Obama administration and DOMA
By John Amato Sunday Jun 14, 2009 12:00pmIt's very sad to see the Obama administration act like this.
Joe Sudbay:
Gay Americans lost rights last November in California. We had fundamental rights taken away by an election. Think about that. When was the last time that happened in this country?
Yesterday, a Democratic President of the United States of America, in the year 2009, and an African-American child of inter-racial parents no less, gave his lawyers the go ahead to compare our marriages to incest on the same day that 42 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in his parents' favor in Loving v. Virginia. And these people, along with our President, are suggesting that the appropriate response is to shrug our shoulders and go home, since, after all, the law is the law?
So, yes, I am advocating that we push the envelope and demand new and creative thinking on legal issues, on our civil and human rights. That's how change happens (there's that pesky word again). That's what we expect from our President who promised change, who promised to be a "fierce advocate" for our rights. Yesterday's homophobic brief would have met the expectations we had from George Bush (or Jerry Falwell). From President Barack Obama, it was an appalling betrayal of our humanity, and his own.
The Gay community gets slapped once again in the face.
Digby writes:
And likewise, merely because an unjust law is on the books doesn't mean that its right for the DOJ to defend it, particularly with the kind of inflammatory and (one hopes) disingenuous arguments used in the brief. This isn't God's Law we're talking about (assuming there were such a thing.) This is just a system set up by human beings to create an orderly and (hopefully) just society. Separating justice from the law makes the law nothing more than an arbitrary exercise in power. I recognize that it is that mostly anyway, but there's no reason to legitimize that by saying that anything goes as long as it's "legal."
If he really felt constrained by the law in this case, Eric Holder could have simply argued that the couple in question didn't have standing and let it go at that. The other arguments were gratuitous and seem to me to be designed to form a strong legal bulwark in favor of the law rather than setting the stage for reversing it. Which brings us to the politics.
Needless to say, after so many slights, snubs and various betrayals it's pretty hard to deny that the LGBT community is being used as a pawn in the president's "outreach" to social conservatives. It's a cruel dismissal of a strong and loyal constituency on an issue of fundamental civil rights. I can't defend it and I don't know how the administration is going to keep defending it. And it won't buy them a single vote, I guarantee it.
Login or Register to post comments.
.
Nameplates, underwear and the dog...
... "CHANGE" completed.
Next opportunity for more change is just 3.5 years away.
.
furious. Could someone remind me again how very different than Bushco this guy's going to be?
can blame Obama for the arguments of the lawyers. Show me where he told them to argue the case in any way.
Clients set the goals, lawyers try to accomplish them for the client.
the DOJ. Jusst because Bush used the Gonzo as a personal lawyer, didn't make it legal.
Who is driving the train?
command. Or do you think they're just freelancing a decision like this?
The Republicans in the Senate are holding up the confirmation hearings on a lot of Obama's appointees to the DoJ. There are a lot of empty offices, and a lot of offices at Justice still occupied by Bush loyalists.
*
not responding to an empty box
That's why I never respond to conservatives, lol!
The man is looking more and more like Bush in blackface.
And there went your credibility.
I'm hoping he's just trying to play it safe until his administration is more stable and solidified and less vulnerable to attack. However, if it's yet again the same old same old from another Dem, then I, for one, say FU to ever getting my votes again unless you actually DO and ACCOMPLISH something in favor of Gay people.
at 13:15.
Mr Obama has did a turnabout on Don't ask, and seems content to sit on his ass and not move forward on this issue. I still stand by my statement.
or that it happened under his direction.
where is is action overturning this?
Silence implies consent.
In this case, silence implies respecting the line drawn between the WH and the DOJ.
direction of their clients. This is a fact. Look it up. Call any lawyer. Ask them. I am not making this up. They are his lawyers. I am not abandoning him, just pointing out a fact in an effort to answer your question and not spin mental wheels arguing something that is settled.
The client establishes the goal, the lawyer tries to attain it.
The clients of the DOJ are the American people, ultimately. The DOJ is not at the beck and call of the WH, or do you not recall the issues surrounding Bush and his pimping of the DOJ?
I hope so, too. I've got no recourse over the next 3.5 years but to hope that he turns out to be the man I think he can be, so that's what I'll do. But I don't get behind the whole, 'president doesn't have complete control' thing, because that's a Republican talking point. He's the fucking president--if he wanted to move rights for LGBT people foward, he could do it. He SHOULD do it. He MUST do it.
And the President is not a monarch with unilateral authority.
but it does keep a bunch of strident, violent, stupid voices silent, which iotherwise would be constantly in the news berating him for his perversions.
And if it doesn't gain any votes, it doesn't cost him any, either.
I mean, the GLBT may stay home next time, but who else will they vote for if they do vote?
It's the 'lib/prog' dilemma.
Staying home is still a vote he doesn't get. Clinton reached out the Republicans and what did it get him, impeached. If Obama doesn't have backs of those who put him into office we won't have his back when those he's reaching out to who will never support him stabs him in the back. I supported Obama in borh the primary and the generals but I'm about done with this guy.
Like he reached out to Monica? lol
how many will he need then to win? It is not a "zero sum" situation.
After all, "who will they vote for if they vote", right? Just a bunch of overly dramatic fags and if they don't vote, who cares? No harm, no foul right? This has got to be one of the ugliest comments I have seen at Crooks and Liars.
remember "divide and conquer" works. Perhaps some eloquence has been replaced with anger at the moment. Most of us are on the same side, right?
Ask woody. Ask ron. They seem to be defending the status quo though how anyone can defend graduated civil rights is beyond me.
I leave the debate to you. You seem to have it well under control.
Through all of this, neither has addressed any of what I've said. That's why political partisans of any stripe aren't helpful to this discussion.
I'm with you Maragret. People don't understand what it's like to live without equal rights if they have theirs already.
They might as well just say they think equal rights are for most, but not all. Some pigs are more equal than others.
And, after all, it's not like Obama has any influence in the United States of America, right?
I think that they are being somewhat pragmatic.
It's only his first 6 months in office. I'm not too happy about this either. In fact, my patience is wearing thin.
But, I have to remind myself that he has only been in office for less than 12 months. If you recall, back in the Primaries, I was for HRC. And I also said that they were two peas in a pod. I still believe that. But the thing that is important is what he accomplishes in the long term. I think you know how I feel about the term " We The People" to me it means ALL of the People. Not some or the privileged few.
I suspect, that he will make a move on this in his second term. That way he won't have to worry about the political repercussions of this kind of topic being pushed through.
In the meantime, he's losing support from his base.
Politics suck. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I still think someone will try to kill him. Ugly is that is, it's a real factor. I haven't given up on him yet. But he's making it difficult with decisions like this one.
But he's still better than McCain.
have been his election slogan.
Honestly, he's been in office only six months, so how could he possible have had the time to make a decision about the civil rights of gay people (although he came out for equal rights during the campaign, naturally)? After all, Obama's gotta keep torturing prisoners, shoveling money at the banks, ratcheting up our imperial wars, etc. etc.
He has stopped torture. Banks? well we could all up bread lines now. would that make you feel better?
I'm talkin months of being in bread lines. Tens of millions in bread lines. All those banks would have just closed their doors. And pretty much left it in the lap of the FDIC. Which didn't have enough funds to cover all of the loses. So, Tens of millions would have had to resort to breadlines. Hey, I don't like the idea or the fact that we bailed out the banks and auto industry. I disagree with it completely.
But in this particular situation that the previous dumbass in chief left US. All of Us. I think Obama prevented a major catastrophe here.
Iraq, as much as I want us to just get the hell outta there. We can't just pack up and leave.
He has made deadlines for our departure.
I'll have to wait and see how that plays out, Just like the rest of us.
Afghanistan. Another problem he inherited.
But getting back to this threads topic.
If he goes for it, he'll be a one term president and the GOP will resume power.
My money is on his second term. I think he'll push this through during that time period.
That way, it's not a political liability.
If he pushed this, similar to what Clinton tried( I'm implying just trying) he'll face strong resistence from the right. Which give them more votes.
He has to choose his battles wisely. He needs to pick the time for each one. To take this one on now,
would be a fools errand.
just my opinion. food for thought mebbe
On the letting banks fail...I don't know enough on the topic to make an informed comment, but with FDIC, even if the banks had gone under, people would still have their money up to FDIC limits. So the people who had more than 100,000 in the bank would have been screwed, but the little guys (like me) would have been okay. I know there were concerns that FDIC wouldn't have enough $$ to function, but couldn't they have just propped up FDIC instead of the banks?
Gotten their money first?
The common folk?
plus Boosh raised the limit to 250k( I think it was 250k)before he left office. He knew all this was going to happen and pushed it off to the next guy .
So, this is all Boosh's doing. He just pushed it off to the next guy to deal with. McCain would have done it. Clinton would have done it.
And I'd be willing to bet Kusinich would have done it too.
Thank you! I didn't even think of that.
I'm with you. I'm disappointed, but not ready to give up 'hope' yet. Keep 'hope' alive and 'hope' he does what we put him in for.
Eh, if gay people don't vote for him and he loses in 2012, it's not like the situation for LGBT people can get much worse, rights-wise. Someone should remind him of that if he's following the 'who else would they vote for?" train of thought.
them one less thing to shriek about. Considering they'll shriek about anything that bothers them, including things they've made up, I don't see the victory here.
...but those strident violent voices are doing that anyway. He can stick with his faux-centrist points for the next 3.5 years and the right will still scream Liberal! Socialist! Fascist! He can pander to them for 4 years and they'll still shit on him in 2012. It's time to start pandering to the people who elected him!
Between this and the cash bailouts to American auto manufacturers, his reserving his right to authorizing enhanced interrogation, and now these DOMA briefs, Barry has officially failed in less than 200 days. At this stage, I'd take Jimmy Carter II over this guy.
Slow news day?
I assume you aren't gay otherwise you might not be quite so dismissive.
"They came for the Jews, I did nothing. They came for the blacks, I did nothing. They came for the gays, I did nothing. Then one day, they came for me."
but that's not the point.
If this post were about someone coming after your rights I don't think you would comment "WTF, slow news day?"
Unless you were a milquetoast.
13:35. Thee DOJ is not Obama's lawyers.
Then why did you do a completely separate post instead of posting that comment under the same comment string?
I'm not a big city lawyer, but seems like you're back peddling. fine if you are, just sayin.
I respect your rights but The DOJ is not attorneys for Obama. What is it you don't get. You all are blaming Obama for something he has no control over.
Seems there is a lot he campaigned and got elected on he seems to "have no control over".
I guess that's my main point.
you said Obama has 'no control' over the DOJ.
Of course he does! The AG serves at the President's pleasure, and the DOJ is part of the executive branch.
he can fire them, you could be right but he has to have a very legitimate reason to do it.
.
If he's following the law, he does not have control over the DOJ. Do you think Clinton put Ken Starr to work?
Whether you want this to be so or not.
you want him to run things like Bush and Cheney did, a dictatorship. I don't.
Yawn.
and you certainly don't seem to understand facts. You say I devolved into name calling? OK, you are lame brained.
?
After all HE has full citizenship and civil rights...What does he care if a bunch of fags hold their breath and stamp their feet? I wish I hadn't stopped into this thread, the selfishness of one group dismissing another group's civil rights is abominable. I'd still stand up for his rights, even if he won't make a stand for mine.
That is almost TOTALLY the point. WHOOOSH right over your pointed little head.
The old "if it doesn't affect me, then no one should care" argument.
How many times have I heard this from hets?
Please let us know.
Slow news day?
I once saw you tell a troll you are a "respected member" of C&L, but I guess you don't count the opinions of the many gays that come here every day in that comment.
Slow news day, with all your rights intact. OK, whatever bro. Enjoy.
I respect their rights. Do you just pick and choose what you want to whine about?
Was that whining?
bitching about.
Because, in thise case, you deserve it. I am not against you, but I think you should re-think where you stand.
The POTUS has a hell of a lot of input into what gets priority, and this seems not to hold much interest for him.
In the USA, it is my belief that all men are created equal and entitled to equal rights. Am I wrong? This should be a high priority; portecting Americans' rights. It shouldn't even need to be discussed, just done.
The people fighting it are bigots and religious zealots. America is not a place where a majority can usurp the rights of a minority. That was done in the past with non-whites. It's time to ensure the rights of gays too.
still can't influence a legal decision by the DOJ. It's not Obama's fault. If you can't get that through your thick skull then I don't know what else to do.
Whenever you feel cornered, you go personal, so I'm ending this discussion with you.
I suppose everything will be OK when I say, "You are right." My thick skull is not interested in continuing.
on the legality of Obama influencing the DOJ and you say I'm cornered when you won't recognize a word I'm saying and turn everything into an attack on gays. You do need to stop.
Get a clue.
So what? He still does not, nor is he allowed to legally, exercise control over DOJ.
I believe homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples in the eyes of the state.
The problem comes in when the issue is framed using the word "marriage." That word refers to religious doctrines, and unfortunately has also come to refer to the state's recognition of the rights of a couple who have joined for a long-term partnership. This is unfortunate because the state should be interested in protecting the civil definition, and should not have anything to do with the religious definition.
If gay couples insist on conflating these two different understandings, they will always lose the debate, because as soon as religion is the subject, it is completely subjective. You cannot force a church to recognize anything, not even science and logic.
If a "civil union" refers to the partnership between two individuals regardless of gender, and these rights are protected by the state, this is not "separate but equal" just because some religious figure refuses to recognize the same-sex unions as "marriage." The gay rights movement would do well to give up on trying to changing language that is subjective and emotional, and instead insist on their equal rights before the law.
Stop making it about the word "marriage". It's about full citizenship and civil rights. I don't care if your superstition says that I shouldn't be allowed to vote, as long as I pay taxes and am a citizen of this country I should be able to. I guess it's easier to defend though if we allow you to make it about a word rather than about civil rights.
if what it's about is legal parity.
Marriage, civil union, yachtzee, Herman? Who cares, as long as the rights and privileges are equal?
explain exactly what their objections are. Not in trite cliches, but in actual fact based statements? Enough of this Rovian/Limbo crap. What could be wrong with people taking care of each other?
No one is trying to force a church to do anything. Stop whining about it. If it's "just a word" then why are you whining about it? It would just be easier in the long to keep the same terms, rather than making separate categories for what is essentially the same thing.
No emotion, no drama...other than from right whiners.
Margaret and I are in complete agreement. I am making the case that it should be about legal parity, period.
Liberalicious, you are the one saying it's "just a word." Words matter. If rights are the issue, creating one word for a state recognized union which does not insult religious people should be a no-brainer (unless the agenda is also to insult religious people, which I think would be a mistake).
That marriage just just be about the legality. But a same sex union does not insult anyone. The word is there, why come up with another term for the same thing? I refuse to kowtow to religious people just to make sure their precious feelings aren't hurt. Why do we have to make it so difficult? The only change would be making the form used so one can also use male/male or female/female. Churches don't HAVE to perform any ceremony....and problem solved. Oh but Baby Jesus might cry, so we need to make a whole new set of rules and regulations and documents, etc. No thank you. We did not need to redefine any terms for interracial marriage and we don't need it here.
Oh yes, any person that finds a same-sex marriage as an insult....guess what? That's THEIR problem isn't it? Not mine. Unless you agree that if I find Hetero marriage disgusting, then we must redefine that too.
We agree that it is about rights not language but apparently that's where we part. I personally couldn't care any less about someone's superstition or their delicate sensibilities. The problem in insisting that we do defer to peoples' ridiculous beliefs is that no one defers to MY beliefs and therefore I don't enjoy full citizenship. Who got to decide that their superstition takes precedence over my equality? Cause nobody asked me.
I kinda thought metric's statement about you was bogus.
I personally believe marriage should only be about a legal contract, with an optional ceremony of the couple's choosing.
But the word is too ingrained. Making up new terms will not help in the long run.
I think metric wanted to cite me to make him/herself seem more reasonable but obviously missed my point. It's insulting really that someone would claim to speak for me.
You are right, we do part ways at the language (my initial point).
You love to be insulted. That's the problem. You don't care about insulting someone's feelings, your feelings trump all. Good luck with that. You just continue to point the finger at a religious person and scream "superstition!" and they point a finger at you and say "heathen debauchery" and see who comes out on top.
of those who misuse the word "marriage" and give it a specific meaning that it really does not have. Isn't this co-opting?
They could call it lasagna, as in I'm getting lasagna-ed this weekend, but I doubt these who object would say, "Oh, they're getting lasagna-ed, more power to them. Isn't that lovely."
Which planet are you from? It's a civil rights issue.
Over at Daily Kos. In fact, he was vigorous in his defense. None of these people who are defending Obama over DOMA mention a couple of inconvenient little facts though. They don't explain why his DOJ chose to defend the law by citing incest and pedophelia first and second, How he and the DOJ defend DOMA doesn't have any impact on why he sent White House attorneys to the SCOTUS to defend Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As Commander in Chief, he could sign an order and immediately stop enforcement of that little jewel. So I would ask the apologists this: If you can't be honest enough with yourself to address the entire anti LGBT history of the Obama administration, then I recommend that you stop trying to defend Obama breaking promises he specifically made to ensure that a large segment of the population doesn't enjoy full citizenship. How can anyone defend the indefensible? I shouldn't have to point this out but naturally born, tax paying, law abiding citizens being denied full citizenship and equal civil rights in the United States is the definition of indefensible.
... on purpose, in order to lob the judicial a softball that virtually obligates them to negate the law.
Is that possible?
I said it before the United states of America I was taught about in middle school, never existed, nor will it ever. This is why our union is crumbling, why our social structure is defunct. Civil rights as long as it doesn't harm another, but actually the opposite is happening, we give the civil rights to FOX(and right wing commentators) to cause hate and violence. We take rights from homosexuals, we ignore the rights of the Medical pot crowd even locking them in prison. Beating on Mexicans, Muslims, gays, Blacks, ect ect ect, and at the same time immigrants from India are allowed to come to our country TAX free, and get business loans easier than a white person with a family that has been in this country paying taxes into the system for generations. NAFTA and WTO, federal reserve............All these problems and when a guy like Dennis Kucinich stands up, we all ridicule him and go with the corporate money masters with ties to secret societys. Seriously man, Seriously.
It is way past time to push for real representatives.
Latest FaBlog: The Shotgun Sings The Song.
this isnt change anyone can believe in. in fact, its disillusioning. im an independent for a reason, and with actions like this i'm just reminded why i'm not a member of any political party. they could have changed the wording in parts of this brief, as it was written by a Bush DOJ lawyer who's also a Mormon (and I read that on Andrew Sullivan), but Holder/Obama left all the bigoted and hateful words in there. if he doesnt get rid of DADT or support ENDA or some gay-related legislation before 2012 i'm not voting for him again. and ill encourage others not to. and no im not voting for any republican, so thats a nonstarter. this ruling couldve been handled better by Obama. it sure seems like he doesnt care about gay issues. yeah, go figure a pol not caring about a constituency, just a means to an end. sigh, same old story.
There is no point to it. The system is rigged and no candidate is ever going to change it.
If one were to try they would never be allowed to run.
The only way tochange the system is to TEAR IT DOWN.
The WH says:
White House spokesman Shin Inouye said the Justice Department, in submitting the brief, was following its normal practice of defending a 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," Inouye said of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender couples.
"However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."
Scroll down for update.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Could Obama's DOJ provide a less than zealous defense of a valid statute? Probably not, but I keep thinking about the botched Stevens prosecution.
If I am following things correctly I would like to make the following two points
First:
I believe that President Obama is as responsible for this as he was for Air Force One doing a low flyover of New York City.
Second:
After a quick reading of the brief, I think it is a legitimate request for the dismissal of a lawsuit that is frivolous in the way in which it was filed.
The plaintiffs have a valid marriage but they are complaining that
IF they were married four months after they were married
and IF they were to move to another state
and IF they applied for benefits as a married couple they
MIGHT suffer from having their rights denied.
If I am interpreting this correctly I agree with the actions of the DOJ.
Finally someone with some sense. Obama hasn't suddenly shifted to a rabid homophobe because of this. Not every brief filed by the DOJ gets approved by Holder, let alone Obama.
He was ALWAYS a rabid homophobe.
If you truly believe that then you know you're screwed so what's the point in bitching about it?
the GLBT community in here, and the issues of our rights. From people who are supposed to be our allies. Sad.
Scary stuff.
African Americans vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage. We've also turned on the unions, the bankruptcy bill from a couple of years ago was skewed against the working poor. The list goes on and on.
Here we go again, blaming black folks for the disorganized movement against prop. 8.
I want to believe in my heart that Obama isn't a homophobe but things like this make me believe that he is or that whoever is advising him sure is. It's funny that some people on the left defend Obama on everything even when they know it's not right or fair, they remind me of Bush supporters to a T. It's like they don't care. Obama can do the exact same thing that (we on the left )troubed us about Bush and they will defend it. Just because it's Obama doing it and not Bush doesn't some how make it magicaly alright. We then hear from people who say, Give Obama time, he'll get to it. that's fine but until he "find time" to remedy the problem can't he at least stop the bleedng. I guess we don't matter since we are viewed by society as "not normal" or "less than" anyway. I guess they feel who are we going to turn to. so they have no problem throwing us under the bus and running over us back nnd forth. I miss the old before he was pres. Obama. you know the "fierce advocate" we have to stay strong,these are trying times all my gay brothers nnd sisters.
I sure wish we had a voice and strength of integrity for civil rights like the King widow in the deficient Obama administration. Why can't they just take and implement these values, instead of trashing them?
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/02/co...
You don't need a voice in the Obama administration. You need a voice period. Who is the leader of the movement right now? Is there one?
Isn't that screamingly obvious? What do you need? Flash Cards?
If this overly vigorous, slanderous defense of DOMA by President Obama is a way of reaching out to right wing, social conservatives, then Obama is a true idiot for doing it. Those people will never vote for a liberal Dem.
And if it's just the Obama adminstration enforcing existing law (as they claim), then why such a disgusting defense of it comparing gay marriage to incest and pedophilia? Did Jerry Falwell write the argument right before he died or what?
The DOJ does not create the case law from which comes the precedent to examine this issue. Apparently those cases express current law as to review of issues concerning marriage. Some are just anxious to hang the nastiest possible interpretation on DOJ, and be extension, Obama.
Boy, it sure is nice to have an articulate Republican in the White House!
I would like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but Democrats and Republicans are like two pockets on the same shirt in the bigger picture.
Obama's got to hear your clacking angry keyboards one of these days! Your impotent clacking angry keyboards....
Uh no - they are lawyers sworn to defend any and all laws that are constitutional. They do not have the right to decide which laws they like or dislike or even which ones are bad policy. The examples being thrown around of this happening is when right wingers with no respect for the law did it. A president who is a constitutional law expert and has ethics would never use inappropriate influence to convince Justice Department lawyers to violate their oaths.
thank you.
So which part about all men are created equal and entitled to equal rights needs explaining?
Isn't that law if it's in the Constitution?????
I believe that's in the Declaration of Independence.
He was a constitutional law professor, not a a constitutional law expert, Sherlock. And do you know what the word "naive" means? What are you, 12?
...lol...How can you be a professor of something you have no expertise in?
Are you saying the Federal Government lawyers can't decide what laws are legal or illegal? Are you saying that it would be wrong to ignore a law voting on and passed by the majority of the states citizens?
Uh since 1996 in CA medical POT has been legaly voted into law by the majority, still being Raided under OBAMA, so just like Bush, OBAMA is ignoring the Constitution.
Edwin has got the right idea, all men are created equal, period.
Obama has been ignoring the constitution since day 1, man, wtf.(FISA imunity?)
Just gimmi a break, already. If we follow the constitution to the tee, gay males should be allowed to marry but not gay females. Right??
Here is a link to a story about the FED ignioring the states enacted laws by the people for over 13 years now in CA, and they continue to break the law in the other medical states too.
http://cbs5.com/health/medical.marijuana.raid...
They are wrecking us and ignoring us, the only reason for the little baby stimulus we got compared to a few thousand CEO's is to put a cap on the coming revolution. Ceo's got got almost 2 trillion of our money and we got just under 800 billion. Is anybody slightly pissed here? Or is every1 blind and stupid?
But come on, throw the idiot social conservatives under the bus, not the people that voted you into office. They're the minority now anyway, fuck em.
I am Royally pissed off. We'd better hear a reason for this and it'd better be good. And I want it denounced.
*
The ruling which allowed the marriage licenses was a ruling on a court case, not a law passed by the elected representatives in the California Government, or voted on by the people of California as an amendment to our constitution as we did. Those rights were never codified in the first place. If the law is unjust and a VALID case is brought against it, it will be repealed. If the will of the people is that it should be repealed in another vote, it will be repealed. But just like Roe v. Wade should not be what makes abortion legal but rather an actual law voted on by either the people or their elected representatives, the marriages allowed by the initial court case should not be valid either. If you want a law, vote on it, don't find a lawyer willing to invent a case to get a ruling to make an existing law have a new definition.
Yes, I voted against Prop 8. Not because of any predisposition towards the gay community or because I think they are being denied their civil rights but rather because I don't feel the government should be involved in marriage in any way shape or form. "Marriage" is a parochial institution, between you and you god or your church or the Magic Purple Wombat in the Sky, not your government.
It is just my humble opinion, but this is about money, pure and simple--property rights, inheritance rights, extension of health care etc. I'm in favor of the current "marriage" benefits being extended to any two people in the population...for example, why should a gay couple, say a 70 year old man and his 35 year old partner be allowed special privileges under the law that a 70 year man and his 35 year old care giver who happens to be his niece doesn't get? Why does the government get to define the relationship either way?
I think the big problem with those who are against the government allowing this is because they believe our laws are based on their religion in the first place, not out of the happenstance of our tradition but rather by design, and thus think that laws are only just if they are ok within their religion. No one is going to change that view, so I would argue for thus of you for whom is an important issue work to BROADEN you appeals. Create an inclusive term which can be used for anyone who should have these benefits like the care-giver, the polygamist, the first cousins etc. I mean how much would it suck to get a gay marriage law passed and then have a couple denied the ability to marry their gay partner because they are uncle/nephew or 1st cousins under incest laws?
And on the "All men created equal" thing... first off it is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and as such is NOT law. This is prolly the most mis-interpreted part of the declaration. Remember, the men who wrote it were all Subjects of the English crown, many of them were lawyers, and in the context of English law 'creation' was a very specific legal term. When someone was knighted or inherited their ancestral title, they were legally "created" So-and-so Lord Such-an-such, Duke of Whatever, on this day, and 'entitled' with certain rights, such as ownership of a list of villages, or the taxation rights on a certain stretch of road etc. They were ALWAYS created by the monarch in this sense, and as such their right always came from that monarch. The phrase "All men are created equal" is a legal term in this sense meaning nothing more than there is no such thing as a nobility/royalty deserving of special privileges under the law, and as the Declaration continues they are essentially disavowing any king appointed Governor over them. the religious types like to use the phrase 'creator' to imply that the founders meant God, and undoubtedly many of them did, but they all also knew intimately the legal context of the word, and that is how it is meant in that phrase. Thankfully over then centuries we have exteneded it in our laws to to inculde those who had been previously excluded and denied their rights.
It is the equal protection clause of the Constitution we are concerned with here. And look up this term: case law. The ONLY state in which law must be codified is Louisiana. Do some research. Being a citizen of California makes you an expert, perhaps, on suntans, but not law. Is it you Glen?
It IS part of the Constitution, and it does, in effect, say that all men are created equal. Let's take a look at Section 1 of that amendment:
See that bolded portion? That's what's known as the Equal Protection Clause. The way it's interpreted, in cases like Brown vs. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia and (in O'Connor's concurring opinion)Lawrence v. Texas- amongst a slew of others- that it is illegal for any government in the USA, without compelling interest (for instance: public health), to deny one person a legal right that another is allowed. So if one man can marry another person, there must be a damned good reason other than prejudice to disallow it to another.
And this is where your examples of incestuous and polygamous (and others who like to raise bestiality) marriage is a red herring. There are compelling reasons to disallow incest(mental and physical deformities in offspring), so incestuous marriage is out the window; The general opinion on the compelling interest to ban polygamy falls under the umbrella of protecting the general welfare("actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order" Reynolds v. United States)- take a look at the welfare rolls in Utah and you'll see the great per centage of polygamist families who are on them; and in cases of bestiality, there's a disease factor- as well as the fact that there's no way to know if an animal can agree to a marriage.
Our legal system is based upon English Common Law, we don't need to codify things to make them into law.
Though I do agree with you on that part of the Christfags. They somehow got it in their heads that the ideas the Constitution was founded on are unique to Christianity in someway and therefore based upon their religion. The idea that people cannot be trusted with power goes back to Ancient Greece, yet they seem to think it started with John Calvin's idea of total depravity. If they think prohibitions against murder or theft are unique to the Ten Commandments, I'd to get a time machine drop them off in the middle Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate, tell them to kill someone and to rip someone off and see what happens to them.
returning to the right wedge issues that can help them drive wingnut fucks to the polls will do exactly that
doma and dont ask, dont tell are disgusting, putrid and have no place in society
but they are issues that get people to vote against their own self interests
if you want a return to 94...then fine
and guess what? there will be no change at all...for a repuke controlled congress will override any veto the prez would have on doma 2
Loving v. Virginia is a poor comparison. As the Cal Supreme Court has said, civil unions in California are identical to marriage in all but name. I haven't been to California in a while, but is being a gay couple in LA really as disadvantageous as being an interracial couple in Virginia in the 60s? I'm fine with gay marriage, and I'm sure it's going to be the norm soon, but wouldn't it be better if you just convinced your fellow Californians that it's OK?
As it's currently constituted, the US Supreme Court isn't going to strike down DOMA or mandate gay marriage for the whole country. The Cal Supreme Court was actually careful not to invoke the US Constitution when it approved gay marriage because the USSC would have surely reversed. Other than feeling great about yourself, I don't understand what good appeals to the equal protection clause might do. If you actually want to change things, find some conservatives in a bar and talk to them. (Bible-types who don't go to bars are never going to like gay anything, and you just have to live with that.)
Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
And there's the fact that a Californian domestic partnership(or any other states' equivalents) doesn't transfer to every other state.
.
Obama is turning out to be horrible on both human and civil rights. In the case of gay marriage, I have a gnawing suspicion that in his heart -- as opposed to on his teleprompter -- Obama is a homophobe.
Full text of DOJ's brief here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Mot...
Contact Senior Trial Counsel W. Scott Simpson at scott.simpson@usdoj.gov
I'm sure the cases cited by the DOJ deal with the legal issue at hand and the appropriate standard of review. The suggestion that the DOJ (via Obama no less) scoured legal precedent for cases involving pedophilia and incest for the purpose of, apparently, offending gay Americans and endearing Rightwingers is ludicrous and paranoid. I've been on several boards today and the one consistent thing about those ranting about OBAMA and his lawyers, which is also a misstatement, is that they know nothing about practicing law.
The very fact that President Obama -- whom the racist bigoted Tali-Born Again rightwingers often call "half-breed" -- defended DOMA in light of the fact that his own mixed ethnicity some 40 years ago would've gotten him and entire family lynched in order to stop him from getting married and pro-creating does indeed speaks volumes and provides the very roadmap for change.
The true interpretation of Pandora's Box in Greek Mythology is that off all the ugly and nasty spirits Pandora released by opening the box, one spirit was worth it all and that was the spirit of hope ... and true hope only comes from after having experienced an episode of false hope. For the homosexual human rights community (I refuse to call it "Gay Rights" because there's nothing happy and gay about their struggle at all), that false hope is personified in President Obama who tossed you people a bone and hit you up for campaign cash and blew all sorts of smoke up their collective tailpipes just to get elected. He literally played you, the Kossacks, and all of us like a damned fiddle ...
Where do you think he learned it from?!?
ANSWER: David Aceveda from "The Shield"!
We all should thank him profusely for providing us with the very roadmap to true honest hope thanks to his trafficking and campaigning on false hope (while stuffing his office freezer of millions for the sake of a 6 figure job at the White House). That hope lies in a person that if she were alive today, she would reach out to President Aceveda and slap the taste right out of his mouth: ROSA PARKS!
She realized in one naked and raw moment on a public transportation bus that if she and the rest of the segregated blacks were to continue sitting on their asses waiting and praying for some narcissist politician to come along, see their plight, and empower them, she would've died waiting forever because no such calvary was coming. As a result, she grew a spinal-collumn and empowered herself by saying three words and was pretty damned activist about them: I'M NOT MOVING!
There's your roadmap: LIBERATE YOURSELF FROM THE PLANTATION!
STOP MOVING!
STOP WORKING!
STOP PAYING!
STOP ENABLING!
STOP REWARDING!
And be very activist about it.
I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that if the poor and middle classes still with jobs in this country along the homosexuals and bisexuals tore a page from Rosa Parks' playbook and planted their hides on public property every single day vowing never to work, never to pay taxes, and thus no longer continuing to reward and enable their crooked and criminal taskmasters that are owned by the Corportocracy telling them in a loud and clear message that the loss of revenues in taxes, talent, and a laborforce would then have to be recouped by raising the spectre of more out-sourcing and more taxes on people like President Aceveda and his like-minded fools and hypocrites that support DOMA ........... I'm telling you such things as same-sex marriage and even single payer health care would be drafted, signed, rubber stamped, and signed into *LAW* faster than President Aceveda could say TERRY SCHAIVO (and faster than George W. Bush could SPELL it!)
Bottom line: American history shows that rights never came from nor defended by bourgeois politicians or military soldiers. They came from people like Jefferson, Franklin, Priestly, Paine, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, and ROSA "I'M NOT MOVIN'" PARKS! So by all means re-grow and re-insert your spinal column, rise up from the computer chair or LA-Z-BOY, remove the hypodermic ethernet cable the vein in your arm, and SHAKE YOUR FREIGHT! Start pounding the pavement runnin' or crawlin' and -- in the immortal and honest words of Chicago's own Abe Lincoln -- hold on with a bulldog grip, and chew and choke as much as possible.
My own anger, expressed in my BLOG at www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com , has been exacerbated after connecting to other BLOGS such as this. I had no idea, when blogging, that there was such a massive build up of resentment gaining momentum over the blogwaves... osphere.. -that said this is the time for LGBT orgnaizations to tap into the sentiment and harness this opportunity to bring change. However as I have found there is a serious disconnect in the LGBT community- what we need is a leader who can coordinate all the groups into mass action. No more egotistical motivation of wanting to be the first who..... Instead we continue in butsy piecy mode and effectuate zilch. For the first time forever we have a majority, a Presidential promise. We can no longer "pussy foot" or "dickey foot" around this opportunity. WE need a leader. We need a QUEEN. We need help.
Thanks for posting this article. When Barack Obama and his administration do something this horrible, the liberal and progressive blogs need to call him out.
Now if you can do something to get ThinkProgress.org to stop whitewashing the Obama anti-gay DoMA story. What's worse than ThinkProgress just giving one small paragraph on the DoMA defense in a mashup with other stories several days after the fact is that today ThinkProgress reported on Obama's new benefits "memorandum" for gay federal employees without saying that it is very limited, it expires when Obama leaves office, and it is just a small bone thrown to GLBT Obama supporters to try to shut us up.
Barack Obama is a liar and a backstabber.
Login or Register to post comments.