he talks good" but without enough substance to really prove he would follow his campaign promises. I don't honestly know if Hillary would have been better, but at least with her we knew what we were getting into. With Obama it feels like some cheap hooker who pretends to be an interested girl at a party, then you get them home and they demand 3k.
It feels like we were robbed and our alligence was just thrown in the toilet. Having a 40% progressive agenda isn’t going to cut it. Why can't liberals just fucking man up and have a real agenda? Why can't they just stand the fuck up against the people? The GOP fucks over the people all the time, and the people don't seem to notice. They do things that blatently piss off the left and middle, yet they don't fucking seem to care. Why are liberals left to hold the bag of broken promises? Why are our leaders completely crippled when it comes to our agenda?
My only hope, honestly, is that he is waiting for his 2nd term. Then nothing he does will matter against another term. Obama is a calculating man, so I am trying to figure out his motives here. I am so frustrated. I know that I am not gay, but I am angry.
More...
And sure, parts of what Obama have been doing is good. Removing the gag rule, trying to shut down gitmo, fixing the economy in a way that only a democrat can. So in the beginning I was very hopeful. But this most recent turn reminds me why I didn't vote for Obama in the primary. My main complaint was the he was "pretty and he talks good" but without enough substance to really prove he would follow his campaign promises. I don't honestly know if Hillary would have been better, but at least with her we knew what we were getting into. With Obama it feels like some cheap hooker who pretends to be an interested girl at a party, then you get them home and they demand 3k.
It feels like we were robbed and our alligence was just thrown in the toilet. Having a 40% progressive agenda isn’t going to cut it. Why can't liberals just fucking man up and have a real agenda? Why can't they just stand the fuck up against the people? The GOP fucks over the people all the time, and the people don't seem to notice. They do things that blatently piss off the left and middle, yet they don't fucking seem to care. Why are liberals left to hold the bag of broken promises? Why are our leaders completely crippled when it comes to our agenda?
My only hope, honestly, is that he is waiting for his 2nd term. Then nothing he does will matter against another term. Obama is a calculating man, so I am trying to figure out his motives here. I am so frustrated. I know that I am not gay, but I am angry.
41
There is no excuse for this. I'm really disappointed, removing my Obama pride button from my book bag disappointed. :(
42
@ Monique, I would not assume a second term for him. Even under circumstances of him keeping promises the economic recover we are going to have (if any) will be VERY sluggish and will take a long time to generate the number of new jobs to make the unemployment number go down (remember, real numbers of the under and unemployed are closer to 16 to 17%).
Americans vote with their pocket books first and foremost. And if people aren't feeling prosperous by early 2012 it's game for Obama.
THAT'S why Obama can't wait for the magic of a second term.
Americans vote with their pocket books first and foremost. And if people aren't feeling prosperous by early 2012 it's game for Obama.
THAT'S why Obama can't wait for the magic of a second term.
43
livid. very livid..
and cato please please quit it with the 'stereotypical homophobic black man' business ...
thank you
and cato please please quit it with the 'stereotypical homophobic black man' business ...
thank you
44
@Cato: I don't think it is a good idea. I think it's what Obama thinks is good.
And fuck him anyways. He is undermining his entire campaign by this. He can't run on change now, what can he run on?
Also, maybe the Log Cabin Republicans aren't so crazy after all. I bet their all like
"well fuck it, we aren't going to get any rights so why do I care if Habaes Corpus is around? Why do I care if women have access to abortions? Why do I care if people die overseas? I just want tax breaks that hurt the poor, because fuck 'em. I aint getting rights, so fuck everyone else."
Makes sense. /shrug
And fuck him anyways. He is undermining his entire campaign by this. He can't run on change now, what can he run on?
Also, maybe the Log Cabin Republicans aren't so crazy after all. I bet their all like
"well fuck it, we aren't going to get any rights so why do I care if Habaes Corpus is around? Why do I care if women have access to abortions? Why do I care if people die overseas? I just want tax breaks that hurt the poor, because fuck 'em. I aint getting rights, so fuck everyone else."
Makes sense. /shrug
45
In case you didn't notice, Congress is supposed to enact legislation. Unbelievably, some congresspeople are criticizing Obama for not doing anything about DADT when it's THEIR fucking responsibility. Maybe the real problem is that everyone, even members of Congress, now assume that the president is a dictator and can order anything and everything by fiat.
regarding his forcing things on the Congress like a drunken fratboy
In case you didn't notice, Congress is supposed to enact legislation. Unbelievably, some congresspeople are criticizing Obama for not doing anything about DADT when it's THEIR fucking responsibility. Maybe the real problem is that everyone, even members of Congress, now assume that the president is a dictator and can order anything and everything by fiat.
46
How about we do something kids? Next time Obama comes to town to talk about jobs, health care, education, "the war", housing, money, alien space invaders, or what ever we all hold up our signs that say "Equality for Gay America Now!" or "Full Marriage Equality" or something like that.
Let's take control of the national debate. It's worth a try.
Let's take control of the national debate. It's worth a try.
47
re:2nd term
Obama won't get one.
The Libs are disappointed and dispirited.
And it will get worse.
The Right is secretly gleeful at their good luck but no way going to vote for a Democrat.
Obama is one and done.
Obama won't get one.
The Libs are disappointed and dispirited.
And it will get worse.
The Right is secretly gleeful at their good luck but no way going to vote for a Democrat.
Obama is one and done.
48
This is not Change I Can Believe In.. This is not what I was hoping for when I voted... I mean its not like McCain would have been better, but at least he didnt lie to me.
50
Um, Obama? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've got a master plan to whip out the uber liberal agenda come second term... but it's kinda hard to do that when you alienate your base and don't get re-elected, no?
51
His master plan is very simple: deprive gays of their human rights. That is what his master plan has been all along. I'm only surprised at how overt this little bit of bigotry is.
52
This is what you get when you elect right wing politicians - and yes, Virginia, Obama is a right wing politician. The only reason he is viewed as "left" in the US is because our political world has been skewed so far to the right in the last forty years that those who would, at one time, have been Eisenhower Republicans are now Democrats, and those who would have been members of the John Birch Society and the KKK are the new Republicans. The left is not represented at all.
So much for 'hope'. The list of things that will not change grows daily - healthcare, the war, illegal spying, DOMA, etc., etc., etc.
So much for 'hope'. The list of things that will not change grows daily - healthcare, the war, illegal spying, DOMA, etc., etc., etc.
53
An excerpt from Obama's open letter to the LGBT community:
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.
WOW. FUCK THIS.
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.
WOW. FUCK THIS.
54
I'm fucking sick and tired of the "wait until the second term; don't be so impatient!" cries from the Party Faithful...fuck that shit...if he doesn't put out in THIS term he's losing the gay vote, or at least the thinking queers vote and there may not BE a second term, (depending on how the economy is doing and if the Republicans can pull their heads out of their bungholes). When poll after motherfucking poll shows that DADT is a moot point now, why not kill it? And if he's not ready to end DOMA, then at least don't fucking SUPPORT it with a bullshit reason like "it's too costly". Not after the fucking trillions of dollars that have been poured into saving every fucking crooked bank and brokerage house on Wall Street and the lameasses running the dinosauric American auto industry.
It's time to march.
It's time to march.
55
@ 42 - As long as his approval rating sits in the 60-70% range, he'll be reelected. And as much as I'm with everyone about making sure that we all have equal rights under the law, I'm not a single issue platform voter and this guy has done more to turn this mess of a nation around in the last 5 months than I thought possible.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup…
Most of his time has been spent battling inertia up to this point, and while a lot of us thought his balls were bigger than they're turning out to be, I think he's too smart to actually believe in DOMA and DADT. If he does make it to his second term, that's when we should hope to see the legislation we'd all like to see.
But Pride is coming and now's the perfect time to stand up for equal rights! It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup…
Most of his time has been spent battling inertia up to this point, and while a lot of us thought his balls were bigger than they're turning out to be, I think he's too smart to actually believe in DOMA and DADT. If he does make it to his second term, that's when we should hope to see the legislation we'd all like to see.
But Pride is coming and now's the perfect time to stand up for equal rights! It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
56
Just hold on a second.
I am VERY supportive of gay marriage and the repeal of DOMA. That said, before we go too batshit over this particular legal brief, we need to focus on a couple of things:
1. The distinction between congress repealing a statute and a court declaring it unconstitutional. What everyone is not getting here is that DOMA can be BOTH constitutional and bad policy. I would think that if you asked Obama that question, that's what he'd say. Although at one level, it seems inconsistent, it's perfectly intellectually honest for the adminsitration to say to the court "It was within congress' constitutional power to pass this law" while also saying "We want to get this law repealed".
2. The difference between a brief filed by a justice department career lawyer and a high level policy statement from the administration. Dan, you're not helping things by calling this "Obama's brief." Sure, Obama is responsible for everything the administration does. That does not mean that he agrees with every statement made everywhere by every representative of the US government.
We should absolutely hold Obama to his promises regarding gay rights. BUT He never promised to argue that DOMA was unconstitutional. Constitutionality is about the scope of the power of congress. The administration has a duty to defend that scope. Saying the creation of a given policy was within congress power is not the same thing as saying its good policy.
All that said, some of those arguments are offensive, and I would hope that the administration would repudiate them as a matter of policy.
I am VERY supportive of gay marriage and the repeal of DOMA. That said, before we go too batshit over this particular legal brief, we need to focus on a couple of things:
1. The distinction between congress repealing a statute and a court declaring it unconstitutional. What everyone is not getting here is that DOMA can be BOTH constitutional and bad policy. I would think that if you asked Obama that question, that's what he'd say. Although at one level, it seems inconsistent, it's perfectly intellectually honest for the adminsitration to say to the court "It was within congress' constitutional power to pass this law" while also saying "We want to get this law repealed".
2. The difference between a brief filed by a justice department career lawyer and a high level policy statement from the administration. Dan, you're not helping things by calling this "Obama's brief." Sure, Obama is responsible for everything the administration does. That does not mean that he agrees with every statement made everywhere by every representative of the US government.
We should absolutely hold Obama to his promises regarding gay rights. BUT He never promised to argue that DOMA was unconstitutional. Constitutionality is about the scope of the power of congress. The administration has a duty to defend that scope. Saying the creation of a given policy was within congress power is not the same thing as saying its good policy.
All that said, some of those arguments are offensive, and I would hope that the administration would repudiate them as a matter of policy.
57
He played us to get an edge on Hillary. :(
"Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does."
"I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie…
"Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does."
"I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie…
58
I didn't like him at first but I came around when he won the democratic nomination. I supported him, voted for him, and cheered his victory.
"Fierce Advocate" my ass.
"Fierce Advocate" my ass.
59
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.
60
Wow Dan, your partner tells you "I told you so"? (@1)
What a bitch. And no wonder you have to go outside of your relationship for sex, as you've described.
What a bitch. And no wonder you have to go outside of your relationship for sex, as you've described.
62
Folks, the sky is not falling here.
Get outraged, by all means, about the fact that there has been little or no action taken toward the repeal of DOMA. This brief is not something to get outraged over.
The first part, quoted by Dan above, is an argument about a possible "rational basis" for the statute. A rational basis is all that congress needs to pass most statutes. This is an INCREDIBLY easy standard to pass. Here's what the Supreme Court has most recently said about the standard:
"[The government], moreover, has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the
rationality of a statutory classification. A legislative choice is not subject to
courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by
evidence or empirical data. [T]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative
arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it, whether or
not the basis has a foundation in the record. Finally, courts are compelled under
rational-basis review to accept a legislature's generalizations even when there is an
imperfect fit between means and ends."
This is a very, very low standard.
Further, the government's brief goes on, right after the part Dan quoted to say:
"Indeed, under rational basis scrutiny, Congress is entitled to respond to new social phenomena one step at a time, and to adjust national policy incrementally. DOMA reflects just such a response. It adopts on the national level, and permits on the state level, a wait-and-see approach to new forms of marriage. DOMA thus maximizes democratic flexibility under our federalist scheme, by simply preventing some States from requiring other States and the federal government to grant benefits to forms of marriages that, under their own constitutions, state or federal governments are not obligated to recognize. Because it is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, plaintiffs cannot overcome the "presumption of constitutionality" that DOMA, like all federal statutes, enjoys. See, e.g., Califano v. Gautier Torres, 435 U.S. 1, 5, 98 S. Ct. 906, 55 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978)."
The part quoted (and ridiculed) by Dan was not an argument that DOMA is good policy for the reasons stated. Just that congress was within it's powers to make that (potentially quite bad) policy.
Dan, I read the whole brief. Nowhere does it analogize gay marriage to "child rape and incest." That's sensationalist and an unfair characterization.
Again - get mad by all means! Barbara @59 has the right idea. Write to your congresspeople to get them to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA. Write to Obama to get him to support it. Don't take this brief as more than it is - a dry legal argument far afield from the discussion of what is or isn't good policy.
More...
Get outraged, by all means, about the fact that there has been little or no action taken toward the repeal of DOMA. This brief is not something to get outraged over.
The first part, quoted by Dan above, is an argument about a possible "rational basis" for the statute. A rational basis is all that congress needs to pass most statutes. This is an INCREDIBLY easy standard to pass. Here's what the Supreme Court has most recently said about the standard:
"[The government], moreover, has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the
rationality of a statutory classification. A legislative choice is not subject to
courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by
evidence or empirical data. [T]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative
arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it, whether or
not the basis has a foundation in the record. Finally, courts are compelled under
rational-basis review to accept a legislature's generalizations even when there is an
imperfect fit between means and ends."
This is a very, very low standard.
Further, the government's brief goes on, right after the part Dan quoted to say:
"Indeed, under rational basis scrutiny, Congress is entitled to respond to new social phenomena one step at a time, and to adjust national policy incrementally. DOMA reflects just such a response. It adopts on the national level, and permits on the state level, a wait-and-see approach to new forms of marriage. DOMA thus maximizes democratic flexibility under our federalist scheme, by simply preventing some States from requiring other States and the federal government to grant benefits to forms of marriages that, under their own constitutions, state or federal governments are not obligated to recognize. Because it is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, plaintiffs cannot overcome the "presumption of constitutionality" that DOMA, like all federal statutes, enjoys. See, e.g., Califano v. Gautier Torres, 435 U.S. 1, 5, 98 S. Ct. 906, 55 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978)."
The part quoted (and ridiculed) by Dan was not an argument that DOMA is good policy for the reasons stated. Just that congress was within it's powers to make that (potentially quite bad) policy.
Dan, I read the whole brief. Nowhere does it analogize gay marriage to "child rape and incest." That's sensationalist and an unfair characterization.
Again - get mad by all means! Barbara @59 has the right idea. Write to your congresspeople to get them to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA. Write to Obama to get him to support it. Don't take this brief as more than it is - a dry legal argument far afield from the discussion of what is or isn't good policy.
64
The man is breaking a loooot of hearts.
When is that march on Washington, again?
The Stranger should have a fundraiser to create a Slogger Scholarship Fund to send broke-azz queers to DC for the event.
Sincerely,
Broke-azz Queer
When is that march on Washington, again?
The Stranger should have a fundraiser to create a Slogger Scholarship Fund to send broke-azz queers to DC for the event.
Sincerely,
Broke-azz Queer
67
@ 45, 59, 62 - What they said. We don't live in a dictatorship. Obama is not the only person in this country who can change this. Dan, please help organize a real movement, that could identify our congressional support and allow us to target those who want to keep DADT and DOMA. There's an election coming in 2010, and our representatives are already thinking about that. We should be too. Why is Slog all taken up with whining, and no one is pointing to a website where people are getting organized to change what we want changed? Is there no such website? Do the opponents of DADT and DOMA really not understand how political change happens? Hint, it's not by wishing or whining about how a politician has disappointed you.
68
I just called the White House and Department of Justice to ask if it's the official policy of the Administration under President Obama and AG Holder that gay marriages are similar to incest...They are looking into it...I would recommend that other folks, who are passionate about this, make their passion understood.
White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
DOJ Switchboard (ask for Office of Public Liaison): 202-514-2000
These people work are responsible to the citizens of this country...We need to make them aware of our disappointment.
White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
DOJ Switchboard (ask for Office of Public Liaison): 202-514-2000
These people work are responsible to the citizens of this country...We need to make them aware of our disappointment.
69
Dan,
I just read this week that Washington state doesn't recognize marriages between anyone related closer than a second cousin. I never thought about that angle the DOJ used in defending DOMA. Wow.
Also, I find it odd that Obama's father, Barack Sr. was technically a polygamist when he married Barack Jr.'s mother Stanley Ann Dunham. Barack's father had a wife in Kenya at the time. She is currently living in England. Bit of irony there.
I just read this week that Washington state doesn't recognize marriages between anyone related closer than a second cousin. I never thought about that angle the DOJ used in defending DOMA. Wow.
Also, I find it odd that Obama's father, Barack Sr. was technically a polygamist when he married Barack Jr.'s mother Stanley Ann Dunham. Barack's father had a wife in Kenya at the time. She is currently living in England. Bit of irony there.
70
Dan
Technically, you know, his promise to get DOMA "repealed" has nothing to do with challenging its constitutionality in court, so he hasn't really reneged on any commitment he made.
Welcome to the world of Obamian nuance.
Heh.
Technically, you know, his promise to get DOMA "repealed" has nothing to do with challenging its constitutionality in court, so he hasn't really reneged on any commitment he made.
Welcome to the world of Obamian nuance.
Heh.
72
He probably thinks that homos are filthy and disgusting, just like millions of Americans do but are too afraid to speak up. Marriage should absolutely be between a man and a woman, just like it has been for centuries. Marriage was intended for the union of one man and one woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Homos are the minority, plain and simple. The majority of Americans are heterosexual, so marriage should reflect this. You had your chance in California, by far the most liberal and homo loving state in the union, to get equal marriage, and you failed because the PEOPLE voted against it. Not a judge, not a piece of legislation, but a legitimate VOTE that affirmed that the majority of Americans do not think that homos should get equal marriage rights. Obama is doing the right thing and standing up for the majority of Americans.
73
The brief doesn't equate homosexuality to pedophila or incest. It shows that states have long had the option of not recognizing marriages from other states, and cites case law, which happens to involve differences between states on age of marriage and degree of familial relationship.
There's plenty to be mad at here, folks, but that's not it. @62 is right. The question before the court is whether DOMA is constitutional, not whether it's good or right. Under current precedent, it is constitutional. The Supreme Court would need to recognize equal protection claims based on sexual orientation--something they've never done before--for DOMA to be ruled unconstitutional
There's plenty to be mad at here, folks, but that's not it. @62 is right. The question before the court is whether DOMA is constitutional, not whether it's good or right. Under current precedent, it is constitutional. The Supreme Court would need to recognize equal protection claims based on sexual orientation--something they've never done before--for DOMA to be ruled unconstitutional
75
I'm looking forward to Obama's major speech on queer rights to be delivered on June 28 at San Francisco Pride. That's about what it would take to make things cool again with me.
77
Mmmmm, pie.
So, what are we all gonna DO about it? Are we writing our representatives, calling above # for the White House comment line (read #68), trying to do the comment form @ Whitehouse.gov? I just tried to submit a long letter, the auto-mailer wasn't working. Guess snailmail & phone calls will have to do.
Wanna have an impact? Take the 2 seconds it takes you to craft something witty, snarky, idiotic or pithy to say HERE, & submit it to someone who can do something. & your local paper, letter to the editor. Some people still read 'em: lots of older people, the kind that vote. Do something. In Email form it's as easy as slogging.
*hops off soapbox* Sorry. Angry. I mean, a Bush staffer wrote it..everything old is new again. This feels eerily similar to what it felt like when the Clintons were first elected..we wondered what they were doing about gay rights..remember?
So, what are we all gonna DO about it? Are we writing our representatives, calling above # for the White House comment line (read #68), trying to do the comment form @ Whitehouse.gov? I just tried to submit a long letter, the auto-mailer wasn't working. Guess snailmail & phone calls will have to do.
Wanna have an impact? Take the 2 seconds it takes you to craft something witty, snarky, idiotic or pithy to say HERE, & submit it to someone who can do something. & your local paper, letter to the editor. Some people still read 'em: lots of older people, the kind that vote. Do something. In Email form it's as easy as slogging.
*hops off soapbox* Sorry. Angry. I mean, a Bush staffer wrote it..everything old is new again. This feels eerily similar to what it felt like when the Clintons were first elected..we wondered what they were doing about gay rights..remember?
78
I'll try and find some links, but what's happening here is a political tactic. In a nutshell: Obama would actually cost the DNC control of Congress and the White House if he pushed this challenge through, because he'd give the right (and conservative dems among us) enough political groundswell to vote everyone out.
He upheld it because, technically, it's the letter of the law and challenging it will take a lot of effort and may not result in much of a reward. By upholding it, he can also prevent the right from building up enough political groundswell to oust the Dems from Congress in 2010, and if they can get Sotomayor on the bench, then things will be a in a better place to strike it down for good.
He upheld it because, technically, it's the letter of the law and challenging it will take a lot of effort and may not result in much of a reward. By upholding it, he can also prevent the right from building up enough political groundswell to oust the Dems from Congress in 2010, and if they can get Sotomayor on the bench, then things will be a in a better place to strike it down for good.
80
Obama played the "race card" against President Bill Clinton during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Obama lacks integrity so don't be surprised that he threw the Gays under the proverbial bus once elected President. Obama is not a post-racial president but he's highly racial.
Obama's political scheme is to level the playing field economically i.e. to rob from the "haves" to give to favored groups that include the "have-nots". More important, Obama wants a nation of economically dependent serfs. African-American religious "pastors" rarely fight for gay rights. Obama sat spellbound in the Church of Rev. Wright for twenty years. He studied Rev. Wright' ability to "win over" the congregation. Obama applied those techniques to political campaigns. (Politicians in Iran report borrowing from Obama's campaign playbook; they should research the Rev.wright playbook to find the political green-leaf clovers that Iran needs...) Obama robbed the Annenberg trust while "serving" as Chairman and dispersed Walter and Leonore's money - the "mother's milk of politics" - around Chicago. He wrapped himself up with domestic terrorists' and corrupt politicians who prefer to call you MOTHERF----- rather than brother. Obama is a fake. Obama does not deserve the Presidency of the United states of America.
Obama's political scheme is to level the playing field economically i.e. to rob from the "haves" to give to favored groups that include the "have-nots". More important, Obama wants a nation of economically dependent serfs. African-American religious "pastors" rarely fight for gay rights. Obama sat spellbound in the Church of Rev. Wright for twenty years. He studied Rev. Wright' ability to "win over" the congregation. Obama applied those techniques to political campaigns. (Politicians in Iran report borrowing from Obama's campaign playbook; they should research the Rev.wright playbook to find the political green-leaf clovers that Iran needs...) Obama robbed the Annenberg trust while "serving" as Chairman and dispersed Walter and Leonore's money - the "mother's milk of politics" - around Chicago. He wrapped himself up with domestic terrorists' and corrupt politicians who prefer to call you MOTHERF----- rather than brother. Obama is a fake. Obama does not deserve the Presidency of the United states of America.
83
I was initially really, really angry when I read the brief, now I'm just disappointed. After reading a lot of stuff online trying to understand why Obama would do this, especially after it contradicts a letter he wrote urging people to vote AGAINST Prop 8 just months ago, and I've concluded this: Obama is lobbing this back to the states. He's arguing that there is nothing unconstitutional about limiting marriage, but that states have a right to redefine marriage. Putting this together with Lamda Legal's basic guideline that when 1/3 of the states in this country have passed marriage equality, that is when they will try to get it passed on teh federal level, I read this as meaning Obama is going to not challenge the constitutionality of the DOMA until more states have put marriage equality in place and the Supreme Court then rules. Which is kind of lame and wussy, which is why I am just disappointed. But not as entirely un-hopeful as I was last week.
84
Politics is a LIE, ladies and gentlemen--the WHOLE THING. Republicans lie one way, Democrats lie another--and sometimes these prostitutes tell the same lies. If you still believe the so-called "democratic process" is alive and well in the United States after eight years of stolen elections and Bu$h, you're a fool--and you're in for NOTHING but one disappointment after the next.
85
It's too bad, but I still have high hopes for future changes. Politics is so frustrating sometimes. Here's a discussion of the matter from pandalous: http://www.pandalous.com/nodes/obama_and…
86
Does ANYONE here expect ANY politician, whether Democrat or Republican, to keep their campaign promises? If so, please get your head examined.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Slog Somehow Overlooked... by Dan Savage
-
VivaVulva Viagra! by Dan Savage -
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
-
Feeling Sorry for Carrie Prejean by Dan Savage
-
Last Night's Colbert Report by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (86) RSS