-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/mormon-bush-holdover-filed-anti-gay.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
the question now must be asked: Is Obama a homophobic bigot? I don't think we really know the answer.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
The irony of complaining about homophobia while demonstrating moronphobia is too rich.
All kidding aside...your support is appreciated!
The end.
Sad thing is, you think you're different from that guy.
Let's just say there is a very strong correlation between being a Mormon and being homophobic. And let's just add that that there is also a causal mechanism at work between the Mormon belief system (and culture) and being homophobic. Does that mean 100% of Mormons are homophobes? Certainly not. Does it mean that 98% of Mormons are homophobes? Well...
Oh snap, you cannot do that, because they have not let anyone see them since 1962.
That is pretty funny.
Well, let's see, maybe if Mormo (I like that spelling better) money wasn't being used to buy advertising to hurt gays, there would be no need to bring them into this.
Sadly, the Church has an activist anti-gay agenda, and they are being taken on.
This extreme brief cited several arguments that are not scientifically sound and could be rebutted in court.
Just a thought...
I'd like the facts on this, not just guessing.
1) Despite what you say, when it's a first round case (not an appeal) my understanding is that the DOJ is required by law to defend the existing law
2) Then going to speculation - since most of the people in this region oppose the law, they recused themselves from writing it
3) It gets turned over to someone who is eager to support it, to do the work others refused to do based on conscience
4) Could it be that this is such a bone-head case and is so offensive the point might be to damage to DOJ case? Is that perhaps why someone higher up approved it - to make the judge(s) recoil in horror from the idiocy involved?
Again, this bothers me. And combined with the other recent pieces of evidence, shows at least sloppiness and disinterest, at least for the moment. But I'm not sure the tone of the reports (and yes, all praise to Americablog for reporting this) tells the entire story.
Suppose this were an affirmative action case. Would all the attorneys who support affirmative action recuse themselves and leave the brief to a white supremacist? Would Obama let them. No fucking way in hell.
Yeah and I've got a bridge to sell you.
Obama is homophobic. He wants the 'separate drinking fountain' solution for same-sex couples: The civil union.
He has done nothing for the LGBT community. More than 200 soldiers have been discharged from the military under DADT under Obama's leadership.
He is our enemy. Fuck him and all who support him.
This has nothing to do with anything but big money interests who control our federal government.
Dems or Reps make no difference, they're all serving the big money that gets them elected and keeps them there.
If people can't figure this out based on the last few elections cycles, then this is all hopeless.
None of these self-serving pricks, from either side of the aisle, represent the mainstream populous. They all do the bidding of the big money that gives them the gravy-train lifestyle they enjoy.
This has nothing do to with right vs. left. It has everything to do with wealth and power.
It'll be interesting to see if the administration can be pressed on this, and if so, will the Mormon holdover be released from his duties, or will they come up with some convoluted reason for him to stay?
The President's duty to defend and execute the laws of the United States. Like it or not, the law of the United States is DOMA. If the law of the United States were to advocate the clubbing of baby seals, Obama has to defend that too.
The Constitution created three branches of government -- the job of the Executive branch is to defend the laws. It would be treasonous for the President to not obey laws that were passed by Congress (remember Bush's signing statements?).
If you're unhappy with DOMA, you have two routes -- the courts or the legislature. The job of the gay rights movement is to make a convincing enough case that the legislature overturns DOMA. I am sure that Obama would support your efforts, but the country is currently in a bit of a mess, and I don't begrudge the president for not focusing on DOMA during the early months of his presidency.
Most likely the laws they have argued were unconstitutional were state laws.
What Obama should be expected to do is get DOMA repealed, like he promised. That he has the power to advocate for (fiercely...).
Second, looks like you're the one who knows nothing, Tony. Do some research before you start accusing other people of being stupid.
Marty Lederman of Obama's Office of Legal Counsel, quoted on MyDD.com, enumerates the "historical exceptions" to the "must-defend" policy. The question then becomes Obama's leadership, or lack thereof.
"The Washington Post reports today that John Roberts was the point person in the Office of the Solicitor General in 1990 when that office decided not to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes that required minority preferences in broadcast licensing. (In fact, Roberts was the Acting Solicitor General for purposes of the case, because SG Starr had a conflict.) The case in question was Metro Broadcasting v. FCC, and it raised very interesting questions about the circumstances under which the Department of Justice will refrain from defending the constitutionality of federal statutes.
"As a general matter, the Department has traditionally adhered to a policy of defending the constitutionality of federal enactments whenever "reasonable" arguments can be made in support of such statutes -- i.e., whenever the constitutionality of the law is not fairly precluded by clear constitutional language or governing Supreme Court case law. This practice has been predicated on the notion that because the political branches -- the Congress that voted for the law and the President who signed it -- have already concluded that the statute was constitutional, it would be inappropriate for DOJ lawyers to take it upon themselves to reject the constitutional judgment shared by the President and the legislature.
"There are, however, historical exceptions to this general practice. Almost all of the exceptions fall into one of three categories. The first category is cases in which intervening Supreme Court decisions have rendered the defense of the statute untenable. This category isn't really an "exception" to the "rule" as much as it is an illustration of how the rule operates in practice: The newly governing Supreme Court decision eliminates any reasonable argument that might have been made in the statute's defense, other than asking the Court to overrule its governing precedent (a tactic that the SG very rarely employs, but that is not unheard of, as in the second flag-burning case (Eichman), and in Agostini v. Felton).
"The second category involves statutes that in DOJ's view infringe the constitutional powers of the President himself (e.g., Chadha; Bowsher v. Synar).
"The third, and smallest, category involves statutes that the President has publicly condemned as unconstitutional. The most famous such case was probably U.S. v. Lovett, in 1946. More recently, after the first President Bush vetoed the "must-carry" provisions of a cable television bill on constitutional grounds and Congress overrode the veto, the Bush (41) Administration declined to defend the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions. (The Clinton Administration reversed this decision and subsequently prevailed in its defense of the law in the Supreme Court in the Turner Broadcasting litigation.) (Quiz: Name the one case in which the President publicly concluded that a statute was unconstitutional and yet the SG nevertheless defended it in the Supreme Court. Hint: The SG in question was Erwin Griswold.)
"What is (as far as I know) unique about Metro Broadcasting is that it appears to be the only case in recent memory that does not fall into any of these three categories."
No Gay Rights, No Gay $$! We need to send this to all Demo's and send it to the White House. In my experience, the one thing that people understand is money. They will sell their souls for it. So the modus is to cut them off. I think that they will listen to us when the bucks stop flowing for their campaigns.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/07...
Isn't that supposed to be a symbol of our country's foundation of rule by law? Why is religion even involved?
Guess I'll have to slap myself upside the head yet again (I'm getting a migraine).
Change doesn't happen overnight - and non-theists don't get elected. Shame, that.
I hope it happens soon or I'll be star stuff again and hopefully a part of the largest black hole ever found in the middle of the Universe.
At least there will a functional reason for life then! </snark>
JUST DON'T TRY TO PASS LAWS SAYING I HAVE TO.
That's the difference. That's the definition of evil, of fascism: someone trying to tell me that I have to believe what they believe, and ENCODING IT IN THE LAW OF THE LAND.
That's not hate-filled rhetoric, that's fighting for my most basic rights.
It's as if you knew nothing about the Nazis and were castigating the Jews for not being sufficiently tolerant of them. Were all Nazis Jew-haters? Well, no, there were a handful of Nazis like Oskar Schindler who were righteous people and helped the Jews. But for the most part, it's fair to say that being a Nazi meant that you hated Jews.
And it gives me no satisfaction to add: not all, but certainly most Mormons do hate gay people, and the reason for their hate is that heterosexuality is integral to their belief system.
I know where I'll hedge my bets and it won't be with ANY organized religious. That's just an excuse people use to justify their prejudices and hatreds.
Nope.
You know what happens when you have a sign on your door that specifically states "No Soliciting -- No Religion"? You get Mormon missionaries who apparently don't understand English or don't think it applies to them knocking on your frickin' door wanting to solicit you for religious reasons.
Next time it happens, I'll tell them to go F*CK themselves.
And, as to whether or not they can serve in the government and remain constitution, doesn't appear bloody likely. Religious beliefs HAVE no business in RULE OF LAW that is supposed to pertain to ALL of the people.
I just had the Obama wake up call version of that moment:
HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE.
HIS ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T CARE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE.
HIS WIFE, HIS POLITICAL APPOINTEES, HIS STAFF, HIS ADVISORS: NONE OF THEM CARE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE.
Shwew. Now we know.
Moving on?
But I am not holding my breath, because I suspect you are right, nycwill.
Nooooooooooo....
May be now, though.
What in the hell do you call 8 years of Bush's lies and war mongering for no reason except for the Big Oil companies and for his high wheelin' buddies?
Not only that Bush is a fricking' deserter. Couldn't even honorably serve a damned enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard during a "time of war."
Were you complaining and "warning" the people while you're so called Compassionate Conservative chicken hawk slimy loser stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections?
I somehow doubt it.
Don't give me your platitudes. I am a female, service-connected disable Army veteran and I won't tolerate any crap from you or any other so-called conversative.
You guys have betrayed this country and, IMHO, have committed acts of treason against it and that's all that has happened since President Obama has been elected.
Oh, and just to nip in the bud -- I'm not crazy about Obama either but at least he can walk, chew gum, talk and breath all at the same time.
Simpson wasn't discovered by Andrew Sullivan. One of your commenters posted Simpson's name in your first post on this issue as one of the authors of the legal briefing.
The delicious irony is that despite your religiously bigoted focus on the third name on the brief you either ignore or do not know that the name at the top of this brief belongs to an African American, Tony West.
Despite that fact that the African American community's hostility to gays is well know, and Af-Ams overwhelmingly contributed to the vote that passed Prop 8 in California you so-called progressives continue to ignore that fact.
Your anger and disappointment are the just desserts of your hypocrisy.
The Church of Jesus Christ ordered their members to fight for the passage of the bigoted Proposition 8 which took equal rights away from gays. Simpson, unlike most americans, had sworn an oath to do whatever the mormon church told him to do.
It's not a religious test, its a conflict of interest. Simpson is supposed to be representing the people of the US, all of them.
And as for your racist tirade, religious people were the bigots on Prop 8. Blacks are more religious than other races. It's as simple as that. Your focus on skin color ignores the reality behind the racist view that skin color was a factor.
Have you been through the temple Pete? Are you even old enough to have gone through the temple before 1990 when the death oaths were changed?
I know what the word means Pete, and I also know the mormon temple ceremony. You either do not, or are are intentionally trying to deceive people with your comment.
That being said, I don't really have to care about the trickiness of opposing a specific religion too much - I think anyone who can seriously oppose one religion and support another is a flaming hypocrite, an idiot and a loon. I don't NEED to single out religions to oppose; I oppose all of them. And what's more, I manage to enjoy cathedrals, prayer rugs, Shinto shrines, Sufi and Zen poetry, latkes and Jewish storytelling, Buddhist festival dances, Indian miniature painting and Sikh ceremonial daggers all the same. I even manage to enjoy Tarot card art.
And the singing of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which I have witnessed in person.
That doesn't change the fact that Mormonism is a creepy, backwards and destructive set of ideas.