DISQUS

AMERICAblog: NY Times Editorial: "A Bad Call on Gay Rights"

  • Jim · 5 months ago
    Nothing is more essential than basic human rights. For those who suggest we wait, I have news for you. Unless you care about my basic human rights, I really don't feel the need to care about any of your priorities. We are either all in this together or we are not.

    If I wanted Republican values, I would have voted for a Republican. I gave a fair amount of money to Democrats in the last election cycle. Not one dime more. You want my money, work for it.
  • LittleMouse · 5 months ago
    It started with voting for Telecom Immunity when he explicitly said he would not support it. Then it was supporting government secrecy, mostly to cover up for the previous administration. Now it is supporting states rights. Oh not for something like regulating banks but for enforcing local bigotries. You see, we are a banana republic. What we need is a new party. We might get as many as 40% of the Democrats to join. While I really don't want to see the Republicans in charge, this isn't all that much different. Covering up for the Republicans guarantees another Iraq, another Abu Ghraib, another bank crisis, and other new mistakes for us all to pay for for years to come. The members of the new party can still caucus with the remaining Dems to pick the speaker of the house, etc. The main difference is that we may get enough votes to make a difference eventually.
  • John Aravosis · 5 months ago
    He supported the Telecom Immunity bill and I didn't speak up.
    He supported government secrecy, and I didn't speak up.
    He supported ignoring war crimes, and I didn't speak up.
    Then he came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.
  • terrya · 5 months ago
    That's a tremendous editorial. I don't know how many people in the White House saw Howard Dean on "The Rachel Maddow Show" last night essentially making these same points. But they sure read the New York Times.

    The final line in that strong editorial says it all.

    "But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights."
  • timncguy · 5 months ago
    Except Howard Dean made the mistake of claiming that Obama was not aware of what was in that brief. LOL Yeah, I believe that. Obama didn't know and wouldn't approve. That's why we have seen such a strong rebuke of the DOJ coming from the White House.

    Oh wait, the White House sent their big gay gun (Office of Personnel Mgmt) out to tell us why this wasn't a bad thing and they just HAD to do it. He claimed it was REQUIRED of them.
  • erip · 5 months ago
    Kudos to John for the work on this issue and keep up the pressure so the mainstream media covers this. The irony in all of this is that after the republican party got the life beaten out if it in the last election cycle, they are beginning to debate the merits of letting go of the gay bashing as an issue and getting back to their "core values" (not that i have a clue what they are). Yet here come the democrats and our "fierce advocate in chief " to pick up the baton and start the gay bashing all over again.

    And to those incestuous little homosexuals who still think we should wait. There's no more waiting. Obama has multitasked just fine on lots of other issues, he can do something on DADT or DOMA now. Civil rights need not take a back seat while we continue to be forced into the back seat
  • KarenMrsLloydRichards · 5 months ago
    Haiku for the Obama Administration (#211):

    Oooohhhh. . . . Aaaaahhhh . . . Felt SO good.
    He massaged us like a pro.
    Where's the "happy end"?!
  • KarenMrsLloydRichards · 5 months ago
    Haiku for the Obama Administration (#212):

    Honey, he's so "FIERCE"!!
    He's throwin' shade all over
    The damn place, bitches.
  • Ernest Tee · 5 months ago
    John, you sound like a spoild little brat. You want it all and you want it now. Why should Obama divide his forces on the economy and take on some thing like that now? It would give the rightwing ammo to fill their echo chamber and take him off of his message.
  • Doctor Boyfriend · 5 months ago
    Because equal rights are more important then his other issues. His people tossed salt into the wound, if he wants to repair the damage he has to do something major.
  • dula · 5 months ago
    His cowardly ass is already off message...so Goddamned afraid of the Right Wing. Bush's DOJ was able to push torture through the system. Obama can damn well find a way to repeal DOMA and DADT. Democrats need to quit whining about nasty Republicans and start making sure all Americans are equal. Fuck the economy, he already has allowed the Financial Industry to raid what was left of the US Treasury without any oversight and has hired the same people who destroyed it as his economic team. Healthcare he has already sold out to corporate interests. It seems that Gay Rights are the only thing he could do well...but won't. But what can one expect from a religious nutjob who worships at the ass of Rick Warren...fraud.
  • terrya · 5 months ago
    Ah, yes...the "fierce advocacy of whenever", once again. We'll get the equality...eventually, right?

    I'm so SICK of that patronizing crap.
  • Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago
    counter-whining with bullshit arguments make me suspicious of motives. behind the facade, most of you guys are less concerned about the economy than you are dedicated to perpetuating bigotry.
  • vkobaya · 5 months ago
    Why should Obama divide his forces on the economy and take on some thing like that now?

    Funny you should ask that. Obama did divide his forces and took time out to viciously craft a major attack on the gay community. If he really didn't have the reserve to fight a battle on two fronts at once, why did he split his forces, especially to treacherously sneak attack someone who was supposed to be an ally. Far from waiting until the economic battle was won, he diverted strength from that battle to backstab us. And on that other battle front, he is also siding with the enemy there, continuing to enrich the banks and Wall Street with trillions of dollars, even to the point of creating a second wave of subprime mortgage loans. He's also defended wiretapping, continued the illegal, criminal wars in the Middle East, is even firing whistle blowers. No, Bush was the enemy and if anything, Obama has put himself squarely in the enemy's camp ... as an ally.
  • RonNYC · 5 months ago
    Obama's mistreatment and insults to us are obviously deliberate, as you pointed out, starting with Warren. I didn't want to, but I no longer see him as our friend. Regarding gay rights, he is in some ways worse than Bush in that Bush never pretended to like us. He presented one side when campaigning and now in office has turned 180deg, and not just on gay rights. He continues the Bush obsession with secrecy and Gitmo. Considers waterboarding a crime but won't go after the criminals. Frankly, I wish the president were Hillary.
  • Houndentenor · 5 months ago
    So the couple that GAVE us DOMA and DADT could have been counted on to repeal them? Yeah, right.
  • RonNYC · 5 months ago
    Point well taken, but I think of the choices we had in 2008, Hillary would have been better for gay people than Obama.
  • Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago
    Let's also review the DOMA discussion from last summer. Hillary was for repealing part of it (the full faith and credit part). Obama was for repealing all of it (including federal benefits). Given that Obama is no longer interested in repealing anything, Hillary was indeed the better choice.
  • RonNYC · 5 months ago
    I feel so embarrassed in front of some friends of mine, gay friends, who were never Obama fans and who from the start voiced distrust of him. I of course, bought into it. I'd make a lousy fish.
  • ChristopherM · 5 months ago
    And given the Clintons' history of truth-telling, you believe she was more likely to be honest with us than Obama why? I knew she would pull a stunt like this with us given her triangulating on the war. I had hoped he wouldn't.
  • timncguy · 5 months ago
    you got that backwards, Clinton was for repeal of the part denying federal benefits but was for allowing states to continue to not recognize other states' marriages
  • Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago
    thanks for the correction -- careless mistake.
  • timncguy · 5 months ago
    there were also many legal experts at the time who explained that the policy distinction between them on DOMA was a distinction without a difference.

    People assume that full repeal would automatically lead to recognition of marriage between states. Lawyers said that was a false assumption.
  • RonNYC · 5 months ago
    Just read on MSNBC: Obama blocks access to the White House Visitors' Log, just like Bush:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politic...

    What the heck happened to the election?
  • left and proud · 5 months ago
    We keep talking about the Obama reaction, I want to hear from the Democrat organizations. Where is the Stonewall Democrats, where is the YD Stonewall Caucus, where is the DNC GLBT caucus......strangely silent...but they would still sure welcome our money. They should the loudest and strongest right now....but I guess I have high expectations.
  • larkohio · 5 months ago
    This is a civil rights issue. Gays should be allowed to marry just as straights are. I am straight, and I think many straight people agree with me. My daughters' generation certainly supports equality in marriage. I hope that this discrimination ends in my lifetime.
  • tlsintx · 5 months ago
    take the high road, Obama. that's why we voted you in.
    there is no reason on earth why gay humans and straight humans should be treated any differently.
  • KarenMrsLloydRichards · 5 months ago
    We're like Miss Fannie Lou: We're sick and tired of bein' sick and tired!
  • Indigo · 5 months ago
    There's very little left to say. "Good-bye, Barry" comes to mind.
  • timncguy · 5 months ago
    The irony in all of this is that had the Obama Admin NOT submitted this brief the gay community would likely have been pleased with the upcoming HateCrimes legislation and seen that as the admin finally starting to move forward. It would have been hailed as progress.

    Now because of the DOJ brief, Hate Crimes legislation is going to be seen as too little, too late.

    Now I don't believe that even an executive order on DADT will quell the anger. Harry Reid hasn't done any favors for Obama on this issue with his statement yesterday either. He just added to the pressure.

    I think in order to fix this mess, Obama will need to come out in public and state how disgusted he is by the brief, force the DOJ to retract the brief and fire the attorney responsible for the brief. And, this will have to be done in ADDITION to Hate Crimes and DADT, not instead of.

    I think this may require a "Philadelphia" style speech like Obama gave on race in America.

    Who knows, maybe this HUGE misfire by the administration will, in the end, get us much farther down the equality path than we would have gotten without it.
  • timncguy · 5 months ago
    re the DNC Fundraiser. The DNC has a bit of time to weigh in on this issue PRIOR to the fund raiser on the 25th.

    We haven't heard anything from them yet, have we?

    The hosts of this fund raiser, Barney Frank, Tammy Bladwin & Jared Polis haven't weighed in yet either. They are running out of time.

    If we don't get satisfaction soon, this DNC fund raiser had better turn into a HUGE LGBT equality PROTEST. And Frank, Bladwin and Polis had better be at the head oft he protest line.
  • cloudphreak · 5 months ago
    I just checked out the websites for Barney, Tammy, and Jared. The crickets are deafening. There is nothing from any of them regarding DOMA, DADT, or ENDA. There is a small item on the Baldwin website about her sponsorship of a bill to extend benefits to partners of federal employees. Yeah, way to go guys...
  • isaac · 5 months ago
    all that ugly Hillary hate. all i can say is, i told ya so
  • Gridlock · 5 months ago
    DOMA and DADT from Clintons.

    Nuff said.
  • TheRealist · 5 months ago
    From "A" Clinton, not Hillary.

    Hillary seems to be succeeding in this area, within her department. Actions over pretty words.
  • Mike_H · 5 months ago
    DOMA was a bad call, DADT was the best they could do at the time. Clinton wanted to do better, but was betrayed by congressional Dems.

    Every time this issue comes up, I wish people would remember the context. Clinton was THE gay-friendliest president we've ever had, and did more for our community at a time in which it was a greater political cost.

    Obama has done less at a time in which the public is increasingly on our side, especially with DADT. The poll numbers during the Clinton years on touching this military issue were dire; the poll numbers now overwhelmingly on our side.

    Clinton took more risks for our community than Obama has to date. Period.
  • Gridlock · 5 months ago
    I'm sorry, perhaps my memory fails me.. what exactly did he do?
  • John Aravosis · 5 months ago
    We've already discussed this repeatedly. I love Hillary, but she abruptly canceled an interview with us while she running for nominee simply because they found out we were going to ask her about DOMA. Her staff balled us out, how dare we ask her about DOMA. No one's shit doesn't stink.
  • timncguy · 5 months ago
    I still have a question I would like to see answered by a lawyer. It is the issue of "standing". Everyone just seems to take this claim that this particular couple lacks "standing" to file suit a face value.

    How can a legally married couple NOT have standing to sue the federal government fo their rightful federal mrriage benefits?

    I understand they might not have standing to sue for other states to recognize their marriage because they haven't moved to another state and been denied recognition.

    But, they are legally married and are being denied the federal marriage benefits.
  • John Aravosis · 5 months ago
    In the law, generally, you have to little have some action take place. In other words, for a crime of assault, the guy can't simply say he's going to hit you, he needs to hit you. Same thing goes here. A gay couple, under the standing argument, would have to file for federal benefits, submit a joint tax return, something like that, and then get turned down in order for the court to review the case. Why? Because it's always possible, however unlikely, that the gay couple would apply for benefits and, lo and behold, Barack Obama's administration accepts their joint tax return. yes, it's unlikely, but it's possible - for a court to intervene, you have to literally be harmed. Not just hypothetically.
  • So Left I'm Right · 5 months ago
    Thanks for another excellent post on this issue. The administration is digging its own grave with the gay community. I think many people, certainly including myself, acknowledged that the economic crisis, Iraq and the Middle East were among the key priorities out of the gate. But Obama and the DOJ are taking jaw-dropping actions -- purposeful, intentional actions -- that anyone who listened to the campaign must find mystifying.

    The DOJ had a choice on how to deal with legacy Bush policies, most of which are beneath contempt and were roundly criticized by the likes of Holder and Obama himself. But they continue to defend and even extend some of the most grotesque power-mad excesses of the Bush secrecy and torture regimes, when they should be investigating and prosecuting. Likewise, they had to choose to draft and file as disgusting a brief as they produced on DOMA. It took some effort to come up with so offensive a document, so they obviously have multitasking down, or have time on their hands. The Times does nail this one. Even if they decided to submit a brief on DOMA, it could have been general and not particularly forceful, and could have come with some administration official indicating that their intent and policy position would be to seek to repeal DOMA. That would have been easy, consistent with campaign promises, and avoided this controversy.

    If it were a case of simple inaction on our most important issues, it would still be too early (IMHO) to go to the wall in criticizing Obama, but they have made a point to take action, most all of it completely contrary to what we were led to believe in the campaign. It is now our job to let them hear it loudly, forcefully, day and night, that they will either correct their mistakes and start fulfilling their promises, or they can count on a large and perhaps decisive source of votes and funds vanishing and perhaps even working against his administration.
  • Butch1 · 5 months ago
    Yes, I read that this morning on line. Too bad they can't give credit where credit is due on who broke the story. ( good work, guys! )
  • John · 5 months ago
    Finally, a DOMA editorial in a newspaper that we know Obama actually reads. Now, if only the White House press corps had the balls to challenge Gibbs the next time he does his "the president doesn't know anything about this DOJ brief" sthick.
  • Chelsea · 5 months ago
    Here's a great political cartoon about gay marriage.

    http://www.markfiore.com/quasimarriage_0