-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/word-about-barack-obama-and-lawyers-in.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
We were so anxious to finally have a champion that we poured out our support, we eagerly gave our money and we followed the street hustler all the way down the path.
And just like a street hustler, when Barry had taken all that he could from us, he turned against us in the most vile manner possible.
We are shocked and saddened that we fell for Barry's strong words of "fierce advocacy", and are embarrassed that we allowed ourselves to be taken so easily.
And now the damage is done, we now know that we cannot trust Barry's flowery words, sweet nothings and hollow promises.
We have learned the hard way, yet again, that street hustlers who wear political masks of promised change are exactly like wolves wearing sheep's clothing.
May we never allow it to happen again.
IMHO...of course.
All the gays and lesbians who have helped dress Michelle, do her hair and other things to help make them presentable should step aside.
I would like to see every gay and lesbian person in the armed forces stand up and tell them they are gay and proud of it. Let his "rule by the laws" fire every single one of them. They do not deserve to have honorable, highly trained gays and lesbians serving them. You want to see about 16K soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen walk away during a time of war? That is what we are going to have to do to get their attention.
We need to make as many states as possible allow our marriages. Bravo to the New England states.
We need to stop supporting our representatives and senators in Congress until they stop being silent about this issue and actually do something. Obama is hiding and passing the buck to them to make this decision. Wasn't he another one to say, "The buck stops here?" He is so afraid of hurting the republican's feelings that he won't make the first step even though he boasted about do it immediately once he is in office. He would rather toss us aside than do what is right. Wanting to be liked by all is his " Achilles' Heel," and what that does is to assure that no one will like him, especially the base that helped him get to this office.
We swallowed his bait and switch hook, line and sinker and now we watch him cut bait and run. He isn't going to get away with this as long as we continue to be vocal about it and hold his feet to the fire. Perhaps, a new Stonewall of activism needs to start. What are our "national gay groups" actually doing for us? Why not start ACT UP again. Where are you young gays and lesbian activists of college age and are you willing to fight for your rights? You're the new blood in this movement and perhaps, it's time to start thinking about what you can do. My time has past, being old and now disabled, but you could. We need new leadership in our gay and lesbian associations. The present bunch are way too civilized and nice to our oppressors. Yes, oppressors. It's obvious that this tactic didn't work.
There must be something we could do to get their attention. Let's find out what that is and let's do it. There is no better time than now.
There is nothing more important than basic human rights.
This isn't about the 'luxury' of getting married.
It is about being denied protections for our partners and not receving the full benefits, and civil rights, of a system we pay taxes into.
It comes about after the fury of realizing that minority rights can be stripped away by a simple majority vote, and having the courts say that is fine.
But, ultimately, it is about betrayal by a man who lied to our faces to get elected and who cares more about preserving a well-crafted 'centrist' image, then doing what is ethically and morally right.
I think that if we do not raise our voices now, the Democratic Party will walk all over us.
Personally, I want to hear Obama specifically defend, or retract the arguments made in this case.
It is time for our President to engage in a little intellectual honesty on this.
It is one thing for him to not specifically support and 'push,' if you will, gay marriage. It is another thing entirely to equate it with incest and discuss the burden to our economy.
What about our tax dollars?
It was a strictly nominalistic decision.
In brute logic:
1) "Marriage" in California has a body of laws
2) "Domestic Partners" in California has a body of laws
3) The two bodies of law are virtually identical in all but "NAME"; Under Leibniz's Law of Identity, they are the SAME in all but NAME, Why?
4) Does the State have a compelling reason to distinguish the two bodies of law?'
5) Having considered all the "compelling reasons," the only reason the Court finds for TWO DIFFERENT NAME is to "stigmatize" one by its NAME
6) But that is DISCRIMINATION, which is UNLAWFUL
7) Therefore, we find in favor of the Plaintiffs
It should be noted that NONE of plaintiff attorneys made the Court's argument. Go back to school, guys, and take a biology course. Pair-bonding is the natural fact, "marriage" is a social fact from J-C-I religious foundations.
The system is working to marginalize, demonize and sideline us. It's important now to work against the system so if you happen to be at an event among the A-gays this summer, if you don't want to pee in their lobster bisque, at least pee in the swimming pool.
Obama played us. We learned our lesson. Time to take what's rightfully ours.
And time to tell the patience-preaching apologists to shove it. No American citizen should have to wait for equal rights.
Keep up the great work.
And we wonder why Republicans always cast Dems as cowards???!!
My feeling right now -- besides outrage -- is that trying to figure out why they did this is like trying to figure out what happened in the Air France crash. There are so many logical possibilities that, without any other evidence, it's all speculation.
The simplest answer is that they just didn't consider it important -- which is bad enough. They weren't watching what was going on and they ended up letting some Mormon bigwig earn his points with "the brethren" in SLC by putting the Mormon talking points in Obama's mouth.
The other possibilities are still on the table, but they are all so politically charged, you would think they would have been prepared for the fallout. From reading all the blogs yesterday -- and watching the responses on the blogs -- I have a feeling they were taken by surprise.
The first I read of this was on ABlog and then it started spreading through all the other lefty blogs. At first, the "defense" was negligible. Then, the talking points started to take shape and you could see as the day went on that the party's official line -- as parroted by their in-house blog responder apologists -- was a work in progress.
By mid-afternoon, you could see a set of talking points had gelled. Right here on ABlog, there were first-time posters parroting the talking points and you saw the same thing happening on DU, HuffPo, etc. Same arguments - same words -- same few talking points. By the end of the day, I had the feeling that hundreds of Congressional aides had been let out of work early just to go and spout the party line. Or that hundreds of volunteer blog apologists had gotten out of work and got home to find the emails with the talking points.
So, if they knew they were going to seriously fuck over the GLBT community they were stupid if they didn't think they were going to kick open a hornet's nest. You would think they wold have faxed or emailed the talking points to their operatives before the story broke.
And they weren't even good talking points. They were all pretty weak and, as we've seen her, provably false.
The Democrats seem to suck at under-bus throwing, and the aftermath. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing per-se but it certainly looks at least incompetent.
ActUp accomplished more than HRC and the rest could ever hope for.
I too wish that our younger peers would once again use those proven tactics and achieve the same results.
For those that don't know about, or have forgotten how to really fight for Equality:
http://www.actupny.org/
I think we should be disappointed that the justice department chose a strategy of defending DOMA instead of declaring the law unconstitutional and refusing to defend it.
I can see no legal argument where DOMA is constitutional. A couple legally married in MA or one of the other states, should have the same federal benefits as any other married couple and their marriage should be respected in all jurisditions.
Where the outrage is justified, is not in the filing of the brief, but the tone, argument and content of the brief. I was appalled at what I read.
I think we should find out who at Justice is responsible, who their managers were, and how high up the Justice management chain did any decisions with regard to the brief go.
Oh, and just where are the caring voices of our Democratic leaders?
It is time to move on - to an aggressive agenda outside of DC.
Not one Nickel.
What I suspect is that Obama has no problem with LGBTs being the 'collateral damage' in thirst for power.
We have been thrown under the bus.
Is that Trinity the same church with the Jew-hating pastor? I thought so.
So if Obama's spiritual teacher is a bigot, it isn't a stretch to think that Obama is a bigot. I wonder if Jewish gays 'feel the love' from Trinity?
Of course, that whole first amendment thing is just so passe and politically inconvenient, we can't expect the man who took an oath to uphold the Constitution to give it any notice. Right?
I'm not sure what Wright's statement about Jews has to do with Trinity and its gay outreach missions...
You're distracting yourself from the primary argument. You do your cause a disservice.
My statement about Wright is simple: He is a bigot and is either oblivious to his bigotry or comfortable with it. Ditto for Obama.
Speaking of disservice, if you are so caught-up in legal theory and technicalities and cannot see this for what it is, you reduce yourself to the 'just following orders' class.
May I suggest that you try to focus upon the rights issues?
I think the Dallas Principles are relevant here. I hope Joe agrees. Particularly Numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8.
The following eight guiding principles underlie our call to action.
In order to achieve full civil rights now, we avow:
1.Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now. Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.
2.We will not leave any part of our community behind.
3.Separate is never equal.
4.Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.
5.The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.
6.Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.
7.Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.
8.Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.
www.thedallasprinciples.org
Yes, yes.....HELL YES!
What is the balancing point of view regarding our efforts to fight racism? That blacks are bad?
How about the balancing point of view that women should have the right to vote? That they are designed to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen?
Sorry, but either you are truly ignorant or just plain homophobic.
Going elsewhere? C-ya.
Thus, I'm confused at your comment. Honestly, I've been upset that there wasn't MORE discussion regarding this betrayal on here - and I'm a straight white guy - so I can only imagine one of two things -
1 - You're a troll
2 - You have difficulties identifying with your fellow man, and need to get out more.
p.s. We don't need an announcement, attention whore.
By the way, nice how you were able to get the word 'dominated' included in your little missive. Have fun on Craig's List.
Why, with the money you spent reading this... oh wait... you didn't spend any money...
You came here.
Period.
Maybe someeday you'll learn that some things just can't be "balanced."
Got anything I can throw back at them? They say the link is full of crap.
But no, they chose to file a vigorous brief that seems to be rooted in the 'talking points' (which always includes the 'slippery-slope' argument that if same-sex marriage is legal, people can marry their siblings or even animals) of Republicans, Mormons and other anti-gay hate groups.
This vigorous brief goes beyond what would be considered reasonable from someone (Obama) who said that the wanted DOMA repealed.
I knew something was up when reviewing Wikipedia on May 30th. This is what I found:
Until May 2009, President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA. As of May 2009, President Barack Obama no longer explicitly supported full repeal of the DOMA
So you can tell your straight lawyer people not to focus upon the incest issue alone.
Ask them to take a look at what Obama said during the campaign, what he is empowered to do and what he has done. FYI, about 230 enlisted military have been discharged because they are gay or lesbian under Obama.
He could stop the enforcement of this while working to get DADT repealed. But he does nothing to stop it and nothing to repeal DADT.
Ask them how we LGBTs can feel equal when Obama says that he wants us to have our own water fountain called 'civil unions.'
Inflammatory? They haven't seen anything yet.
If that is true, I feel sorry for them, because they're going to lose, *and* they just pissed off a bunch of people with no upside.
"You know I was thinking about your parents yesterday. Lovely people. Your mom, your dad, their marriage, the way they feel about each other, the way they express affection for each other, the entire nature of their relationship... and it got me thinking about incest...."
End of discussion.
Your take on this, Joe, is entirely correct. Keep it up.
@Gridlock - didn't the DOJ brief cite prohibitions against close relatives marrying as an example of appropriate regulation, just as they suggest prohibiting gay marriage is?
If not, where they just trying to show that, yeah, it is possible to have laws about marriage? I think the court pretty much knew that already.
They apparently weren't buying it, but I figured it was the most obvious thing in the world..
How do you know that?
And a lawyer claiming that the brief compared gay marriage to incest and child rape is either a bad lawyer or full of shit and again is harming the cause since it did no such thing.
Unless the person also thinks it compared homosexuals to the KKK. Then that individual is just a bad lawyer I guess.
Are parents of gay people legally able to prevent them from having a relationship with other gay people?
No, he has no rights to live here, period. Several lawyers have verified this. FYI, there are about 40,000 same-sex, bi-national couples with this same dilemma.
I'm moving to Europe, so we'll be fine.
As for the incest claim, you know, I was thinking about your parents the other day, Stephen. Your mom, your dad, their marriage, the way they show affection for each other, the way they show affection for you, and it got me thinking about incest and pedophilia...
Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't comparing your parents' love for each other and their love for you to some guy who fucks his sister, or some old man who sodomizes an 8 year old girl, I'm simply saying that when discussing your parents, my mind goes to incest and child rape.
:-)
My point was that arguments that are overblown weaken the fundamental point and give people an out. No need to talk about the real issue we can just focus on tangents.
This brief is very weak but not because it compares gay marriage to incest or child rape - because it didn't. It's weak because the underlying premise that this is different than interracial marriage because it's not an attack on homosexuals is completely wrong.
If the argument is that it's protecting traditional marriage then you have to ask what it's being protected from. Homosexuals of course. They're dancing around the issue and you're getting distracted by case law citations and not attacking the brief and argument at its weakest point.
I understand the emotionality. I do immigration and civil rights work. However, emotion without a good argument loses in court.
I also do think we have a good argument, but am happy to debate that, and welcome the advice :-)
John rightly pointed out that gays suffered highly at the hands of the Nazis just like the Jews did and that blacks did not suffer at the hands of the Nazis. He also quite clearly said there is no point to trying to compare suffering.
Every minority group does not have to suffer in the exact same ways and/or degrees in order to claim the use ofthe term "civil rights". It's assinine to make that claim.
The previous poster was upset because they interpreted the comparison as if it was related ONLY to gay marriage.
The civil rights struggle for gays is NOT about marriage alone. Gays have no federal rights for anything. So, that original poster was way off the mark.
Gays can be fired for being gay. Balck were never fired for being black.
Gay can be denied access to housing for being gay, just as blacks were.
Gays are beaten up just for being gay on a daily basis just like balcks were. Just because you don't see it in the news every night, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Does it require a one-for-one relationship in total numbers before we are allowed to point to the similarities?
Do you think that it is disingenuous when 'legal scholars' that work for religious organizations say that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in people marrying children or animals?
Is your indignation reserved only for those of us concerned with LGBT issues?
Do tell.
Yeah.
THE MESSAGE:
Not One Nickel lays out the new voice of the LGBT Community in the face of constant betrayals by the Democrats, who want our money, our votes, our time, our energy and our support but force us to live as second-class citizens in our own country and refuse to support us on even those issues where we have public opinion behind us. We will not stand for these cowardly betrayals any longer. As we approach the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, a new radicalism is emerging. I, for one, think it's about damned time.
No Gay Rights, No Gay Dollars!
No Gay Rights, No Gay Votes!
If you support the LGBT cause, whatever your orientation, please return any Democratic contribution requests with the words above or some equivalent written on them. If you have a web site or blog, please post this request or some version of it. Please help us send the message that human rights should never be sacrificed for political expediency.
UPDATE: If you wish, you may also like to participate in Operation DOMA Flip Flop. It'll only take a few minutes and won't hurt at all (unless you get a paper cut, in which case, it'll hurt like a bitch).
And then you elected a constitution law lecturer to the office of the presidency. Maybe, just maybe, the Obama White House views its burdens under the law more seriously than certain past administrations? He has to allow a vigorous defense of statute.
It is amazing how vicious we can be in attacking a president who publicly champions a full legislative repeal of the DOMA.
Obama lied. The LGBT community got played. Get it?
2) Publicly champions the repeal of DOMA? Funny. He had that scrubbed from his website "things to do" list, and went from 'repealing' DADT to "changing" it.
Say one thing, do another.
He was still under no obligation to defend it, and yet did.
Yes, I'm so proud of our president. Gay-bashing in order to prove how much better he is than George Bush. Seriously, you have got to be kidding?
As for your second absurd point, you say that Obama promises to repeal DOMA so that means we should be happy when he does the opposite and defends DOMA in court, arguing that in fact it's better for the country to not repeal DOMA because it will save us money to keep oppressing the gays. But hey, sure he's actively working against getting rid of DOMA, but he SAYS that he's for repealing it.
Whoopee!
Are you high?
2) This brief and Obama's words/action do not operate independently of each other. They aren't in distinct vacuums.
really, are you high?
The 'high' joke was funnier the first time.
Until. . .
that capacity eventually wore off.
Wiki has this:
"Until May 2009, President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA. As of May 2009, President Barack Obama no longer explicitly supported full repeal of the DOMA."
Given Obama's inaction on ANY LGBT issue, I think we've been had.
*Scratches head*
Not that it'll stop me from coming here and eviscerating people :P
But, just as he told Hillary supporters, you need to buck up, suck up and shut up....because after all, where ya gonna go?
I think I've come to understand the Log Cabin Republicans. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are about either women or GLBT, so you might as well vote other issues like your pocket book!...of course, Republicans haven't been fiscally responsible since pre-Reagan, but that's another point.
At least they would not hand our enemies weapons to use against us...
I thought I read that somewhere. Anyone have any info on that?
Oh, and I just got a letter from the DNC asking for money! Writing that letter to them is going to be SOOOO cathartic!
That's what I don't get. Why the massive disconnect between what's being said and what's being done. They can't reasonably expect even the most dimwitted political observer NOT to comment on that.
So what gives? What kind of strategy is this? Is it just sheer stupidity.. or what?
It's incoherent.
And THANK YOU for your excellent post.
Another consequence of all this is seeing how Obama reacts to a mistake - and I hope he learns from it and starts reacting differently.
During the campaign he would not react right away to a mistake or gaffe, he'd let folks have their fun with it and run out of initial steam then he would at a time of his choosing initiate a counter or response or raise distracting new issues. It was very effective, during a campaign. However, when in an ADMINISTRATION all it means is that when he realizes he's in a hole, stops digging after a day, then stays in it several more days until he can figure a way to emerge looking like it was his own idea and he really wasn't in a hole he just stepped down to step up somewhere, this all means only that he was in a goddamned hole for three days longer than he had to be.
Meanwhile leaving the country all hurt and stirred up unnecessarily. He needs to adjust. I don't really believe he personally believes all the arguments in that brief, but with the reaction we've seen to date - what the hell is the difference?
I agree that the administration has thrown the gay community under the bus. I would like to ask how does it feel, considering it was just a while back that you were wanting to throw transgendered people under the same stinking bus.
A Lesbian myself, I find this kind of mythic blame-assigning useless. Transperson asked you how it felt.
Well, I feel run over, and backed up over again, transperson.
No Queer left behind next time.
As for the DOJ, I await their explaination for the hyperbolic arguments grounded in bad law that will come back and haunt us when used as weapons against us for years to come.
Antonio/Tampa
The time is now.
-- Lars Thorwald
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1999/0respons...
I do not thinkt he issue is the law here. i think the issue is a bunch of lazy thinkers posting because it is asy to do so a blog.
To perpetuate the myth that religious marriage is a "right," or worse, "a fundamental human right," complete misstates the natural and social facts. Marriage is a Judeo-Christian type of "pair-bonding," which 50 states and the U.S. -- despite a separation of church and state -- offer to their Jewish and Christian members. As you know, no doubt, homophilia is deemed "unnatural," and "worthy of death," by the chief Christian apologist and former Pharisee Jew, Saul of Tarsus / Saint Paul.
I happen to know that homophiles "pair-bond" quite nicely, and if the state wishes to enter the business of social institutions, like pair bonding, it should be by "civil unions," not by marriage.
The religion question is irrelevant to the question of civil marriage.
I pay the SAME FEDERAL TAXES you do, idiot. And I expect the same treatment for my family as you do for yours. I expect the same federal benefits your money gets you.
I want my family protected just the same as yours is protected, you disingenuous twit.
In your case, "idiot" works just fine, since you seem blissfully unaware of the above.
Now, please go before someone in this thread drops another house directly on top of you.
Seriously, it's raining houses here. And your umbrella is woefully inadequate.
The word "marriage" has a dual meaning, which is sloppy, but it's a cultural artifact and written into thousands of laws, it is legally NOT the same as what is called a "civil union" regardless that all the government regards as "marriage" IS a civil union.
All GOVERNMENT can recognize is the civil contract of marriage. As such it is discriminatory to have that contract only be available to the 'pair bond' of opposite gendered partners. Simple as that. It IS a civil right, denied same sex partnerships - whether it may be a "fundamental Human Right" is beside the point.
The LEGAL word, for better or worse, IS "marriage." "Leibniz's Law of Identity" will not get you a visit on the hospital nor spousal survivor benefits from Social Security.
The real reason folk are pushing for government to take a religious stand is to keep and get more of a particular brand of religion IN government. They're just using the 'ick' factor and they 'natural pair bond' argument to make it seem all common sense when it's really a religious Trojan horse.
Funny.
*cough ancient greece, cough native north americans, cough cough*
Hell, the christian bible is filled with non-"one man one woman" relationships. It drives me nuts when a righty froths "it's been one man and one woman for thousands of years!!" because that's a flat-out lie.
2 Chronicles 11:18-23
2 Samuel 3:7
Genesis 25:1
Genesis 30:9
1 Kings 11:3
That, Sir, is far from equal.
Social commentator Sidney Kennedy opined in 1966 "the problem was that while the institutions were separate, they were never equal." So it is with the LGBT community.
And yes, I am an attorney as well....
To The Hilliarites - She probably would have done the same thing - just like her husband. Here in NYS the Demopols are all jumping aboard the gay marriage ship - now that it appears safe- meanwhile Schumer voted for DOMA in 93.
FUCK THE DEMOCRATS - WE GOTTA DO IT BY OURSELVES. Email, organize, march to DEMAND rights - no 'Please Mr. Obama keep your promises Please."
We are approaching the final push for our rights- if WE PUSH!
For all of her faults, and she has plenty ... Hillary has been much more respectful to the gay community.
LGBT liberal democrats spat in her face and publically degraded her for Barack.
Well, you get what you vote for.
Enjoy.
Have you ever thought of running for office. Just curious? Why should Barney Frank have all the fun.
That's all.
Then he fires the writer of the brief and installs a replacement who will proceed with a very weak defence of DOMA.
If the DOJ did not defend DOMA, at least superficially, wouldn't the court invite someone else to step-in? And wouldn't that person provide a more vigorous and substantive argumentat against the plaintiff's complaints?
Of course, Obama could be doing nothing underhanded. But if he is seen as betraying the "community" while, at least superficially, upholding a very popular law across the country, then, he wins the sort of credibility that is summed-up in the old Vulcan proverb, "Only Nixon could go to China."
If you are protesting now, then, maybe -- just maybe -- you are playing a role that Obama needs you to play. Yell louder and you may be rewarded later.
Or not.
Marc Solomon
In fact, today in church we discussed this very issue and the prayer was the LGBT community would find ways to discern how we should ACT to ensure our supposed political allies will ACT in our best interests. It was mentioned in relation to Stonewall Riots and that we shouldn't resort to throwing bricks but our current strategy is NOT working.
Since you attend church, how does your church "explain away" the Levitical Code of Purity, Romans 1, and Jude? I guess your church does not read the Bible.
obama promised to repeal doma & dadt, but he didn't say when. he's following his own timeline to maximize getting most of his agenda through.
If anyone is interested, there is a grassroots organization called the Dallas Principals which can be found here : http://www.thedallasprinciples.org/The_Dallas_P...
Don't just be upset. Do something.
Check it- If I were arguing the case I'd simply point out that each one of those court cases involved things already deemed illegal - sex with minors, sex with relatives. For now, it's still legal to be gay and fuck as long as both are over 18, and not closely related. So as long as it's still legal to be Gay, none of those cases are comparable to Gay marraige. Those court cases basically say "we can't allow you to get married because the state's already determined that sex between you two is illegal. So therefore the court is upholding the public's laws and not allowing a marraige to violate those laws. There are no laws saying you can't be gay, and no laws saying two, legal, consenting men (or women) can't fuck. SO therefore, letting them get married would not violate any of the publics laws (interests). Case closed.