Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, June 27, 2009
Politics / Homo The White House Can't Pick and Choose What Laws to Enforce
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Except when it can.
The White House has decided to ignore certain provisions in the new war spending bill that the administration considers unconstitutional. Obama isn't challenging the law in court, he's not asking Congress to change the law. He's just going to ignore it. Take it away John:
Remember, President Obama won't even do what is legally in his power to do with regards to providing gay federal employees health benefits, opposing DOMA in court, or issuing a stop-loss order to halt the two-a-day discharge of gay US service members—all things that are legally in the president's power to do under US law. Team Obama's logic? The law is the law, and they won't challenge US law, lest they look like the lawless Bush administration that preceded them. But when it comes to outright ignoring US law, claiming the law is unconstitutional and not even going to court to prove their case, then the Obama team is happy to ignore the law—provided the law has nothing to do with those pesky homosexuals and their inconvenient human rights.
But, hey, the DNC raised a $1 million* last week at their big gay fundraiser, so... we're good, right?
* I'll believe it when I see the financial reports. So far we've only heard that number from an unnamed "DNC source," someone who would be interested in tamping down the controversy and convincing people that only a handful of crazy bloggers were pissed about the DOMA brief. There were 180 people at the fundraiser and tickets were $1000 a piece and not everyone paid to attend. Some people paid more than $1000, but for 180 people to raise $1 million dollars the average attendee would have to have donated more than $5,500. Doable, sure, but I want to see the financial reports.
1
I don't know what to say, it appears to my layman perspective that when it comes to equal rights everything rides on "ifs". I'm sure I'm naive about this, but it sounds like the Obama's message is, He'll use his authority and sign "if" there is a majority of Congress members who ask him to. Getting Congress members to sign on, appears to only happen "if" only enough of their constituents declare that these issues are important to them. Constituents only make their positions heard "if" they make the time to pester their reps. It baffles me that equality and civil rights could be so dependent on "ifs". When did doing whats morally right, become a popularity contest? Then again, politics is a career, and getting re-elected is the primary focus.
2
Bad analysis again. Aravosis has proven he can't be trusted.
I don't really agree with signing statements, but there's also a significant difference between a signing statement and asking the DOJ to legislate on behalf of the executive branch.
Aravosis is conflating a whole bunch of different legal processes--a stop-loss order, an executive memorandum, a district court case. All of these have their own sets of rules, precedents, etc. Hell, I even agree that a stop-loss order could be a good solution. But the lying about executive power doesn't make your case stronger.
Meanwhile Barney Frank is trying to drum up the votes for ENDA, and needs our help. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc5pbmw3_…
I don't really agree with signing statements, but there's also a significant difference between a signing statement and asking the DOJ to legislate on behalf of the executive branch.
Aravosis is conflating a whole bunch of different legal processes--a stop-loss order, an executive memorandum, a district court case. All of these have their own sets of rules, precedents, etc. Hell, I even agree that a stop-loss order could be a good solution. But the lying about executive power doesn't make your case stronger.
Meanwhile Barney Frank is trying to drum up the votes for ENDA, and needs our help. http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc5pbmw3_…
4
@2
That is the crux of my personal complaint against Avarosis. I think he is purposely disingenuous, and just keeps saying; "I'm a lawyer! I know things!" and people eat it up (case in point; the DOMA brief. How many people actually read it start to finish, then commented?). Maybe he's concluded that getting the GLBT community angry enough is what it will take to change policy, and using straight (pun intended) facts just won't do it.
That is the crux of my personal complaint against Avarosis. I think he is purposely disingenuous, and just keeps saying; "I'm a lawyer! I know things!" and people eat it up (case in point; the DOMA brief. How many people actually read it start to finish, then commented?). Maybe he's concluded that getting the GLBT community angry enough is what it will take to change policy, and using straight (pun intended) facts just won't do it.
5
I don't get it. Every sentence Dan has written for more than the past week now has contained either the word "John" or "Aravosis."
Dan, have you no thoughts of your own? Are you hot for John? If so, do something about it and spare us your schoolgirl crush.
Dan, have you no thoughts of your own? Are you hot for John? If so, do something about it and spare us your schoolgirl crush.
6
Enda is something all decent americans can support. I hope Frank finds the votes he needs this time. Not this discredited stuff which is masquerading for their dislike of the President.
7
Hi Dan, I am a fan of your podcast.
I just want to add something, I'm not gay, but I feel that Obama has been a let down in regards to gay rights. But you can't really expect that he's going to make everything better. I never expected that he was going to solve all of my problems. And he is pretty busy, with two wars, tanking economy, North Korea, and Iran. So the gays may not be on the top of his agenda. BUT I also think that if there is a president that is going to get anything done for the homosexual community, it's Barack Obama. BUT you have to make him do it.
I think gays and lesbians need to get organized, and become a political force. It looks like you're going to have to get down in the dirt, and do some politics. It might be difficult work, but it has to be done. Gays need to become a thorn in Obama's side (as well as the Democrats.)
Gays are going to have to start pressuring their representatives and senators, as well as their president. You're going to have to engage in the political process.
Let them know they can't take you for granted.
Now, let me think a minute, where's a city with a lot of gays who can start bugging their representative?
Social change starts from the bottom up, and not from the top down. Geez, that sounds nasty.
I just want to add something, I'm not gay, but I feel that Obama has been a let down in regards to gay rights. But you can't really expect that he's going to make everything better. I never expected that he was going to solve all of my problems. And he is pretty busy, with two wars, tanking economy, North Korea, and Iran. So the gays may not be on the top of his agenda. BUT I also think that if there is a president that is going to get anything done for the homosexual community, it's Barack Obama. BUT you have to make him do it.
I think gays and lesbians need to get organized, and become a political force. It looks like you're going to have to get down in the dirt, and do some politics. It might be difficult work, but it has to be done. Gays need to become a thorn in Obama's side (as well as the Democrats.)
Gays are going to have to start pressuring their representatives and senators, as well as their president. You're going to have to engage in the political process.
Let them know they can't take you for granted.
Now, let me think a minute, where's a city with a lot of gays who can start bugging their representative?
Social change starts from the bottom up, and not from the top down. Geez, that sounds nasty.
8
It shouldn't just be "gays", speedreeder. It should be everyone who believes in civil rights. Have you written a letter or made a phone call to your own representative, letting him know that gay civil rights are important to you? You don't have to be gay to do it.
I realise here that I'm Canadian and I can't contact my own representative about this particular issue. But I sure did way back when gay marriage was an issue in our legislature--and it was a big issue for several years. Bill C-38 (which changed the definition of marriage) was put to loads of redundant votes trying to kill it, and often just narrowly passed, a lot of the time because MPs who were against gay marriage were convinced by their constituents or their party leader not to show up for the vote.
On a side note, there's no way gay marriage would be legalized under our current government. We found our window--when the Liberals were in power--and we pushed our advantage, and it was a narrow advantage. (Our Prime Ministers during the votes (Jean Chretien, Paul Martin) were personally against gay marriage.) This looks like gay marriage's window in the US. It looks like Obama doesn't care much about gay rights, but he's push-able. So I agree with speedreeder that people have to get angry. I just don't think it should only be the gay people.
I realise here that I'm Canadian and I can't contact my own representative about this particular issue. But I sure did way back when gay marriage was an issue in our legislature--and it was a big issue for several years. Bill C-38 (which changed the definition of marriage) was put to loads of redundant votes trying to kill it, and often just narrowly passed, a lot of the time because MPs who were against gay marriage were convinced by their constituents or their party leader not to show up for the vote.
On a side note, there's no way gay marriage would be legalized under our current government. We found our window--when the Liberals were in power--and we pushed our advantage, and it was a narrow advantage. (Our Prime Ministers during the votes (Jean Chretien, Paul Martin) were personally against gay marriage.) This looks like gay marriage's window in the US. It looks like Obama doesn't care much about gay rights, but he's push-able. So I agree with speedreeder that people have to get angry. I just don't think it should only be the gay people.
9
MichelleZB,
Thanks for sharing. It isn't just a "gay" issue to some of us here. I'm doing just what you said, contacting my representatives. Hopefully, I'm just one of a huge number who are doing so.
Thanks for sharing. It isn't just a "gay" issue to some of us here. I'm doing just what you said, contacting my representatives. Hopefully, I'm just one of a huge number who are doing so.
10
John Aravosis has all the intellectual depth of a high school sophomore writing an expose for her school newspaper about broken tampon machines.
Don't forget, he was trained as a Republican, and knows how to use half-truths and target words to get the base worked up - and you don't get much more "base" than the Stranger staff.
He and his cult of bobble head boneheads are in their own little world.
Don't forget, he was trained as a Republican, and knows how to use half-truths and target words to get the base worked up - and you don't get much more "base" than the Stranger staff.
He and his cult of bobble head boneheads are in their own little world.
11
Have any of you considered the possibility that Obama might be legitimately homophobic, that he just used the gays for their vote and now intends to stall and backstab for the next 4 years? Because that's the conclusion I first jumped to when the DOMA brief came out. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense.
13
Dan, you and your new bff John seem to think gay $ accounts for a huge % of dnc donations. Does it? Any idea how much financial leverage you actually have?
P.S. John really is a hack.
P.S. John really is a hack.
16
@13, David Geffen's loaded. ;-]
The gay community might not be a huge % of people overall, but as a rule they are politically aware and active, and there are some big money gay players in the Dem circle. When those checks stop, the DNC notices. And I do hope those checks have stopped...
The gay community might not be a huge % of people overall, but as a rule they are politically aware and active, and there are some big money gay players in the Dem circle. When those checks stop, the DNC notices. And I do hope those checks have stopped...
17
@16
Your comment is attached to a story about a Gay fundraiser that reportedly raised a million dollars. Also, David Geffen ain't going anywhere. He liked power and access to much.
Your comment is attached to a story about a Gay fundraiser that reportedly raised a million dollars. Also, David Geffen ain't going anywhere. He liked power and access to much.
18
I had fun being in the parade on Sunday (with two groups) and then watching as the large ACTION-oriented Canadian group marched by.
Actions are what matter. Parades are fun - but if you won't take physical concrete action then nothing will change.
Insist, politely but firmly, on your civil rights. Nobody will give them to you.
Actions are what matter. Parades are fun - but if you won't take physical concrete action then nothing will change.
Insist, politely but firmly, on your civil rights. Nobody will give them to you.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS