Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, June 18, 2009
Politics / Homo Frank's Flip-Flop
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:44 AM
When he heard that the Obama administration compared gay marriage to incest and child rape, Barney Frank called it a "big mistake" and demanded a clarification from the White House about the president's real position. Now it looks like Barney has assumed the position:
“When I was called by a newspaper reporter for reaction to the administration’s brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, I made the mistake of relying on other people’s oral descriptions to me of what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first. It is a lesson to me that I should not give in to press insistence that I comment before I have had a chance fully to inform myself on the subject at hand.”“Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric."
So Barney backs the president's DOMA brief. Unbelievable.
UPDATE: And Frank's flip-flop flops...
The most senior openly gay elected official just defended Obama's move because, had the president not defending DOMA, he would've been doing something unethical—even though plenty of legal experts have confirmed Obama was not required in the least to defend DOMA, especially in such a vile manner. Meanwhile, this is not a "political" issue; it is a civil rights issue. Would Frank's stance be the same if, say, there were a law on the books saying gays couldn't vote? Or blacks couldn't marry? And Obama had defended those laws because, well, they were simply written down in the rulebook?
1
OK, so maybe the rose-colored glasses still have a bit of a pink tinge, but something is fishy about this. Why would Barney Frank do such an abrupt face? It just isn't in his nature to turn tail like that, not after everything he has gone through previously. It makes me wonder if there is something up the sleeve of this administration, some trump card that will be dropped soon...
Naaaahhhh!
Naaaahhhh!
4
My letter to the DNC of a few minutes ago:
"I just received a solicitation for a donation. I am writing to let you know that I will not be sending any more donations to the DNC (or DCCC or DSCC or Obama) until either DOMA or DADT has been repealed.
Period."
-Straight Ally who thinks it is all bs.
"I just received a solicitation for a donation. I am writing to let you know that I will not be sending any more donations to the DNC (or DCCC or DSCC or Obama) until either DOMA or DADT has been repealed.
Period."
-Straight Ally who thinks it is all bs.
5
"When he heard that the Obama administration compared gay marriage to incest and child rape"
Which isn't the case and never was.
Dan and Aravosis are feeling a little guilty about being advocates of doing nothing, it seems.
Which isn't the case and never was.
Dan and Aravosis are feeling a little guilty about being advocates of doing nothing, it seems.
6
What does Frank know about the Gay Agenda, anyway?
Or about the realities of achieving political progress?
Screw him!
Feed our outrage, Dan!!
Or about the realities of achieving political progress?
Screw him!
Feed our outrage, Dan!!
7
Barney Frank: Log Cabin Democrat. Clinging to a party based on issues that have nothing to do with one of the primary civil rights issues affecting his demographic.
8
Barney is only worried about his committee chairmanship, pure and simple. If he bucks the party on gay issues he looses that position.
10
Barney has been working on these issues harder than anyone for longer than anyone.
I see a lot of people making knee-jerk responses. I don't see a lot of people actually trying to understand Frank's position. It would have helped if Savage had quoted Frank's analysis and not just his summary.
“There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”
Do you see what he's saying about the brief being narrowly focused?
I see a lot of people making knee-jerk responses. I don't see a lot of people actually trying to understand Frank's position. It would have helped if Savage had quoted Frank's analysis and not just his summary.
“There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”
Do you see what he's saying about the brief being narrowly focused?
11
Again, we should put a lot of pressure on the administration. We can do a better job of it if we don't repeat Aravosis' lies about the brief referring to pedophilia.
12
Why would he do such an abrupt about-face? Possibly because he realized that Aravosis et al are full of shit?
See, for instance: http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/…
Repealing DOMA will happen when we put enough pressure on Congress, not by making shit up in order to get people angry at Obama.
See, for instance: http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/…
Repealing DOMA will happen when we put enough pressure on Congress, not by making shit up in order to get people angry at Obama.
13
"I made the mistake of relying on other people's descriptions to me of what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first".
Sound familiar to anyone? Was anyone relying on Savage, who was in turn relying on John Aravosis to tell you what's actually in the brief?
I'm not trying to shame anyone here, I'm just trying to encourage y'all to fully inform yourselves before hopping on the outrage bandwagon. Critical thinking = survival!
Sound familiar to anyone? Was anyone relying on Savage, who was in turn relying on John Aravosis to tell you what's actually in the brief?
I'm not trying to shame anyone here, I'm just trying to encourage y'all to fully inform yourselves before hopping on the outrage bandwagon. Critical thinking = survival!
14
Quick, quick, throw him under the bus! We have momentum, folks, can't let one gay guy in congress get in our way!
15
Barney is a total jack-ass. As I said in an earlier post, the happy househand on the Democratic Party plantation. What a jerk
18
@1
Um... Yeah. Some one had something up thier sleeve, and it was Obama.
Frank is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee which is in the process of making a breathtaking power grab by dramatically increasing HFSC regulation of that sector.
Funny how things happen. Frank says "bad Obama" then Obama says "maybe the Federal Reserve (not HFSC) should regulate the really big banks" Frank snaps back in line.
Frank describes himself as a "conspicuous nonworshiper at the Temple of the Fed," undoubtedly because it dilutes his committee's power.
Here's a clue for you. Frank cares more about his power than gay rights and that power is mainly manifested through HFSC, which Obama's newest policy threatens to castrate.
Um... Yeah. Some one had something up thier sleeve, and it was Obama.
Frank is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee which is in the process of making a breathtaking power grab by dramatically increasing HFSC regulation of that sector.
Funny how things happen. Frank says "bad Obama" then Obama says "maybe the Federal Reserve (not HFSC) should regulate the really big banks" Frank snaps back in line.
Frank describes himself as a "conspicuous nonworshiper at the Temple of the Fed," undoubtedly because it dilutes his committee's power.
Here's a clue for you. Frank cares more about his power than gay rights and that power is mainly manifested through HFSC, which Obama's newest policy threatens to castrate.
19
Ok, so Obama hasn't done anything to repeal DADT or DOMA, but neither has congress.
What the hell are they waiting for? Here's a president who says he'll sign those things if he gets them, so why don't they send him one already?
What the hell are they waiting for? Here's a president who says he'll sign those things if he gets them, so why don't they send him one already?
20
"Possibly because he realized that Aravosis et al are full of shit?"
I dunno... When I read that one good reason to uphold DOMA is that states have the right to prohibit under-age and incestuous relationships that sounds like a comparison to me.
So...you're saying that Rick Warren didn't compare our relationships to incest and bestiality either?
I dunno... When I read that one good reason to uphold DOMA is that states have the right to prohibit under-age and incestuous relationships that sounds like a comparison to me.
So...you're saying that Rick Warren didn't compare our relationships to incest and bestiality either?
23
Dan,
I'm really getting frustrated here. I am a big fan and supporter of yours. One of the reasons I like you so much is that you are so honest and forthright with people about issues that so many have such a hard time talking about in straightforward and real ways. You aren't always nice, but you are honest.
Your statement above that "the Obama administration compared gay marriage to incest and child rape" is NOT TRUE. You are pissing away your credibility by continuing to repeat it. In particular, the child rape thing is outrageous. Nothing about child rape anywhere in the brief.
@12 and 13, correct - right on.
@20 - you are misunderstaning the legal point in the brief. The cases cited were for the proposition that courts have often held that marriages that were valid in one jurisdiction did not necessarily HAVE to be recognized in other jurisdictions, where the same marriages would not have been valid in the first instance. That is all. Your invocation of Rick Warren is EXACTLY wrong. Nothing in the DOJ brief in any way makes an argument like "incestous and underage marriages are illegal and immoral, therefore same sex marriages should be as well." That argument would be totally irrelevant to the legal issues in the case. It's not in there.
I'm really getting frustrated here. I am a big fan and supporter of yours. One of the reasons I like you so much is that you are so honest and forthright with people about issues that so many have such a hard time talking about in straightforward and real ways. You aren't always nice, but you are honest.
Your statement above that "the Obama administration compared gay marriage to incest and child rape" is NOT TRUE. You are pissing away your credibility by continuing to repeat it. In particular, the child rape thing is outrageous. Nothing about child rape anywhere in the brief.
@12 and 13, correct - right on.
@20 - you are misunderstaning the legal point in the brief. The cases cited were for the proposition that courts have often held that marriages that were valid in one jurisdiction did not necessarily HAVE to be recognized in other jurisdictions, where the same marriages would not have been valid in the first instance. That is all. Your invocation of Rick Warren is EXACTLY wrong. Nothing in the DOJ brief in any way makes an argument like "incestous and underage marriages are illegal and immoral, therefore same sex marriages should be as well." That argument would be totally irrelevant to the legal issues in the case. It's not in there.
24
Good points Morrolan. Here's a link to a very good explanation of what's really happening here.
http://centerblue.org/2009/06/12/everyon…
It breaks down all the points with detail. Please read it. I didn't really understand all of this until I did. You'll note that this site actually shows the part of the brief that "compares gays to incest and child rape" unlike most posts here. That was the first time I've actually read it.
http://centerblue.org/2009/06/12/everyon…
It breaks down all the points with detail. Please read it. I didn't really understand all of this until I did. You'll note that this site actually shows the part of the brief that "compares gays to incest and child rape" unlike most posts here. That was the first time I've actually read it.
26
"you are misunderstaning the legal point in the brief. "
If our relationships are not similar in kind to the examples in the brief, then the point in question is...pointless.
If our relationships are not similar in kind to the examples in the brief, then the point in question is...pointless.
27
@26 No, the point has nothing to do with a similarity in the relationships, just the government's ability to allow different states to set their own rules about marriage and have that be constitutional.
29
"No, the point has nothing to do with a similarity in the relationships..."
Then it's meaningless. It's like saying the state can prohibit same sex marriage because they can choose their own state bird.
States can prohibit our relationships right along with relationships with underage kids and incestuous ones. Because our relationships, are like those kinds of relationships and unlike adult heterosexual relationships, including mixed race ones, which they can't prohibit. If the states could unilaterally make the rules here you'd have a valid argument. But they can't. A line was being drawn that included our households with the other examples, so as to distinguish our homes from those of heterosexual adults whose marriages are constitutionally protected.
And they didn't have to use those specific examples, even to make the point you claim they were making, such as it was. We were grouped in with child molesters for effect. And probably, because that's what the person(s) who wrote the brief really think of us. This was not a reasoned, professional defense of DOMA. It was a fanatical one. Tony Perkins could have written that brief. James Dobson could have written it. Ken Hutchinson could have written it.
So. Here we are. And Rick Warren really wasn't comparing our relationships to incest and bestiality after all. He was just saying he considers our relationships sinful...just like those others. It was about the Rules. Barney should apologize to Rick too.
Then it's meaningless. It's like saying the state can prohibit same sex marriage because they can choose their own state bird.
States can prohibit our relationships right along with relationships with underage kids and incestuous ones. Because our relationships, are like those kinds of relationships and unlike adult heterosexual relationships, including mixed race ones, which they can't prohibit. If the states could unilaterally make the rules here you'd have a valid argument. But they can't. A line was being drawn that included our households with the other examples, so as to distinguish our homes from those of heterosexual adults whose marriages are constitutionally protected.
And they didn't have to use those specific examples, even to make the point you claim they were making, such as it was. We were grouped in with child molesters for effect. And probably, because that's what the person(s) who wrote the brief really think of us. This was not a reasoned, professional defense of DOMA. It was a fanatical one. Tony Perkins could have written that brief. James Dobson could have written it. Ken Hutchinson could have written it.
So. Here we are. And Rick Warren really wasn't comparing our relationships to incest and bestiality after all. He was just saying he considers our relationships sinful...just like those others. It was about the Rules. Barney should apologize to Rick too.
30
@29
A few points:
1. If you read the brief, you will see NOTHING in it that argues that same sex marriage is a bad thing that should be outlawed. Rather, you will see laid out the facts that some states permit it, while others have passed laws that expressly state that they will not recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
2. If you go and read either the analysis linked @24 or my post here http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…, you will see that the context of the argument has nothing to do with whether or not same sex marriage is good policy, is morally good or bad, or anything of the sort. Rather, you will see that the cases everyone is in an uproar about are simply legal holdings that say "Where one state permits a marriage, another state can expressly say that marriage will not be recoginzed under the second state's law."
3. "We were grouped in with child molesters for effect." The context and facts involved belie that. The case that was cited involved the marriage of a 16 year old that was permitted under New Mexico law but not under New Jersey law. The vast majority of states TODAY allow 16 year olds to marry with parental consent. Someone who marries a 16 year old in a state where that is permitted is not a child molester.
A few points:
1. If you read the brief, you will see NOTHING in it that argues that same sex marriage is a bad thing that should be outlawed. Rather, you will see laid out the facts that some states permit it, while others have passed laws that expressly state that they will not recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
2. If you go and read either the analysis linked @24 or my post here http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…, you will see that the context of the argument has nothing to do with whether or not same sex marriage is good policy, is morally good or bad, or anything of the sort. Rather, you will see that the cases everyone is in an uproar about are simply legal holdings that say "Where one state permits a marriage, another state can expressly say that marriage will not be recoginzed under the second state's law."
3. "We were grouped in with child molesters for effect." The context and facts involved belie that. The case that was cited involved the marriage of a 16 year old that was permitted under New Mexico law but not under New Jersey law. The vast majority of states TODAY allow 16 year olds to marry with parental consent. Someone who marries a 16 year old in a state where that is permitted is not a child molester.
31
I want to make another point here.
I am a very strong supporter of same sex marriage and a full equalization of rights and elimination of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The exaggeration and hyperbolic outrage about this brief and what it says is a distraction - it doesn't help.
I am a very strong supporter of same sex marriage and a full equalization of rights and elimination of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The exaggeration and hyperbolic outrage about this brief and what it says is a distraction - it doesn't help.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS