Friday, June 12, 2009
Politics / Homo What They Said
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 3:56 PM
There's a completely decent reason to keep DOMA in place for the time being, especially in the federal courts right now—where bad precedents could wound us in the future. But to file an actual brief re-stating some of the worst and most denigrating arguments against gay civil equality is just bizarre. They could have argued for a narrow ruling or kept the "reasonable" arguments to a minimum. What they did—without any heads up to any of their gay supporters and allies—is unconscionable. Citing incest precedents? Calling gay couples free-loaders? Arguing that our civil rights are not impinged because we can marry someone of the opposite sex? Who on earth decided that that was a great idea? [This] will be simply incomprehensible to most gay people. To have unloaded it after refusing to do anything on DADT, after failing to lift the HIV travel ban, after punting on even pure symbolism like hate crimes - well, it's no way to treat those who worked their butts off to elect you.... I'm baffled by this, I really am. The content of this brief is a massive political error from an administration that is making it impossible for its gay supporters to stay supportive.
Today is the anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision that struck down state laws against interracial marriage. How has the Obama administration recognized it? By lobbing this bomb right into the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. This is a President who said he is a "fierce advocate" for our rights. This doesn't look much like an advocate, it looks more like an enemy pulling the pin on the grenade and tossing it at us. While this may not be the perfect test case for DOMA, the Obama administration, in its defense of the Act, has filed a brief that is a roadmap for every fundnut anti-gay argument against the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Happy Stonewall anniversary everybody!
Reading the arguments the DOJ makes to defend DOMA really makes me angry and I wonder if this is what President Obama or the higher ups in the White House really think. It's the same arguments the Republicans and religious right have been making for years—with even a few new ridiculous ones thrown in. The only thing I can conclude is that we've been thrown overboard by the Obama administration or by presenting such ridiculous arguments, this is a really clever way to throw the case.For instance they argue that restricting rights is a legitimate action of the federal government because it can save the federal government money. What federal court accepts the principle that you can deny rights because there's not enough money to administer them. By that reasoning we can close down polling places in poor neighborhoods or Democratic neighborhoods and say we don't have enough money to keep those places open.
[The] mere fact that the Obama administration sees fit to try to justify the constitutionality of DOMA is very troubling. When Obama ran for the Democratic nomination for President, he distinguished himself from other front-runners by declaring that he was for DOMA’s full repeal. That contrasted with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s position of advocating for only partial repeal of DOMA and leaving intact the provisions allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. When Obama became president, the new White House web site repeated his call for repealing DOMA. But that commitment has since been quietly dropped when the web site was revamped in April.
UNfuckingbelievable.
Share via
1
Well, Dan?
You guys collectively have millions of readers. What are you going to do?
I know you make money by writing about this stuff, but what are you, with all your readers, going to do? What is Sully going to do? And JMG? And Pam?
Come on, you can't possibly think that this is sufficient when your soapbox is about as large as they can get without a flag pin.
Are you just going to write about it?
You guys collectively have millions of readers. What are you going to do?
I know you make money by writing about this stuff, but what are you, with all your readers, going to do? What is Sully going to do? And JMG? And Pam?
Come on, you can't possibly think that this is sufficient when your soapbox is about as large as they can get without a flag pin.
Are you just going to write about it?
2
34
Well all you naive fags ignored the fact that your erstwhile Savior went to a racist black-nationalist church for over 20 years, a CHRISTIAN church that also gave a lifetime achievement award to notorious racist and homo-hater, Louis Farrakhan. If that mountain of evidence did not clue you in to what Obama might be thinking, then you are a FUCKING CLUELESS NAIVE RETARD who deserves everything that The One shoves up your butthole.
Well all you naive fags ignored the fact that your erstwhile Savior went to a racist black-nationalist church for over 20 years, a CHRISTIAN church that also gave a lifetime achievement award to notorious racist and homo-hater, Louis Farrakhan. If that mountain of evidence did not clue you in to what Obama might be thinking, then you are a FUCKING CLUELESS NAIVE RETARD who deserves everything that The One shoves up your butthole.
3
I think we should let Chris Crocker, Tila & Perez weigh in on this before we get all crazy go nutz.
4
Are you guys still whining about this?
Wow.
You do know that virtually all of America just plain doesn't care - right?
Wow.
You do know that virtually all of America just plain doesn't care - right?
6
The DoJ has a constitutional obligation to defend laws against constitutional challenge, where there exists any non-frivolous defense of those laws.
8
I could forgive and understand the failure to be proactive on our issues in the face of all the crises he has to deal with but this... just too much. This is a direct slap in the face and knife in the back to gay Americans.
9
Just saying - there is absolutely nothing about this on the main pages of the Washington Post, so no coverage is going to happen in real terms. You're totally off the radar here.
Heck, Iran is getting ten times more coverage than this is.
Heck, Iran is getting ten times more coverage than this is.
11
you're still winning, you know. look where you were a year ago.
p a t i e n c e , m y p r e t t i e s.
p a t i e n c e , m y p r e t t i e s.
12
For an Administration headed by a child of a mixed race marriage to be making these kinds of arguments… it just jacks the irony dial up to 1 million.
13
And again, it's not just marriage.
It's DADT, hate crimes, ENDA, the HIV travel ban, the exclusion of same sex couples from immigration sponsorship benefits--which even hardcore Catholic countries like Brazil consider inhumane and immoral, it's all of it.
The DEMONcratic "leadership" has failed us on every level.
It's DADT, hate crimes, ENDA, the HIV travel ban, the exclusion of same sex couples from immigration sponsorship benefits--which even hardcore Catholic countries like Brazil consider inhumane and immoral, it's all of it.
The DEMONcratic "leadership" has failed us on every level.
14
nothing on the Seattle Times or PI either - no stories being written about this over the weekend.
16
4 It's a hate parade for them, they need to flaunt and show it off, and blow some smoke. Hopefully afterwards they'll come to their senses and realize the irrational behavior they're exhibiting. And that even if they're not getting their full wish list (like a spoiled brat does) they have it pretty good with a President like Obama in the white house, if one is to compare with his atrocious predecessors. And the other option (republican), well is just not an option, most likely they wouldn't miss the opportunity to re-criminalize gay sex if they ever got back in power.
18
@9 Will in Seattle:
How's that healthcare coming? Think you're gonna get a public option? I hope not and I hope it fucks you and the ones you love.
That being said, I've held back so far but let me state this clearly:
Obama,
My partner of 24 yrs and I each gave $1,200 to get you elected, we defended you to people who still can't stand you, and worst of all we voted for you.
Never again. We sent you a polite letter telling you that we were no longer your supporters and will not vote for you in the next Presidential election. Now that you've shown your true colors, For my partner and I:
YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!
We'll support and give money to whomever is most capable of taking votes away from you in 2012!
Hitler reincarnated could be running against you, and he could be promising to kill me and my partner, and we still wouldn't vote for you. Good riddance POS, or is that POTUS?
How's that healthcare coming? Think you're gonna get a public option? I hope not and I hope it fucks you and the ones you love.
That being said, I've held back so far but let me state this clearly:
Obama,
My partner of 24 yrs and I each gave $1,200 to get you elected, we defended you to people who still can't stand you, and worst of all we voted for you.
Never again. We sent you a polite letter telling you that we were no longer your supporters and will not vote for you in the next Presidential election. Now that you've shown your true colors, For my partner and I:
YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!
We'll support and give money to whomever is most capable of taking votes away from you in 2012!
Hitler reincarnated could be running against you, and he could be promising to kill me and my partner, and we still wouldn't vote for you. Good riddance POS, or is that POTUS?
19
will, you annoying bonehead.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/12/…
this story is gonna build, and lets hope the outcome is the repeal of the piece of shit.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/12/…
this story is gonna build, and lets hope the outcome is the repeal of the piece of shit.
23
Andrew Sullivan says:
"There's a completely decent reason to keep DOMA in place for the time being"
Anyone know what strategy he's referring to here?
P.S. In the past I've defended Obama's inaction on this as a matter of strategy/priority. That argument is seeming less and less credible. Wish I knew what his thinking on this really was.
"There's a completely decent reason to keep DOMA in place for the time being"
Anyone know what strategy he's referring to here?
P.S. In the past I've defended Obama's inaction on this as a matter of strategy/priority. That argument is seeming less and less credible. Wish I knew what his thinking on this really was.
25
@ 23,
Even a one year-old baby would scrunch up their face and ask "what's this bullshit?" after Odubya dropped this bomb on our community today.
No idea what Sully's referring to, except perhaps a preference for the matter to be settled by Congress and not the Courts.
Even a one year-old baby would scrunch up their face and ask "what's this bullshit?" after Odubya dropped this bomb on our community today.
No idea what Sully's referring to, except perhaps a preference for the matter to be settled by Congress and not the Courts.
27
Will, Savage will be on CNN in 15 minutes or so. People do care. About this. And about Dan. And not about you.
So go shove your face some more, you fat fucking moron.
So go shove your face some more, you fat fucking moron.
28
@24: Keep advocating for a legislative repeal, since that's the only way DOMA is going away. The current Supreme Court would be unlikely to hold it as unconstitutional.
30
@23 There's several reasons
My favorite is that If we overturn it judicially, it could be a big tactical error that would inflame cries of "judicial activism", keeping obama from appointing more progressive judges in the future. A legislative win would be a better symbolic victory, because it's a representative body; and a better practical victory; it would likely be a tipping point in national opinion. Legislative efforts might inspire some backlash too, but the impact wouldn't be felt as long, because judges have long-ass careers.
So yeah, It's definitely strategy. But I think he did make a mistake in forgetting that people who don't understand his strategy are going to be watching, and really smart tactics can be easily misconstrued.
I think there's room to disagree about tactics, but the idea that obama's legal team is comparing gays to pedophiles is really really stupid; the kind of shallow thinking that we've learned to associate with Aravosis.
My favorite is that If we overturn it judicially, it could be a big tactical error that would inflame cries of "judicial activism", keeping obama from appointing more progressive judges in the future. A legislative win would be a better symbolic victory, because it's a representative body; and a better practical victory; it would likely be a tipping point in national opinion. Legislative efforts might inspire some backlash too, but the impact wouldn't be felt as long, because judges have long-ass careers.
So yeah, It's definitely strategy. But I think he did make a mistake in forgetting that people who don't understand his strategy are going to be watching, and really smart tactics can be easily misconstrued.
I think there's room to disagree about tactics, but the idea that obama's legal team is comparing gays to pedophiles is really really stupid; the kind of shallow thinking that we've learned to associate with Aravosis.
32
This is something that absolutely needs to be dealt with by Congress. I can understand why supporters of marriage equality are upset by the DoJ opinion. But we need to put pressure on the legislature to put a bill on Obama's desk for him to sign. . . or not. To me, that will be the real litmus test.
33
@ 32,
Ah, but that's the issue too, isn't it? Nancy and Harry have been having a helluva time coming up with fresh lies about why none of our issues can move forward since they have majorities.
No action in Congress + No action by Odubya + No action in the courts = gay rights DOA, QED.
Ah, but that's the issue too, isn't it? Nancy and Harry have been having a helluva time coming up with fresh lies about why none of our issues can move forward since they have majorities.
No action in Congress + No action by Odubya + No action in the courts = gay rights DOA, QED.
35
The official White House response is: "As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The President has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."
He's saying, "don't yell at me, yell at congress to send me a bill and I'll sign it."
He's not going to dirty his hands with this but he's not going to veto us either. So, let's stop complaining about what he's not doing and start complaining to our representatives about what THEY aren't doing.
He's saying, "don't yell at me, yell at congress to send me a bill and I'll sign it."
He's not going to dirty his hands with this but he's not going to veto us either. So, let's stop complaining about what he's not doing and start complaining to our representatives about what THEY aren't doing.
36
For the past month or two I've been defending Obama to my friends who were upset about the slow pace on GLBT issues. I thought. "Hey, maybe he's waiting until June to make a big announcement about DADT, or marriage. Gee, won't that be a cool way to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Stonewall."
Well, fuck me. And on the 42nd anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia, that gave Obama's momma and daddy the right to be married in every state. Utterly despicable.
Well, fuck me. And on the 42nd anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia, that gave Obama's momma and daddy the right to be married in every state. Utterly despicable.
37
OK, for even more fun--and I haven't had a chance to verify this--but a friend writes:
"Would it surprise you that this hate-filled brief comparing gay equal rights to incest and people marrying children was written by a Mormon? The guy who is in charge of the case: Scott Simpson, the Chief Trial Attorney. Certainly his superiors, including the newly appointed AAG whose name is also on the brief, right on up to Obama himself also share blame. But the nastiness of the arguments comes from the author of the brief, who is the Chief Trial Attorney."
"Would it surprise you that this hate-filled brief comparing gay equal rights to incest and people marrying children was written by a Mormon? The guy who is in charge of the case: Scott Simpson, the Chief Trial Attorney. Certainly his superiors, including the newly appointed AAG whose name is also on the brief, right on up to Obama himself also share blame. But the nastiness of the arguments comes from the author of the brief, who is the Chief Trial Attorney."
38
@35: But then we couldn't get our betrayal-rage on. It's fun to build people up and then tear them down, and even more fun when they didn't have a choice but to do the thing for which we're tearing them down.
39
@37: Simpson refers to same-sex marriage as "a vital personal right of surpassing importance." Yeah, he's a real hate-monger.
He's simply a lawyer doing his job, which is to defend the legislation as it exists. Your ire should be focused on Congress, for not repealing DOMA yet.
He's simply a lawyer doing his job, which is to defend the legislation as it exists. Your ire should be focused on Congress, for not repealing DOMA yet.
41
@ 39,
And really, after reading legal reactions from around the webs, pretty much everyone is totes gobsmacked by this brief. It goes far beyond formality, and makes many arguments that are gratuitously sadistic, hateful and deeply offensive (ex. we have marriage rights if we just marry someone of the opposite sex, DOMA saves the gummit $$$, the whole beastiality/pedophilia agle). It could’ve been ghostwritten by Pat freakin’ Robertson for fuck’s sake.
My own take: Rahm & Co. have decided that we gaze aren’t just expendable, we’re demonizable and can be used as a ploy to siphon off Repukelican & xtian conservative votes for shits and giggles.
And really, after reading legal reactions from around the webs, pretty much everyone is totes gobsmacked by this brief. It goes far beyond formality, and makes many arguments that are gratuitously sadistic, hateful and deeply offensive (ex. we have marriage rights if we just marry someone of the opposite sex, DOMA saves the gummit $$$, the whole beastiality/pedophilia agle). It could’ve been ghostwritten by Pat freakin’ Robertson for fuck’s sake.
My own take: Rahm & Co. have decided that we gaze aren’t just expendable, we’re demonizable and can be used as a ploy to siphon off Repukelican & xtian conservative votes for shits and giggles.
43
Awwww.. is Dan having an Ernst Rohm moment??? You all act like nazi's, and then wonder why history repeats itself. lol!
44
@41: The source is the actual motion, available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obama…
There's nothing in there about bestiality or pedophilia. The closest reference to incest are two cases, dealing with marriages between first cousins or uncle and niece, which were valid where celebrated but not valid in the state in question. This was not a comparison between same-sex marriage and these things, but simply citing prior precedent on state's ability, under conflict of laws principles, to refuse to recognize some marriages.
"Rahm & Co." had nothing to do with this motion - it was written by a mid-level employee of the Department of Justice.
There's nothing in there about bestiality or pedophilia. The closest reference to incest are two cases, dealing with marriages between first cousins or uncle and niece, which were valid where celebrated but not valid in the state in question. This was not a comparison between same-sex marriage and these things, but simply citing prior precedent on state's ability, under conflict of laws principles, to refuse to recognize some marriages.
"Rahm & Co." had nothing to do with this motion - it was written by a mid-level employee of the Department of Justice.
45
33
I didn't say it would be a cakewalk getting it through Congress. I grew up in DC. I know a bit about how it goes on Capitol Hill. I'm just saying that that's where the real pressure needs to go. Any real change has to come from there, not the White House. Although it would be nice if Obama would use the bully pulpit to call out Congress, but clearly that's not on the agenda.
I didn't say it would be a cakewalk getting it through Congress. I grew up in DC. I know a bit about how it goes on Capitol Hill. I'm just saying that that's where the real pressure needs to go. Any real change has to come from there, not the White House. Although it would be nice if Obama would use the bully pulpit to call out Congress, but clearly that's not on the agenda.
46
I think that every homosexual individual in California should find an opposite sex partner and "marry" them, file for tax benefits, go on their health insurance, etc. That'll really put a strain on the fucking economy. Then I think a mass divorce filing should happen on some significant date. Show them exactly what their fucked up argument gets them.
47
I would be happy to contribute funds so no one has to pay legal fees for either the "marriage" or the divorce.
48
46
There are plenty of dykes in Hillcrest that I'd be happy to marry. The real question is do I get to consummate the relationship with her and her girlfriend?
There are plenty of dykes in Hillcrest that I'd be happy to marry. The real question is do I get to consummate the relationship with her and her girlfriend?
49
@39: "He's simply a lawyer doing his job, which is to defend the legislation as it exists. Your ire should be focused on Congress, for not repealing DOMA yet."
on the first part: oh great, that can never lead to anything bad.
the defend legislation part: same point, but also why go to the level they went?? especially against something that's probably going to be repealed anyway?
and third "Your ire should be focused on Congress, for not repealing DOMA yet.": well they're pretty much congresspeople(mostly lawyers) not doing their job, and yes we need to address that before 2010.
on the first part: oh great, that can never lead to anything bad.
the defend legislation part: same point, but also why go to the level they went?? especially against something that's probably going to be repealed anyway?
and third "Your ire should be focused on Congress, for not repealing DOMA yet.": well they're pretty much congresspeople(mostly lawyers) not doing their job, and yes we need to address that before 2010.
50
I understand the outrage, but keep in mind that "Obama" and "the Department of Justice" are not one and the same.
"Political decisions drove a significant portion of the hiring process at the Justice Department’s civil rights division, contrary to laws that prevented such considerations, a new report has found... weeded out qualified applicants who were not Republicans or who had perceived ties to liberal organizations."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/repo…
Thought experiment: suppose you had inherited an enormous executive branch that you couldn't trust to back you on key issues. How would you change it (assume, for the sake of argument, that you're acting in good faith)? Would you win every battle, do you think? How would you handle those in order to maximize your long-term strategic position?
"Political decisions drove a significant portion of the hiring process at the Justice Department’s civil rights division, contrary to laws that prevented such considerations, a new report has found... weeded out qualified applicants who were not Republicans or who had perceived ties to liberal organizations."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/repo…
Thought experiment: suppose you had inherited an enormous executive branch that you couldn't trust to back you on key issues. How would you change it (assume, for the sake of argument, that you're acting in good faith)? Would you win every battle, do you think? How would you handle those in order to maximize your long-term strategic position?
51
@49: Would you want a conservative presidency to be able to repeal something like hate crimes laws by only putting up a token defense to a legal challenge?
52
AC @ 44,
I'm all in favor of having a cogent, intelligent conversation re: the politics of this, but have you actually read my effing posts??
Plz see #13 baby and get back to me. kthx.
Also, AMERICAblog summed up the nasty arguments in the brief.
I'm all in favor of having a cogent, intelligent conversation re: the politics of this, but have you actually read my effing posts??
Plz see #13 baby and get back to me. kthx.
Also, AMERICAblog summed up the nasty arguments in the brief.
54
The administration does it because they can. Why? Because they know that we're not going to vote for Romney (or any other Republican) in 2012. Then in 2016 the primaries will have new candidates that will claim to be "fierce advocates" of glbt equal rights- and we will be forced to decide if they are the real deal or not.
55
@52: That's nice that you read something that "summed up the nasty arguments in the brief." I'm reading the actual brief.
59
@51 / 58: The obligation of the DoJ is to actually defend the law, not just make a weak argument that might potentially work. To return to my hypothetical, would you be satisfied if the conservative DoJ restrained itself to only making arguments that were palatable to conservatives?
Our adversarial system depends on having both sides of a claim actually be represented, and I think people aren't actually considering the implications of the position they're asking the DoJ to take.
Our adversarial system depends on having both sides of a claim actually be represented, and I think people aren't actually considering the implications of the position they're asking the DoJ to take.
60
"Our adversarial system depends on having both sides of a claim actually be represented"
thats a great ideal, but not seen so much in practice; from pubic defender issues up through the most complicated and costly corporate ones, like tobacco. deals and settlements are made w/ out much regard for those sort of bucolic notions of adversarial jurisprudence.
thats a great ideal, but not seen so much in practice; from pubic defender issues up through the most complicated and costly corporate ones, like tobacco. deals and settlements are made w/ out much regard for those sort of bucolic notions of adversarial jurisprudence.
61
AC & OA, I think that you have more in common than you might like to admit. I think you're both beautiful, and that you might like to meet each-other at next month's gathering. I wouldn't be so lucky, but will continue to try. Hummana.
62
@60: Public defenders still represent the interests of their client in plea deals. Where they abdicate their duty to their client in the name of efficiency or getting along with the prosecution, they are breaking the rules of professional responsibility that bind all lawyers.
It isn't necessary to actually go to court for there to be an adversarial system - so long as both parties are represented by attorneys that advocate for the client's position in negotiation, the resulting settlement or deal is still a result of an adversarial process.
I take professional responsibility pretty seriously, and I'd hope that it's in that spirit that this motion was written, rather than some animus towards same-sex couples. I think the opening paragraph, previously referenced, supports that conclusion.
It isn't necessary to actually go to court for there to be an adversarial system - so long as both parties are represented by attorneys that advocate for the client's position in negotiation, the resulting settlement or deal is still a result of an adversarial process.
I take professional responsibility pretty seriously, and I'd hope that it's in that spirit that this motion was written, rather than some animus towards same-sex couples. I think the opening paragraph, previously referenced, supports that conclusion.
63
Anonymous Coward:
Your whole notion the administration has a duty to defend any law is such utter bullshit you must be a total liar. the president has a duty to defend the constitution this includes NOT DEFENDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS LIKE DOMA.
The constitution includes EQUALITY which mandates gay marriage PRIVACY which is a basis for many gay rights, and FULL FAITH AND CREDIT clause which REQUIRES Florida to recognize gay marriages from Vt.
So when you say "The obligation of the DoJ is to actually defend the [UNCONSTITUTIONAL] law" YOU ARE HOPELESSLY UNIFORMED AND NAIVE IF NOT A LIAR.
Now as to what to do. I can only say if a president did this to me -- defined me as vile and disgusting and slapped me in the face like this and all of the members of my core identity group -- I wouldn't be debating what to do.
I'd be organizing a sit in at t6he Federal building and a huge demonstration in Boston and fucking pickets outside the white house. Saying Equal Rights Now and shit like that. And "You Fooled Us." And "Fuck you."
Your whole notion the administration has a duty to defend any law is such utter bullshit you must be a total liar. the president has a duty to defend the constitution this includes NOT DEFENDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS LIKE DOMA.
The constitution includes EQUALITY which mandates gay marriage PRIVACY which is a basis for many gay rights, and FULL FAITH AND CREDIT clause which REQUIRES Florida to recognize gay marriages from Vt.
So when you say "The obligation of the DoJ is to actually defend the [UNCONSTITUTIONAL] law" YOU ARE HOPELESSLY UNIFORMED AND NAIVE IF NOT A LIAR.
Now as to what to do. I can only say if a president did this to me -- defined me as vile and disgusting and slapped me in the face like this and all of the members of my core identity group -- I wouldn't be debating what to do.
I'd be organizing a sit in at t6he Federal building and a huge demonstration in Boston and fucking pickets outside the white house. Saying Equal Rights Now and shit like that. And "You Fooled Us." And "Fuck you."
64
Are you people paying attention. The radical right and neo- nazi lunatic fringe are coalescing, mobilizing, and we are all at risk. The attack on the museum was a warning.
Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell are important but turn on Anderson Cooper 360 and see who the real enemy is. It is not Barack Obama.
Let's not get it twisted.
Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell are important but turn on Anderson Cooper 360 and see who the real enemy is. It is not Barack Obama.
Let's not get it twisted.
65
62: thats just adversarial process lite, and all too typical, whereas this brief; not so much, we'll see, sure reads like a hard line position. or at least one miscalculated against larger stated administration goals.
66
@63: How, exactly, is the fact that the Department of Justice is obliged to defend federal laws in court "utter bullshit?" As I explained above, giving the DoJ the power to allow challengers to win by default would necessarily include the power to retroactively veto any legislation, no matter how well-established. See, for instance, http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thela…
67
@Will in Seattle:
As John summarizes here, the story is now being covered by ABS, CBS, MSNBC, and AP:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/late-…
Is that good enough for you?
As John summarizes here, the story is now being covered by ABS, CBS, MSNBC, and AP:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/late-…
Is that good enough for you?
68
millions of readers and dollars and still no resolutions ...enough is enough...its time to get tough..i just saw that the jim rose circus vs. jake the snake roberts show is coming to town..i think its at the showbox market...recruit those beef cakes..im sure they can get further with this than the collective of intellectuals who seem to only be able to pontificate.
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 (68) RSS