Friday, June 12, 2009
Politics / Homo / News Obama's Next Move
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:05 AM
There's another challenge to DOMA moving through the federal courts, this one in Massachusetts. One of the plaintiffs in that case is the widower of former openly-gay Congressman Gerry Studds.
The plaintiffs are eight married couples and three widowers, each of whom is currently eligible for a federal program. Each has applied for a benefit under that program and was denied because of DOMA Section 3.... Dean Hara, the surviving spouse of late Congressman Gerry Studds, said "Gerry and I spent 16 wonderful years together and I miss him. The federal government's denial to me of Gerry's pension and health insurance added insult to injury at the worst time of my life. These systems are set up to help married people with the sudden loss of their partner, but instead of helping me, it hurt me."
Seeing as the plaintiffs in this DOMA challenge—all of them legally married in the state where they live—are suing the federal government after being denied federal benefits, federal benefits that would cost the federal government money, and seeing as the Obama administration is in California arguing that the state can point to expense as a justification for denying same-sex couples the right to wed (because "equal protections" only applies, it seems, when it costs nothing), it's hard to see the Obama administration turning around and refusing to defend DOMA in this case. The Obama administration has until June 22 to either defend DOMA in a Boston courtroom or refuse to defend DOMA.
If Obama defends DOMA in Boston—and it's hard to picture him not defending DOMA in Boston after defending it California—I don't see how this event can go forward:
Three days after Obama screws us again—if Obama screws us again—I can't imagine that gays and lesbians will be in the mood to pay $1000 a plate to attend the DNC's annual LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser. Fuck that shit. I would hope that Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Jared Polis— the three openly gay members of Congress—would have the sense, decency, and spine to pull out of this event.
Because if Obama defends DOMA in Boston—and it's hard to see him not doing it now—gays and lesbians should be picketing this event, not attending it.
UPDATE: Please check out Americablog's constantly updated post about this. This is no longer an an argument about an over-stressed Obama administration—so busy with the wars and the economy and healthcare—doing nothing on gay rights. Now they're going out of their way to do real and lasting harm. The brief regurgitates arguments made by the religious right—gay people aren't discriminated against when it comes to marriage because we can marry opposite-sex partners whenever we want, just like straight people!—and makes unnecessary and uncalled for arguments in favor of a highly limited interpretation of Supreme Court precedents protecting the rights of gay people. The Obama administration is arguing against a right to privacy for gay people.
Share via
2
Hey Dan, have you fucked your brother, sister, or son lately? Just wondering, you know. Don't be offended or anything. Just stay calm and be "rational" and hopeful. As long as we're politely determined to make it to where we want to be. Er, should be. It makes it real easy to ignore us. No money from liberals? Terrifying. All Obama And the "D"NC need to do is act more Republican to times what we would have given by 4.
4
What part of economic crisis, states like Cali going insolvent don't you understand Mr Savage? States are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make cuts on all levels. Why then should another burden be placed on them now? What can our economy gain now from paying thousands of dollars in pensions and health insurances to gay pairings? You're just putting your followers here into a frenzy without fully thinking through, and it's dangerous. The strain such acts would make on our economy's overall health, would affect all of us. Yours is a flawed logic and makes perfectly well the case for the views that most americans have about some homosexuals being selfish and only looking out for what they want and throwing to hell everyone else concerns. How does your constant mongering help your cause is something that escapes me.
6
@4, wrote:
"What can our economy gain now from paying thousands of dollars in pensions and health insurances to gay pairings?"
Because then the money moves from government's hands into the consumer's hands and they buy stuff, thus, stimulating the economy.
So, YOUR'S is a flawed logic.
"What can our economy gain now from paying thousands of dollars in pensions and health insurances to gay pairings?"
Because then the money moves from government's hands into the consumer's hands and they buy stuff, thus, stimulating the economy.
So, YOUR'S is a flawed logic.
8
@4, excellent reasoning, so to take it to it's conclusion, we should drop any marriage benefit for straight couples that cost the government money. Happy we have your support.
9
@4: Did you know it was the Civil Rights Act that has kept republicans in power for most of the past 40 years?
It's your fault so many people have died in Iraq.
It's your fault so many people have died in Iraq.
10
4,
Your words: What can our economy gain now from paying thousands of dollars in pensions and health insurances to gay pairings?
What can our economy gain now from paying thousands of dollars in pensions and health insurances to heterosexual pairings?
Answer: Nothing. Paying benifits is money out, gender and sexual orientation isn't part of the equation.
How about we save the economy by eliminating all impending and terminating all exisiting unions. We can start with yours. And, mine can go second.
Your words: What can our economy gain now from paying thousands of dollars in pensions and health insurances to gay pairings?
What can our economy gain now from paying thousands of dollars in pensions and health insurances to heterosexual pairings?
Answer: Nothing. Paying benifits is money out, gender and sexual orientation isn't part of the equation.
How about we save the economy by eliminating all impending and terminating all exisiting unions. We can start with yours. And, mine can go second.
11
@4. I bet it was pretty economically disruptive to free all those slaves too. Probably cost a lot of people a lot of money. We should have just waited until the country was in better shape economically.
Who trolls the troll? It is I.
Who trolls the troll? It is I.
12
11, But she's got her rights. Now it's time to make herself feel better (she's a sad person) by denying rights to others.
13
we can scarcely imagine what a wonderful thing Hara and Studds had...
'sigh'...
we just don't see why we should have to pay for it.
'sigh'...
we just don't see why we should have to pay for it.
14
The update is trying to say once Obama weighs in to support DOMA he starts making all the most evil and vile and homophobic arguments possible.
Please understand folks. The full faith and credit clause says you gotta recognize marriages and judgments and contracts and shit like that from other states. The big exception is "except when it's against your state's fundamental public policy." That's magic legal words and they do not refer to what you think of as public policy (should we raise the marginal tax rate by 2 points etc.). They refer to the fact that if one state thinks gambling is vile and disgusting, it does not need to recognize a gambling debt from another state. Of if it thinks bigamy is vile and disgusting, it does not need to recognize a bigamous marriage from another state. When you go down this road you inevitbly are taking the view that gayness itself can properly be viewed as vile and disgusting; which means the entire edifice of law, such as a right of privacy, that otherwise has protecgted, to a highly limited degree, certain aspects of gayness -- such as a right of privacy that makes what's done in the bedroom just off limits -- starts crumbling down. So it opens the door legally to making gay sex criminal and other horrors. IT's all rested on the premise that gayness is vile and disgusting so anything about it is fair game for a majority to regulate, not recognize or even BAN AND CRIMINALIZE.
Now this is off the top of my head and odn't wasnt to scaremonger but that's what it looks like.
Obama = Loveschild.
Not a pretty conclusion.
Please understand folks. The full faith and credit clause says you gotta recognize marriages and judgments and contracts and shit like that from other states. The big exception is "except when it's against your state's fundamental public policy." That's magic legal words and they do not refer to what you think of as public policy (should we raise the marginal tax rate by 2 points etc.). They refer to the fact that if one state thinks gambling is vile and disgusting, it does not need to recognize a gambling debt from another state. Of if it thinks bigamy is vile and disgusting, it does not need to recognize a bigamous marriage from another state. When you go down this road you inevitbly are taking the view that gayness itself can properly be viewed as vile and disgusting; which means the entire edifice of law, such as a right of privacy, that otherwise has protecgted, to a highly limited degree, certain aspects of gayness -- such as a right of privacy that makes what's done in the bedroom just off limits -- starts crumbling down. So it opens the door legally to making gay sex criminal and other horrors. IT's all rested on the premise that gayness is vile and disgusting so anything about it is fair game for a majority to regulate, not recognize or even BAN AND CRIMINALIZE.
Now this is off the top of my head and odn't wasnt to scaremonger but that's what it looks like.
Obama = Loveschild.
Not a pretty conclusion.
15
6 But you know that's not the case, most people at least in these times are holding up the money due to the insecurity that's prevalent outhere. Besides there's greater affluence in gay relationships due to a higher prevalence of college education, better jobs, kids being out of the equation (in most of cases), and in the rare cases were they are, being usually limited to one child and so forth. So the urgency for monetary needs argument would seem to me doesn't really apply here.
16
the whitehouse.gov website has NOTHING listed about GLBT issues that I can find. They used to have a whole section....am I missing something here?
17
So... if the cost of granting the same benefits to homosexuals would be prohibitively expensive, then it's these homosexuals not getting any benefits that is keeping the economy afloat? I guess we all owe the gays a hardy thank you. Without you people, our country would be sunk!
18
@15,
Then would you suggest the gov't start witholding pensions from the wealthier people and those who don't need it urgently, because it's needed by the state right now?
Then would you suggest the gov't start witholding pensions from the wealthier people and those who don't need it urgently, because it's needed by the state right now?
19
hmmm...all the stab wounds in my big fat gay back is making it difficult for me to get an attractive summer tan...
20
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.
22
18, Only the gay ones. For Loveschild, it's all about hating the gay people because she can't face her own problems.
23
15 - you know what would help a state's failing economy? Allowing gay couples to marry. They would spend all that extra income you say they have on wedding planners, caterers, florists, bands, DJ's, wedding dresses, tuxes, bartenders, bachelor/bachelor parties, wedding showers, etc. And since you think these decisions should be based on a state's economic needs, I would think you would support this, right?
24
@4 You know what else costs the state a lot of money, kids, old people and poor people. If we were to kill them all, it'd save a lot of money. Also, in economic times like these, fire departments and police seem like luxuries we can't afford. After all, if god didn't want something to burn down, why would he set it on fire?
Oh, and gay couples are more affluent....sorry, nope:
www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press…
Oh, and gay couples are more affluent....sorry, nope:
www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press…
25
@20
Nice! Now we're bringing the racism in!
Amazing how the gays are so quick to align themselves with the civil rights movement and the struggle of blacks.... but then, when things aren't going their way, they turn on them and behave like bigots themselves.
Pot calling the kettle black, much??
Nice! Now we're bringing the racism in!
Amazing how the gays are so quick to align themselves with the civil rights movement and the struggle of blacks.... but then, when things aren't going their way, they turn on them and behave like bigots themselves.
Pot calling the kettle black, much??
27
@25 @26 we don't know if @20 is gay and we don't know if @20 is black, but we do know they are trolling...
29
If the Pride Parade isn't a big anti-Obama protest after this betrayal, I'll be a bit disappointed in the Seattle gay community.
30
Ok - fair's fair. Point taken. We don't know about 20. I'm just hoping that gays don't turn into racists as a result of Obama defending DOMA. With Prop 8, you could feel a strong whiff of anti-black sentiment from many white gays after poll results showed that blacks supported traditional marriage.
Obama really is taking a stance here against gay marriage and I can see why it's upsetting to many of you. His words do also suggest though that he's aware that the concept of marriage is in the process of evolving for American people and it could very well change.
Another thing about his position is very clear -- he doesn't view this as a civil rights struggle.
Obama really is taking a stance here against gay marriage and I can see why it's upsetting to many of you. His words do also suggest though that he's aware that the concept of marriage is in the process of evolving for American people and it could very well change.
Another thing about his position is very clear -- he doesn't view this as a civil rights struggle.
31
Dan will you PLEASE start or get back to careful proofreading? It completely undermines your point when grammatical errors are present every time you submit. Don't you have some sort of employee who has access rights and the ability to read to fix your errors so they're not there for the whole interworld forever???
"in Boston after defending it California"
"in Boston after defending it California"
32
Dan will you PLEASE start or get back to careful proofreading? It completely undermines your point when grammatical errors are present every time you submit. Don't you have some sort of employee who has access rights and the ability to read to fix your errors so they're not there for the whole interworld forever???
"in Boston after defending it California"
"in Boston after defending it California"
34
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.
35
The true joy here is that it isn't in "the taxpayer's interest". This just in... Gays pay taxes too. If we gays are more affluent and better educated, aren't we paying more than our share of the taxes?? Maybe we should cut back?
37
Loveschild- Pumping more money into the economy by recognizing same sex partners would HELP end the recession. What the hell do you think the stimulus for? Take some fucking economics classes you troll. Unless of course you're a conservative supply-sider who thinks the New Deal didn't help people during the great depression.
38
Puh-leeze: Hill and Bill were the lameasses that gave us DADT and DOMA...and Hillary is the biggest playa of all. She'd sell us out in a heartbeat.
39
@34 - Yes! Please, instead of whining, Slog-readers, take action. Don't bottle up your anger against Obama until 2012, use it right now to sway the 2010 congressional elections. Make this a big part of those campaigns. Figure out who in Congress is on our side, who's not, and let's target our money appropriately. No one's going to give us anything if we don't work for it. If people give up and move to Canada, how is that going to get rid of DADT or DOMA in the US?
40
The word "marriage" means too many different things
It seems obvious that people who are denied the right to marriage also feel that they are denied the right to publicly express their love. What we need to do is to change the laws so that marriage is meaningless from a legal perspective. All legal rights stemming from the religious institution of marriage should be revoked - to everybody.
Then we should start from scratch. Create a legal institution which conveys the same rights that were once conveyed via marriage - and allow anybody to apply for it. Gays, straights, even people who are polyamourous can apply for family status under the law.
I think that a big part of what is causing the problem is the word "Marriage" because calling it that seems to invite God into the conversation - and with God come his de facto spokesmen.
It seems obvious that people who are denied the right to marriage also feel that they are denied the right to publicly express their love. What we need to do is to change the laws so that marriage is meaningless from a legal perspective. All legal rights stemming from the religious institution of marriage should be revoked - to everybody.
Then we should start from scratch. Create a legal institution which conveys the same rights that were once conveyed via marriage - and allow anybody to apply for it. Gays, straights, even people who are polyamourous can apply for family status under the law.
I think that a big part of what is causing the problem is the word "Marriage" because calling it that seems to invite God into the conversation - and with God come his de facto spokesmen.
41
@38 Bill made DADT as a way to appease the Republican-majority congress and house he was stuck with. Before that, just a simple accusation of being anything but straight was enough to get you kicked out of the military. Now they have to jump through more loop-holes to do so. Granted, they still do but it's still more difficult.
42
Not to be annoying, be the federal government is arguing against equal protection, not a right to privacy. Privacy is part of due process, and this isn't a due process question. What complicates this is that there is no equal protection component of the constitution as it applies to the federal government. Equal protection applies (in most instances) to the states, not the feds.
43
The Department of Justice has a constitutional obligation to defend the constitutionality of laws legally enacted, so long as there is a reasonable argument that can be made. Otherwise, the Justice Department would have a retroactive veto over legislation disliked by the current administration, simply by not making the argument for the government.
Were it the case that the Department of Justice could abdicate its responsibility any time a U.S. Attorney felt the law in question should be ruled unconstitutional. The politicization of the DoJ under the Bush Administration would pale in comparison to the sort of chicanery that could be accomplished under the actions you propose.
Obama should introduce a bill to repeal DOMA (and DADT), for certain. That doesn't mean, however, that his Department of Justice should set incredibly damaging precedents by ignoring its constitutional duty.
Were it the case that the Department of Justice could abdicate its responsibility any time a U.S. Attorney felt the law in question should be ruled unconstitutional. The politicization of the DoJ under the Bush Administration would pale in comparison to the sort of chicanery that could be accomplished under the actions you propose.
Obama should introduce a bill to repeal DOMA (and DADT), for certain. That doesn't mean, however, that his Department of Justice should set incredibly damaging precedents by ignoring its constitutional duty.
44
Demand that President Obama Stop Defending DOMA
http://www.eqca.org/siteapps/advocacy/Ac…
Send a letter to the president.
http://www.eqca.org/siteapps/advocacy/Ac…
Send a letter to the president.
45
40
I posted this in response to a different post from a few days ago. I'll re-post here because your comment is pretty similar to the one that I originally responded to.
I agree with you. There's so much blurring of the lines between the religious, social and legal components of marriage that we would be well served by separating and clarifying them. My wife and I eloped a couple of months ago in a religion-free ceremony. Neither of us are devoutly religious or Christian, so when we hear Christian conservatives getting all exercised about how marriage is sacred to God it just falls on deaf ears. Let the religious wackos have their "marriage" and the rest of us (gay and straight) can have unions that confer all the rights and responsibilities that marriage does now. After all, my wife and I only got married (after being together for six years) because I got laid off and lost my health insurance.
I posted this in response to a different post from a few days ago. I'll re-post here because your comment is pretty similar to the one that I originally responded to.
I agree with you. There's so much blurring of the lines between the religious, social and legal components of marriage that we would be well served by separating and clarifying them. My wife and I eloped a couple of months ago in a religion-free ceremony. Neither of us are devoutly religious or Christian, so when we hear Christian conservatives getting all exercised about how marriage is sacred to God it just falls on deaf ears. Let the religious wackos have their "marriage" and the rest of us (gay and straight) can have unions that confer all the rights and responsibilities that marriage does now. After all, my wife and I only got married (after being together for six years) because I got laid off and lost my health insurance.
46
In my opinion, this is about Social Security. To extend the federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples would mean paying what the government sees as "extra" Social Security benefits to surviving same-sex spouses, the same way married opposite-sex couples get part of the Social Security due to their spouse after the spouse dies.
There are two ways of looking at this. One: that it doesn't actually cost more to extend this benefit to same-sex couples, because had they been in marriages to people of the opposite sex, the federal government would still be obligated to pay the benefit.
The second way of looking at this is that paying a solitary person who had been married (of any gendered relationship) more Social Security benefits than a single person who had not been married is both discriminatory to single unmarried people, as well as an archaic throwback to a time when women were expected to not work and giving them the Social Security payments due to their deceased husbands was the only way to keep them out of poverty.
In my view, in light of the looming insolvency of Social Security, it would be most fair to give each person of a certain age the exact same amount of Social Security, regardless of their prior income, sexual orientation, or marital status, and to discontinue a person's Social Security payments entirely upon their death.
This would eliminate any financial incentive the federal government has to support DOMA.
In addition, it seems obvious to me that the income cap should be eliminated, and all income $106,800 should be taxed to fund Social Security.
There are two ways of looking at this. One: that it doesn't actually cost more to extend this benefit to same-sex couples, because had they been in marriages to people of the opposite sex, the federal government would still be obligated to pay the benefit.
The second way of looking at this is that paying a solitary person who had been married (of any gendered relationship) more Social Security benefits than a single person who had not been married is both discriminatory to single unmarried people, as well as an archaic throwback to a time when women were expected to not work and giving them the Social Security payments due to their deceased husbands was the only way to keep them out of poverty.
In my view, in light of the looming insolvency of Social Security, it would be most fair to give each person of a certain age the exact same amount of Social Security, regardless of their prior income, sexual orientation, or marital status, and to discontinue a person's Social Security payments entirely upon their death.
This would eliminate any financial incentive the federal government has to support DOMA.
In addition, it seems obvious to me that the income cap should be eliminated, and all income $106,800 should be taxed to fund Social Security.
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 (46) RSS