Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, June 12, 2009
Homo This Isn't Happening, Right?
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM
No self-respecting fag or dyke is going to turn up at this event, right?
You're a self-respecting fag, Barney. You're canceling, right? Tammy? Jared? Hello?
2
why wouldn't you keep engaging the administration on the issues? you're going to get what you want in 2013 at the latest.
5
So Dan, do you think Barney Frank or any of those people read Slog, because you're acting like they do.
You're "a self-respecting fag" with a national audience in several forms of media. What are you doing? Have you tried contacting their people? Are you going on any media outlets to speak out against this? Organizing a protest? Coordinating efforts with anyone else doing one of the above? Hello?
Slog posts only go so far.
You're "a self-respecting fag" with a national audience in several forms of media. What are you doing? Have you tried contacting their people? Are you going on any media outlets to speak out against this? Organizing a protest? Coordinating efforts with anyone else doing one of the above? Hello?
Slog posts only go so far.
6
Frank, Baldwin, and Polis should make this about Equality. But because they are politicians they will make it about compromise.
8
your not being very productive dan....
yup we're all upset that obama didn't make an executive order on day 1 declaring gay marriage legal....
yada yada....
when public approval is over 60%, that's when things will happen.....
but until then, quit it with the obama dumping....
it's just boring.
yup we're all upset that obama didn't make an executive order on day 1 declaring gay marriage legal....
yada yada....
when public approval is over 60%, that's when things will happen.....
but until then, quit it with the obama dumping....
it's just boring.
10
Dan,
The Department of Justice has a constitutional obligation to defend legally enacted legislation, so long as there is a reasonable legal 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 not 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.
To put it in simple terms: imagine ENDA finally gets passed. Imagine a Republican somehow gets into the White House in 2012. Further imagine a conservative decides to challenge the law, making a bullshit claim that it's unconstitutional. Your theory of DoJ power would allow this Republican president to veto ENDA simply by refusing to defend it from the ridiculous challenge.
The Department of Justice has a constitutional obligation to defend legally enacted legislation, so long as there is a reasonable legal 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 not 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.
To put it in simple terms: imagine ENDA finally gets passed. Imagine a Republican somehow gets into the White House in 2012. Further imagine a conservative decides to challenge the law, making a bullshit claim that it's unconstitutional. Your theory of DoJ power would allow this Republican president to veto ENDA simply by refusing to defend it from the ridiculous challenge.
11
Overheard in the Stranger newsroom, Nipper to Dan Savage: "Dan, I have Anderson Cooper on Line one and Bill Maher on Line two..."
12
Dan,
The Department of Justice has a constitutional obligation to defend legally enacted legislation, so long as there is a reasonable legal 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 not 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.
To put it in simple terms: imagine ENDA finally gets passed. Imagine a Republican somehow gets into the White House in 2012. Further imagine a conservative decides to challenge the law, making a bullshit claim that it's unconstitutional. Your theory of DoJ power would allow this Republican president to veto ENDA simply by refusing to defend it from the ridiculous challenge.
(Sorry for the double post... finally signed up for an account, and I thought it would post as registered)
The Department of Justice has a constitutional obligation to defend legally enacted legislation, so long as there is a reasonable legal 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 not 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.
To put it in simple terms: imagine ENDA finally gets passed. Imagine a Republican somehow gets into the White House in 2012. Further imagine a conservative decides to challenge the law, making a bullshit claim that it's unconstitutional. Your theory of DoJ power would allow this Republican president to veto ENDA simply by refusing to defend it from the ridiculous challenge.
(Sorry for the double post... finally signed up for an account, and I thought it would post as registered)
13
Dear Asshats that keep telling Dan and every other fag to shut up, that it's too soon, give it time, blah, blah, fucking blah,
We're not pissed off today because the Obama Administration hasn't done anything about DOMA or DADT, we're fucking infuriated TODAY because the DOJ is working AGAINST us to hurt the cause of gay marriage.
To put it in laymens terms, it's like the difference between being disappointed the cute boy in school doesn't want to make out with you, to being horrified that the cute boy in school is attempting to rape you in the backseat of a Hummer.
We're not pissed off today because the Obama Administration hasn't done anything about DOMA or DADT, we're fucking infuriated TODAY because the DOJ is working AGAINST us to hurt the cause of gay marriage.
To put it in laymens terms, it's like the difference between being disappointed the cute boy in school doesn't want to make out with you, to being horrified that the cute boy in school is attempting to rape you in the backseat of a Hummer.
14
@ 10 & 12,
There's a long history of the DOJ refusing to argue in favor of laws that it believes are unconstitutional, and of presidents objecting to such laws. Please read up on it.
There's a long history of the DOJ refusing to argue in favor of laws that it believes are unconstitutional, and of presidents objecting to such laws. Please read up on it.
15
Look, they're politicians, OK? So let's forget about them being "self-respecting," because any self-respect they may or may not have had got thrown out the window the minute they decided to run for office. They only care about which side of the bread has the butter on it, and right now that's Obama's side. Stop trying to read some kind of morality into a situation where none exists.
16
@14,
Care to offer a link? Oh wait, I can think of one. When Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling and forced the Cherokee out of Georgia and killed a large number of them on the Trail of Tears. That turned out well. What a great example.
It could be that Frank, Baldwin, and Polis know something about politics and actual governance, unlike YOU, Dan.
Care to offer a link? Oh wait, I can think of one. When Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling and forced the Cherokee out of Georgia and killed a large number of them on the Trail of Tears. That turned out well. What a great example.
It could be that Frank, Baldwin, and Polis know something about politics and actual governance, unlike YOU, Dan.
17
@14: If you read up on it, you'll see that the cited examples are where the law was clearly and facially unconstitutional. This is not such a case.
The decision not to argue in favor of certain laws is, in essence, only where doing so would violate Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure, requiring all arguments made in court to be non-frivolous.
The decision not to argue in favor of certain laws is, in essence, only where doing so would violate Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure, requiring all arguments made in court to be non-frivolous.
18
Right, @17. Everybody takes rule 11 so seriously. Can you think of even one time when someone has even been so much as censured for violating it? Nope, didn't think so.
20
@18: The Barbie case.
Also, the point isn't the availability of Rule 11 sanctions, the point is that the DoJ doesn't have a constitutional obligation to defend legislation where such a defense would be frivolous, because there wouldn't be a point.
Also, the point isn't the availability of Rule 11 sanctions, the point is that the DoJ doesn't have a constitutional obligation to defend legislation where such a defense would be frivolous, because there wouldn't be a point.
21
My issue here is not that they are defending it, but how they are defending it. I recognize that it's their duty to come to its defense until it's removed. The arguments that they are using though, are offensive in the extreme and are unnecessary to make their case.
22
@21: The obligation to defend includes the obligation to thoroughly defend, and not pull one's punches just because one finds them to be unpleasant or offensive.
23
Ummm, since when does the DNC == Obama?
Actually, I'd love to hear Barney Frank's thoughts on Obama/DOMA/DADT. That guy has a unique and effective way of cutting through crap.
Actually, I'd love to hear Barney Frank's thoughts on Obama/DOMA/DADT. That guy has a unique and effective way of cutting through crap.
24
@8: "when public approval is over 60%, that's when things will happen....."
You mean like how public approval for repealing DADT (that is, allowing openly gay and lesbian men and women to serve in the military) is over 60%?
Source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/0764/C…
Look closer: all groups are at or above 60% except two: Conservatives and Republicans. And they're at 58% in favor of getting rid of DADT.
Nationally, it's 69% in favor of repeal. So, you tell me: are things happening?
You mean like how public approval for repealing DADT (that is, allowing openly gay and lesbian men and women to serve in the military) is over 60%?
Source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/0764/C…
Look closer: all groups are at or above 60% except two: Conservatives and Republicans. And they're at 58% in favor of getting rid of DADT.
Nationally, it's 69% in favor of repeal. So, you tell me: are things happening?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (26) RSS