DISQUS

EuroRant · 5 months ago

"It's wrong to have millions of Americans living as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS in this nation. And I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS ELECTION so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.
I WILL NEVER COMPROMISE ON MY COMMITMENT TO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL LGBT AMERICANS. As your President, I WILL USE THE BULLY PULPIT to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Americans are YEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, WE NEED LEADERSHIP that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. JOIN WITH ME, AND I WILL PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." -- Barack Obama (February 2008)

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

nicho · 5 months ago

The funny thing is that if Bush had filed this exact same brief, there wouldn't be one person here (except for freeper trolls) trying to defend it or rationalize it. The opposition would be 100%. But because Obama did it, we see people trying to give him a pass.

Well, I'm sorry, but Mr. Obama is all out of passes.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

yep... same here.

Stephen · 5 months ago

A Bush administration lawyer wrote it. Why they're not all purged G-d only knows.

P · 5 months ago

You think this went out without the people higher up knowing all about it?

Seriously, would you have ever given Bush a break on ANYTHING by entertaining for a second that maybe it was some lower level functionary and Bush didn't know about it?

Wake up.

frizbeesf · 5 months ago

Sigh...

Ok... Look, I know it sounds like the LGBT community is pulling our best Veruka Salt imitation ("Daddy! I want civil rights Nooowww!") Yet it is very easy to say "oh just be patient", when you are not the one relegated to second class citizenship.

Like it or not, by the words he used during the campaign and by the promises he made, President Obama created very real expectations that he would be forceful advocate for equality. His campaign rhetoric on LGBT issues was deliberate. He wanted to create those expectations, it is why we supported him.

LGBT Americans didn't misunderstand what Barak Obama said. Barack Obama has simply chosen to forget his words.

Like thousands of other bi-national couples, my partner and I are separated by his immigration status. I can't sponsor him to come the US. (He lives in the UK) Thankfully the UK grants its citizens more civil rights than the US does, and we are in the process of getting my spousal visa to move there. We had held off doing this last year, in hopes that the President Obama would live up to the rhetoric of Candidate Obama.

Now I could marry and divorce and remarry any number of mail order brides from around the world, and Uncle Sam wouldn't so much as bat an eye in my direction. But to be able to sponsor a stable professional property owning highly educated and successful accountant from London who happens to male, somehow is just too much to ask for.

Now some of you are saying I should just sit down, shut up and tolerate being separated from my spouse for "a couple of years", because these things "take time. "

Sorry but no. My right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not subject to anyone's socio-political sensibilities. To accept anything less is to say you are ok with The United States being a country where people are less free, discriminated against, and marginalized based sexual orientation.

It's this simple; Anyone so expresses support for DOMA in any form, has just said that Gay and Lesbian Americans are not real citizens of the United States, and should be marginalized as such.

So when I read nonsense like; "Same sex couples can daft contracts that give them the same rights as everybody else. We don't need to repeal DOMA", it's hard not to throw things at the computer. Same sex couples in the U.S. are anything BUT equal.

So unless President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party suddenly grow a spine and decide to keep all those wonderful promises about equality they made back in 2008, I am am stuck choosing between love or country.

After years of painful waiting in a long distance relationships, the choice for so many couples like us has been made very clear.

By filing this hideously offensive brief, The Obama Adminstration has just told LGBT Americans that we should never be anything other than a second class citizens.

woodroad34 · 5 months ago

Well put. There have been so many exercises in trying to share rights--automatically given under "marriage"-- from adopting your spouse (which was judicially put down as subverting marriage. Hah!), to setting up contracts (which don't give you tax benefits or visitation rights), to Power of Attorney (again it doesn't give you most of the 1,000 rights assigned to 'marriage'). Obama, as you put it, was quite clear in his candidate speeches--there was no quibbling or coded inference in any of them. He hasn't really stepped up to the bat. It's been almost 15 years since DOMA went into effect and in that time people's point of view has changed considerably--not to mention there is a Democratic Congress as opposed to a Republican majority for Clinton. Obama's squeamish, Clintonesque reaction is unnecessary--so, I'm inclined to think that I will stop reading his 'fierce advocacy" lips

prettytickedoffbrit · 5 months ago

Awww, god, I'm so sorry. I can totally understand how frustrating this must be, for you and your partner.

But an advanced welcome to Britain anyway! <:)

Valentine Frey · 5 months ago

To all those oh-so-mature, take-the-long-view, what's-the-matter-with-you-people people: This position and this breach of trust were not necessitated by political expediency - you know "we have to shaft the fags so we can all get health care." We don't. There is a huge pendulum shift underway in our direction on this issue - all the Obama administration would have had to do is go with the flow. Opposition to modernizing our concept of marriage is at a tipping point. One little push from the Mr. Cool administration would have been enough for it to acquire roughly the same social cachet as opposition to pre-marital sex. Doing the right thing has never been easier. Instead, thanks to what I can only explain as a grotesque obsession with trying to please everyone, an obsession that amounts to personal vanity, positions may congeal here for another half generation.

To Obama (spends all his time on the blog): If you want to piss off the Cheney's there are other approaches. What about indicting the torture thirteen for crimes against humanity?

Bill · 5 months ago

Amazing that Heterosexuals are treating THEIR VERY OWN CREATIONS this way.

I mean, even a rat would treat their own offspring better.

Makes me wonder if GOd made a horrible mistake leaving the children in the hands of the Heterosexual.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

What?

Sue · 5 months ago

"scarce government resources"?????

So the banking and automobile industry gets bailouts, and we get hyperbole.

Lovely.

flybob · 5 months ago

"Scarce government resources" ... hmmm ... as in the tax dollars we gay citizens pay?

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

WOW, HADN'T EVEN THOUGHT OF THIS! EXCELLENT... EXCELLENT POINT!

LifeTrek · 5 months ago

The sad thing is that this argument, when really thought about, is actually saying that the government doesn't want gay people to enter into any marriage, including straight marriages!

Thus negating the argument often made by the far right that, "gays have equal rights and can marry now -- they can marry any woman they want just like I can!"

Women tend to live longer then men, thus if I marry my BF and he gets my SS benefits for life he would get less then if I married a woman.

Women also tend to have higher health costs over their lifetime, assuming we remain monogamous and HIV negative in marriage, our benefit structure would cost less then if I married a woman and far less then if I included maternity coverage -- (one pregnancy in itself could pay for quite a bit of HIV medication for years and if there were complications may end up being more expensive then if we were both HIV+).

So, in essence my marrying a man could be cheaper to the government then if I married a woman.

The only way it would be cheaper is if I never married at all, man or woman.

Thus the, "scarce government resources," argument is nothing more then saying that gays should not get married to anyone ever!

Even if Obama expands gay rights in the future this one is a slap that should wake all gay people. The answer is less government not more -- let me live my life and keep the government out of it -- and until we stop acting as a blind monolith this is what we will get.

Second class tickets are for sale at all DNC and Obama campaign offices.
David

Strepsi · 5 months ago

Nice digging. I thought this paragraph was the most sickening:
"Loving v. Virginia is not to the contrary. There the Supreme Court rejected a contention that the assertedly "equal application" of a statute prohibiting interracial marriage immunized the statute from strict scrutiny. 388 U.S. 1, 8, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to "interracial marriages involving white persons," was "designed to maintain White Supremacy" and therefore unconstitutional. Id. at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the "supremacy" of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be "traced to a . . . purpose" to discriminate against either men or women. "

How about HETEROSEXUALS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, fool?

My thoughts go out to people in your country. For "freedom" and "equality" the U.S. is a joke. I hope it will join the civilized world soon. Or at least the 20th century, if not the 21st. If not, come to CANADA: I have been legally federally married for six years.

Our thoughts are with you: FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

Stephen · 5 months ago

It's not a protected class. If it were the argument would be different and would likely fail.

Strepsi · 5 months ago

Men are not a protected class either. The lame "argument" of this paragraph is that the only possible people who can discriminate in marriage are men against women, or women against men. Which is heterosexist, reductionist, and illogical to the core. DOMA does not just "protect" straight marriage, it ACTIVELY discriminates against other forms.

Tim · 5 months ago

THAT WAS EXACTLY MY THOUGHT TOO! um.. this is totally about heterosexual power over minority homosexual rights.

doctressjulia · 5 months ago

I know this doesn't mean much, but I wish I could give my right to be married to a gay couple... like, transfer it? or something, lol? I am never going to, and I get more and more pressure from perfect strangers that I'll 'find the right one' and all that crap. 'Cause, you know I'm mostly straight, so I should be having teh babiez... Ugh! I am not the marrying kind. I wish I could give up my right to marry for you. :(

Jay · 5 months ago

Good Lord. Didn't see that one coming from The One. That's pretty over the top.

A discussion on rights is subject to the vicissitudes of the federal budget? What a load of spreadable growth enabler.

While I (Hetero/Anglo/Texan/Republican) am frequently annoyed by the posturing of the likes of Gavin Newsome and those who would place their personal view above the law, I cannot support the unmitigated load contained in this brief. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

Keep the far ends of the bell curve at bay and place a centrist-worded "Privilege to Marry" initiative on the Texas ballot, and I'm sure that the LGBT community would be surprised at the support that it would receive from us ignorant rednecks. Even if it doesn't pass, at least (unlike The One) we'll say the same thing to your face that we'd say to your back.

PS: I don't want my niece to marry her girlfriend because the girlfriend is a snotty little b.. who will make my niece miserable, not because she's a she.

Jay

Michael · 5 months ago

For everyone that says that there are more important broader issues to deal with, health care, economy, wars, than GLBT issues, I have to say that those issues will always be there and should not be used as justification to hold off on basic civil rights work for a vulnerable minority. There will never be a time when a broader issue or crisis can not be used to delay full equality rights for GLBT citizens. It is an argument that does as much to belittle GLBT citizens as any other.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

And the thing is, the question is no longer whether Obama is ignoring gay issue for "more important issues." He's affirmatively trying to destroy our rights. He clearly didn't think other things were more important when the signed off on this brief comparing our relationships to incest.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

One person earlier posted that Obama is being "hands off" on the gay rights issue. Clearly he's not. Not any more. He is definitely hands on now, and not in a good way.

Michael Wardlow · 5 months ago

John - I don't think that paragraph equates SSM with incest or child marriage - it simply makes the point that certain relationships are not dignified with the term 'marriage' by all jurisdictions, and that in that subset is SSM. Which is a fact.

I am much more disgusted by the hyper-dishonesty embodied in several of the paragraphs you cite - where, in the course of declaring DOMA's 'caution' and 'neutrality,' the Obama administration selects 'traditional marriage' - which as the brief states already includes, in certain states, minors and first cousins - to receive federal benefits which may legitimately be denied to certain other otherwise valid marriages because certain other states aren't yet on board. 'Cause it'll save some dough. Also.

That's called 'neutrality.' Obversely, those sixteen year olds and kissin' cousins legitmately deserve federal benefits despite society's discomfort with sexual abuse of minors and children with almond eyes.

It's such a transparently shabby argument that I wish I could read it as an invitation to reject the whole brief. But I guess after almost six months of Hope and Change, we ought to know better now....

kh7463 · 5 months ago

This is just fucked up.

tigergrrldc · 5 months ago

People, clearly there has been a case of miscommunication here. When Obama said he was a "fierce advocate," we heard that he would defend us, fight for us. What he meant was that he was going to sh*t all over us every chance he got. See? A simple case of miscommunication.

Alan · 5 months ago

To those many people who think that LGBT's are selfish about same-sex marriage, or that we're making too much noise about the issue, I'm legally married in the state where I live. I'm also retired. If my spouse adds me to his medical coverage with his employer, the employer's share of the premiums is about $440 per month. Because the federal government doesn't recognize my marriage, my partner has to pay income tax on that $440 (that is, tax on $5280 per year). So don't tell me to sit down and shut up.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

exactly.

The argument the government needs to save money should be used to argue we shouldn't have to pay taxes to support opposite sex marriages and their many benefits.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

Think of all the money the Social Security system would save if they didn't have to pay out benefits to surviving straight spouses in the way they don't pay benefits to surviving gay spouses. Funny we don't hear them making THAT argument.

dnewgirl! · 5 months ago

It is a sin to be gay.

judybrowni · 5 months ago

It's a sin to be a bigot.

In fact, a bigger sin to be a bigot, since it's directly caused more bloodshed.

Sasha · 5 months ago

That is a personal problem. If you think it is a sin and that bothers you, don't do it.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Then god shouldn't have made us gay, ergo your god is fallible, ergo your whole religion comes crashing down.

Enjoy that.

*sips his martini*

Edith · 5 months ago

The oppressed become the oppressor.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Good point.

Jacopo Belbo · 5 months ago

obama is a spineless centrist corpratist. he is not a principled progressive ... he has said so himself (i am not ideological) ... a person of pricniple and who belived in equality, progressive and modern democracy would have suspended DADT and would be ahead of the curve on the GLBT issues ... instead he is 'playing it safe' and simply pandering to the worst inclinations of our bigoted and regressive society ... instead of trying to lead and move public opinion towards what every kind humanist knows is right he lets the public opinion of our ignorant, bigoted, hyper-religious, regressive society shhape him and thus he can look back in 25 years when "equality" finaly and ineveitably includes glbt and be ashamed that he was on the sidelines. isntead of being like LBJ who stood with Dr King during the civil rights movement he can put himself squarely in the camp of a long history of feckless politicians who only care about power and not principle.

ObamaDaMan · 5 months ago

The Obama brief is great!

It exactly agrees with my sense of the law.

Paul · 5 months ago

Thank God you don't make policy!

lolbama · 5 months ago

Luckily, he doesn't need to - we've got Obama for that!

Stopit · 5 months ago

Comparing the plight of gays to the plight of blacks in America is what pisses many blacks off. Stop doing it! Gays were never denied the right to vote. Gays were never legal SLAVES. Besides, skin color and gender have NOTHING to do with each other. The differences between a black man and a white man are MINISCULE compared to the differences between men and women.

Russell · 5 months ago

Dear Stopit,

Gays are the only minority group who have been completely left out of any conversation or teaching concerning the holocaust, and they, like the Jews and blacks were hunted, thrown in camps and slain.

Gays have been treated invisibly, as if they don't exist and up until the end of the 1950's were thrown into mental institutions and tortured because "gayness" was considered an illness instead of natural selection.

Gays are still lynched and put to death in most other countries, and though they may not have been dragged from Africa to be slaves in America, they have been (and are) dragged through city streets, crucified, stoned to death, persecuted and attacked verbally and physically by 90% of the population.

Gays are discredited by people like you who think that racial / gender comparisons is the issue instead of injustice.

So why don't YOU stop it.

John · 5 months ago

Actually the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC had a really impressive setup covering gays during the holocaust. I took a lot of pictures of the displays.

mirafirefly · 4 months ago

I hate to be a whinging ultra-minority here, but if you want real invisibility, try transgender/gender-variant people. We're invisible even within the LGBT community - or, as many blithely and ignorantly call it, the "gay community," as if homosexual men were either the underpinning of the community, the most significant group, or the only group that really matters. "LGBT" itself is a limiting term - "Queer" is much better and more inclusive, as many of the younger generation of sexual and gender minorities and activists have been discovering.

Sure, "gays" are relatively invisible, but meanwhile the suicide rate for transgender youth is widely estimated at over 50%. That's right, OVER HALF of transgender youth attempt suicide. And meanwhile, most Americans don't know the difference between a transsexual and a drag queen, and have never even heard terms like genderqueer and gender-fluid.

There's a definite pecking order in the queer community, and it goes like this:

Masculine gay men
Feminine lesbian women
Feminine gay men
Masculine lesbian women
Bisexuals/pansexuals
Crossdressers/drag queens
Traditional, feminine male-to-female transsexuals
Female-to-male transsexuals
Kinky/alternative sexualities, BDSM and fetish
Genderqueer/andro/third-gendered/two-spirit etc.
Intersex/herm

My own perspective is probably skewed by being genderqueer/trans/intersex myself, but anyone who hasn't seen the pecking order in terms of visibility, rights campaigning and funding after spending any amount of time in the queer community has very serious blinders on.

Klad InVermont · 4 months ago

With all the variations you've listed, can you really blame anyone str8 or not, for being either confused or unaware? I mean really?

Bill · 5 months ago

I completely agree with this comment. However, as I stated in a previous comment, there is a common thread. The withholding of basic civil rights guaranteed by the constitution. I agree we should no longer use the comparison for the simple reason that it DOES incite anger and further closes their minds to see our POV. Instead of a direct comparison, I feel we should have our stories be heard. Have everyone understand our pain and suffering. We have to make it feel personal to everyone. And again, we are not pushing an AGENDA. We are merely asking to enjoy the benefits you enjoy. That's all. Nothing else. You don't have to accept me or my partner, but you do have to accept me as an equal participant in this society.

Lauren · 5 months ago

You do realize in almost 40 states, it's still legal to be fired or evicted for real or perceived sexual orientation? In 2009?


And aren't the differences between men and women limited to genitalia? If you want to argue brain chemistry, you'd be surprised how limiting the gender binary actually is.

Bill · 5 months ago

It shouldn't be an issue of black or white, or male or female. We should be looking at the similarities and NOT the DIFFERENCES. We are ALL OF US Legal, Law Abiding, Hard Working, Tax Paying EQUAL AMERICAN HUMAN BEINGS!!! Does that NOT count for ANYTHING? Hell, even those who commit the worse of crimes have more rights than we do. Give me a fucking break. What? Do we have to wait, oh say, a hundred more years to demand equality, because then we can say we have suffered? Are there not Black Gay and Lesbian people also denied these rights? The color of skin singled them out on that ONE quality. Our sexuality encompasses EVERY group who fought before us to get their rights.

noverdrive · 5 months ago

"Stop doing it! Gays were never denied the right to vote. Gays were never legal SLAVES."

And you know what? Neither were you. Get off your cross. You can't get fired from a job for being black, but I can certainly get fired just for being gay--and that is just one example. Ponder that just a moment, why don't you? Do you really think gays don't face discrimination? Do you really think we do not deserve equal treatment under the law because we can't be identified just by skin color? Or is the ugly truth that we're a group you can freely discriminate against so you can feel like an equal with all the other bigots in our world?

And to borrow your language:

The differences between a GAY man and a STRAIGHT man are MINISCULE compared to the differences between men and women.

Peace.

patschican · 5 months ago

All marriage should be civil unions, gay or straight. We should delete the word marriage entirely from the law and keep it where it belongs: religion. Two consenting adults can enter into a civil union which carries with it legal rights. If they desire, they can also have a marriage ceremony at their church/temple etc., but that plays no part in the law.

LizEN · 5 months ago

I completely agree. Let's really separate church and state, shall we? They do this all over Europe don't they? Doesn't seem like civilization has crumbled over there.

I just want to be able to legally choose my next of kin and get the legal benefits that all long-term committed couples should have. Let's stop giving the religious right the ammunition they want by talking about marriage and let's even the playing field for all couples.

John · 5 months ago

Yeah, that is what we should do. Instead of using the word "marriage" for the civil contract, we should call it "the holy state of matrimony" and not allow churches to use THAT term!

The fact is, marriage already IS the civil term, and is NOT a religious term. Homophobes try to hide that fact, and try to PRETEND that it is the "religious" term, but just watch the outcry if we try to take "holy state of matrimony" away from THEM!

patschican · 5 months ago

John, sometimes the way to win is to beat them at their own game. They want to play semantics, then let's play semantics, get what we want, and make them look silly in the process. If allowing the word marriage to be removed from law will mean that they can't complain any more that the LGBT community is destroying a holy state created by God, then remove it. Create a new word that is wholly secular and attach to it all the legal benefits of marriage.

Then sit back and laugh when gays and lesbians can still get married in addition to being legally joined, because lots of churches -- especially Unitarians -- will be happy to marry them.

zagtastic · 5 months ago

this is exactly the result i would like to see. the real issue here is that we are forcing a moral argument into legal terms... and that is not conducive for reaching consensus. forget the semantic jab and parry (prop 8 couldn't have survived the SC appeal in CA if it had been more than defining a previously undefined term in the constitution)... let the religious have their term, and let all committed, permanent partnerships have the same benefit under the law.

Loving · 5 months ago

Loving has absolutely no place in a gay marriage argument.

For all you legal scholars out there, the Loving case did NOT redefine marriage. It affirmed it. It affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman and not based on race. For those of you who think it was illegal for races to marry before Loving, think again. Hispanics and Caucasians could marry, the only exclusion was African Americans. So you weren't redefining a fundamental of marriage. You were affirming that you could not discriminate based on RACE. It had nothing whatsoever to do with redefining marriage since more than one race had the right to marry already.

Lord Almighty, I am getting so tired of having to clear this up every. single. time.

Justin · 5 months ago

Marriage is a bond between two consenting adults that love each other and want to share property. By letting two gay people marry, we're not redefining it, we're affirming it.

Patrick · 5 months ago

It seems to me the main issue is civil rights. It's true that people across the South are gay-hating and the country is not ready for gay marriage... just as the country was not ready for racial intermarriage or black civil rights in the 1950s. That's exactly why we have governments, to protect the rights of oppressed minority - otherwise it's mob rule.

The government in its arguments above has trouble arguing that gay civil rights are somehow less important than black civil rights, in discussing Loving v. Virginia:

"The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to 'interracial marriages involving white persons,' was 'designed to maintain White Supremacy' and therefore unconstitutional. Id. at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the 'supremacy' of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be 'traced to a . . . purpose' to discriminate against either men or women."

But this argument is obviously disingenous. Of course DOMA doesn't advance the supremacy of one gender over another - it advances the supremacy of heterosexuals over homosexuals, and is therefore clearly discriminatory just as the laws against black and white miscegenation were.

Annie · 5 months ago

The headline on this article is completely misleading. Obama did not write this opinion and I seriously doubt he read it before it was filed. I echo others who have pointed out how the legal system works, and that lawyers for any party sued have a duty to diligently defend. The United States is a named party to hundreds of lawsuits. It is not the job of the President to be personally involved with every last one of them, and it is likely is he rarely personally involved with any of them. You also might want to go read the opinion for yourselves. It does not compare homosexuality to incest or pedophilia, but rather refers to the marrying ages and laws of various states. The man has been in office for a little over five months. I don't believe it is time yet to get so riled up. Later, maybe, but not now. I still believe Obama meant the things he said. And I believe the climate of change we are already seeing in various states will aid in pushing things along as well.

Heather Mac · 5 months ago

The federal government recognizes my opposite-sex marriage from Florida, even as I live in Alaska. I don't see how there could be any logical reason for the federal government not to recognize a same-sex marriage. I mean, when you get right down to it, marriage is a union of consenting adults, and if a state recognizes your same-sex marriage license, why wouldn't the federal government?

Joe Loving · 5 months ago

Obama supporters get what they deserve. You are just now realizing everything he does is always about protecting/increasing HIS power, and everyone else can be thrown under the bus? You'll vote for him again in 2012 anyway, Suckers.

Dee Gravink · 5 months ago

No one here seems to understand how the federal government or the DOJ work.
As if Obama even read this thing before it was filed.

raindrop · 5 months ago

Since candidate Obama said, "I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate," I find it hard if not impossible to believe his legal appointees would go into court to do the opposite of his will.

TheBigotBasher · 5 months ago

Firstly, a President can not and nor should we expect one to just completely ignore a law passed by Congress and signed off by a Predecessor. Especially when that law has gone to Court 6 times under previous administrations and was declared Constitutional.

One of the main criticisms people had of W was that he ignored the law and sought too much Executive Privilege. So why should a Democratic Party President do the same?

The President has certain duties within the Constitution, above all ensuring it is protected. As for all the racist Clintonistas turning up to spam, where was Bill when he could have vetoed this?

Another obligation within the Constitution is protecting the right of States. DOMA does protect State rights, wrongly or rightly. And for all those running round saying Cheney is more progressive all he was saying is he agrees with DOMA, he argued gay marriage is a State issue. He did so after he left office, so his words were very carefully chosen for entirely Partisan purposes. Why did he not raise the issue of gay marriage when he was Vice President?

With regard to the brief that Queerty and America Blog so heavily objects to, it is the sworn duty of any Lawyer to put forward their best case. For those getting inflamed by the stories that suggest the deposition compares gay marriage to pedos and incest, it does not. The deposition recognises that States have different rules about who can marry (ie how closely related) and at what age. The case in question quoted was that of a 16 year old girl, hardly paedophilia or incest.

raindrop · 5 months ago

What are you going to do about Obama's promise that "he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act"?

-- from: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues....

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Barack Obama:

Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Says he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. As stated on the Obama campaign Web site, he supports full civil unions that "give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights."

Says the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Advocated legislation that sought to expand federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Says the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy needs to be repealed.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

TheBigotBasher · 5 months ago

There are Mid Terms next year and Primaries soon. This is where pink power can really count. As a demographic group gays have the largest disposable income (donations) and the highest level of free time. Go for the Primaries. Select real Democrats. Those who will scrap DOMA and DADT. Get rid of thr DLC Clinton DINOs who have said they will oppose it. Use power the way Republicans do.

raindrop · 5 months ago

So you're not going to deal with the fact that Obama promised "he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act"?

TheBigotBasher · 5 months ago

You are being deliberately disingenuous I guess in order to reply the Primaries. It is not for the President to run legislation, how often did people go after Bush for ignoring that?

Where is Congress? Where are the Representatives? Once they are sorted, if President Obama vetoes any legislation to repeal DADT and DOMA, then I will have an issue.

Frankly, I remain very happy that I have a President I trust not to do that.

KitsapPatriot · 5 months ago

Wow did you drink the koolaid. Seriously where are all the critical thinkers here.

raindrop · 5 months ago

Yeah, I have heard that excessive kool-aid drinking rots the brain cells and destroys the ability to think clearly.

Those were Obama-appointed lawyers who went into court with this disgusting legal brief. If they had thought Obama really wanted to help gays have the right to marry, they would never have written such a vile brief.

McLovin · 5 months ago

We thought we were doing that. It's hard to back someone honest these days. Barrack was saying everything we wanted to hear so we gave him our time and money. None of us thought he would turn his back on us. How do we elect someone who will stand up for us if all these candidates lie about supporting us?

John · 5 months ago

Obama did not say any of that. It was the argument of a lawyer, and chances are that lawyer was one of those the Bush Administration pulled in when they were making issues like this a litmus test for new federal employees.

Larry Hughes · 5 months ago

And what about the other two lawyers?

And what are the chances they didn't clear this with Holder?

And what are the chances Holder didn't clear this with Axelrod?

What are the chances this brief was filed without regard to political consequences?

As Kanye West might say, Barack Obama doesn't care about gay people.

mirafirefly · 4 months ago

Oh, sweet irony. The quote would be "George Bush don't like black people," or in your words "Barack Obama don't like gay people" - and Kanye West himself don't like gay people, and has indicated as much in interviews.

CD · 5 months ago

Nope, there is no chance that Mr. Simpson was hired by the Bush administration, because, as even a short stroll through Westlaw would have confirmed, he was working there before GWB took office.

Tracy · 5 months ago

Gays have rights, so the only reason that they want to get married is because that way they can promote being gay and by legalizing homosexual marriage they can feel that society has sanctioned, accepted, approves and normalizes their behavior. The fact is society does none of those and that is why we do not legalize it. Pedophiles are also arguing the legalization of their sick desires too. Should we do that as well?

Wesinoregon · 5 months ago

Gay people can promote it anyway. Gay marriage IS legal in 6 states already. The majority already indicated its acceptance, approval, etc... Being gay IS normal even in the animal kingdom. Give some links to Pedophile's quest for legalization of their desires. Can you do that? Or, do you just want to keep making things up. BTW, Pedophilia has nothing to do with gay rights and most of them are straight. Also, give the rights you think gays have that are equal to straights. They CAN get married? LOL, would any parent really want a gay man to marry their daughter? YES, they can but would that be the right thing to do? Knowing it won't work out. You are out of touch and don't know anything about what you are talking about.

darkmoonman · 5 months ago

Watch this & learn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTv7Xao93I

Bill · 5 months ago

I don't care if you accept me or my partner. It's not about acceptance or promoting ANYTHING. It's about enjoying basic civil rights bestowed upon a certain class of people and denied to another. I would happily go down to City Hall, get my license, and disappear into the sunset never to bother you. You only spew this because it gets the reaction you desire, which is more hate and ignorance. As far as pedophiles, I agree with another responder, show some links or point to some evidence this is true. You can't because it's probably not. Just something you pulled from your ignorant A** to again evoke hate and bigotry. Besides, we are asking for consenting adults not children. Why must the argument ALWAYS go there when homosexuals are brought up? Next you will bring up beastiality...got news for ya. Already heard that one...

erasmus · 5 months ago

I did not read the 44 page report but it seems to me that it mainly makes the point that the definition of marriage is mainly up to the States to determine. Now, if only the Federal Govt applied that principal consistently across the board I would be happy since as far as I am concerned they have 'usurped' far too many powers the past few decades.

But in terms of this issue I have a sort of conservative take which does not seem to have been mentioned: the family is the bedrock nucleus of social structure, conditioning, mores etc. simply because the family is the arrangement whereby children are produced biologically through natural means and then raised. Yes, homosexual couples can adopt or have a third party carry or seed a child for them etc. etc. but these are not simple, natural arrangements.

I have no problem with homosexuals choosing to live together because they find heterosexual intimacy unpleasant for whatever reason, but I don't see why there is anything wrong with a State saying that marriage is between a man and a woman and also encouraging societal differences between married couples and unmarried couples with all the distinctions that involves socially in both pleasant and unpleasant ways.

When push comes to shove this is about our culture, and culture IS about choice. We can choose uplifting, sophisticated, stupid, or wicked cultures but those are generalities; each culture develops its own detailed language, even a thoroughly criminal, degraded culture ends up having a quite precise tribal, communal or familial language, ways that certain things can and cannot be done. Ultimately, though, culture is something that we mutually develop and manifest and so ultimately it is a choice.

Personally, I think the issue here is NOT about homosexual marriage at all and you guys pushing it have a blind spot here. Ultimately it is about NORMAL, COMMITTED HETEROSEXUAL marriage which also is a cultural choice, NOT an easy thing to follow through on, and to which end over the millenia most civilised societies have encouraged marriage in order to provide discipline, sobriety, stability and consistency to the care and raising of children who are society's newest members.

So go off and have a great homosexual life. But if you live in a culture that wishes to emphasise marriage as an important element in how their society is structured, don't get so huffy about it. All gay people know very well that in pretty much any large city in the world anything goes. Sure, get proper civil union rights for insurance, hospital visitation etc, that is needed and right. But try a little harder to understand that conventional marriage is not an easy/automatic thing and many of the conventions in place to protect and honor it need to be respected. Something it seems to me you are not willing to do and which I think is both wrong and a tactical mistake.

boytokyo · 5 months ago

What would I know about "unpleasant"?

Please listen closely:
Just like many straight people have simply never been interested and so never pursued it?
It's. the. same. thing.

Don't you think that every one of us goes through life with a multitude of relationships through our culture with people through which we learn about and try to understand what close, intimate relationships based on ones we seen honored throughout our lives just like everybody else?
Gay people have just as much 'understanding' of relationships as anyone else.

It's sad that too many of the people around most gay people often get tangled up in other things and tend to miss their humanity.
But hey, we've all done it, right?
So at least that's a start there.

sponge · 5 months ago

I'm a lesbian and I have a kid. My biological own, thanks to a sperm bank, which is an option that more and more heterosexual couples have to take as fertility rates decline. By using a donor, I'm actually increasing the likelihood of more fertile offspring (donors have to be exceptionally fertile) which by your analysis is a good thing. I'm in a NORMAL, COMMITTED HOMOSEXUAL marriage (thank you Finland) and am providing a sober, safe, stable environment for my kid to grow up in with plenty of stable (also heterosexual male) role models around. On the other hand, I also know plenty of heterosexual marriages that have ended in divorce, alcoholism, abuse, etc. Heterosexuality, even with marriage, is no guarantee of fertility, stability or a safe environment for children, especially considering the fact that often heterosexuals have kids by accident, at the wrong time and with the wrong people. Orientation guarantees nothing.

Tracy · 5 months ago

Obama is doing the right thing in denying gay marriage. If it means that he changed his mind, then he changed it for the better and good of society as a whole, not just the few that would like to complain loud and hard for something that is unnatural and perverse.

Jayson · 5 months ago

And what exactly is "unnatural" about loving someone? And by someone I mean an adult person of the same sex. I feel in my heart the same comparable way to my lover of 5 years that any married couple feels toward each other. Our relationship is better for society because we are not out hiding who we are and screwing up some women's lives by "faking" a marriage with them while sneaking out to follow out true hearts. You saying that same sex marriage is unnatural and perverse is just like me saying your potential heterosexual marriage is the same. NO DIFFERENCE.

Tracy · 5 months ago

You can SAY anything you like, but by saying it is unnatural or perverse for heterosexual is obviously not true. You wouldn't even be here writing on this website if that were true. How did you get here? Through anal sex with another man? I don't think so. You can try and rationalize it all day long, but it still doesn't change what it is. As for saving a woman the pain of you faking a marriage while you follow your own lusts, well maybe you should work on that, and battle your desires the same way any straight person would when it comes to cheating on his wife. You want to follow your lusts. It has nothing to do with love. Men also cheat on their wife and sneak around being pedophiles too. Should we all rationalize that one and legalize that too?

Jayson · 5 months ago

And what exactly are you saying has nothing to do with love? It can't be that you're implying my committed long term relationship has nothing to do with love. It can't be that you're implying I don't know how to battle whatever "desires" you are projecting because as I said, I'm in a monogamous relationship. So what exactly are you saying has nothing to do with love? Furthermore where do you get the authority from to say that another person's love is lust?

Finally, are you trying to imply that having children is the only reason heterosexual couples marry? Because we are after all talking about marriage here. Realize very many people have children before or without being married and many married couples don't have children.

Lastly, what's this reference to pedophilia? Pedophilia is wrong and heinous because children are protected as they are not capable of making decisions about their sexuality yet in addition to being very succeptable to being taken advantage of. Our laws must certainly protect those who can't protect themselves.

Now, two grown men or women do have autonomy over their sexual and romantic selves. So there is no comparison to anything like pedophilia.

Scott · 5 months ago

Most heterosexual sex is for recreation, not procreation. There is not a single thing gay people do sexually that heterosexuals do not also do.

Jason · 5 months ago

LOL! Do YOU find women attractive? Would you want to marry a woman? If not, why do you expect all men to? (Offensive sentence removed from here)

Put your money where your mouth is, you hypocrite.

Offensive: let this be a warning.
Site Monitor

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

Who is this 'Society' and why didn't I get an invitation?!

Wh- Oh. Riiiight. XD

Z · 5 months ago

tracy, i'd suggest you and those who think like you consider moving forward by letting go of the stereotypes that have long chased gays and lesbians. Love is entirely blind, and that is the "loud and hard" message that homosexuals genuinely want others to hear. so that finally a safe space can be there for people to love the "natrual" way of love just as anyone else who has ever felt this emotion. who are we to tell another person any differently, to just deny them rights and privileges? Love is blind, it truely is. today is about understanding or trying to understand. and it's good to see these steps being made for the world to growth together.

Tracy · 5 months ago

I love my dog too but that doesn't mean I want to have sex with it or marry it. Is that what will be next?

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

Obviously you have no concept of the idea that love comes in different degrees.

I also love my dog, but I'm not IN LOVE with him. You're implying that love only comes in one color, whereas we all claim to love our families even as your standards would dictate that if you love it, you marry it. You're like that bratty kid who likes to taunt with the old adage, "If you love it so much why don't you marry it!"

Stop acting like a moron and put your logic cap on for DOG'S SAKE!

KitsapPatriot · 5 months ago

Your dog can't consent. Another typical neocon logic fail.

Wesinoregon · 5 months ago

Can you get the dog to talk and say the vows? Can your dog sign the papers for marriage? If so, go for it but keep that as a separate issue and fight for it if that is what you want.

Jason · 5 months ago

What your childish analogy fails to address is that they are talking about loving adult MEN AND WOMEN. If you are comparing an attraction and love for a man or a woman to loving a dog, then your love for your husband is analogous to bestiality as well.

bsaunders · 5 months ago

See, this is part of a strategy that I think is a mistake. Marriage is not about "love" primarily. It is a legal contract regarding the disposition of property, powers of attorney, etc. Now, that said, I believe each of us ought to have the right to create households with the partner of his or her choice, regardless of gender. The current cultural norm is to do so with a romantic partner, i.e., gays with gays; straights with straights. But "laws" do not recognize, validate, or permit LOVE. Heterosexuals are not required to "love" one another in order to get married. So, why do so many of the arguments around the rights of gay people to marry their partners focus on romantic love.

Rational thought · 5 months ago

Well, it took me a while but I finally finished reading the motion. That's right all 44 pages, not just the snippets presented here, plus I looked up the references cited. I am sorry but their motion is valid and supported by the framework of the law. Now before you start name calling and what-not know this: I am fully in support of same-sex marriage. I am a heterosexual but I have many valued friends of homosexual and Bisexual persuasions. The document is not "filled with hate and religious dogma" it is in fact a fairly typical declaration of position and legal precedent to support that position. Simply because you do not agree with it doesn't make it hateful. The document does not compare same-sex marriages to incest. It does compare the application of the tenants of the law, such as when one state chose not to uphold the marriage decision of another state. The reason the state chose not uphold that decision is not the key element to the argument. The key element is that the state's decision to do so was legally justified. Please notice that I said legally and not morally. Do not confuse the two issues. Legality and Morality are like cousins that only occasionally see eye-to-eye.

The problem is not that DOMA is illegal or unconstitutional. The reality is that as the laws are currently written it is both legal AND constitutional. This is why legal challenges against it keep failing in the courts. Efforts need to be focused on changing the law through lobbying Congressional law-makers at a state (because it is a state responsibility to define marriage) and at the national level (because it is the federal government that decides how federal benefits are paid.)

This will be the key to achieving the goal. Certainly not through inflammatory name-calling. That only serves to undermine the position of the person doing the name-calling. How many of the rants and diatribes of your opposition have you simply ignored because of their vitriolic arguments? This community doesn't need to convince your hard-line opponents of the validity of your cause. You can't and you won't. Ever. You need to convince the middle ground people, those who have not already made a firm decision one way or the other. You will not reach them through rude behavior. They will just tune you out the same way they tune out your opponents who behave the same way.

One of the great things about our country is that no law can survive long in the face of the opposition of the people. You just need to get enough people. Reach out to the silent majority. Not with recriminations and accusations but with logic and understanding. Address their fears and their concerns. Listen to what they have to say and present your perspective in a way that they can understand and internalize. The dwindling of Social Security coffers is a very legitimate concern to many people. Particularly the elderly who are the largest voting population in the country. How will you address their concerns that granting federal benefits to same-sex couples will further marginalize what is already perceived as a shaky system? You can't just say this is/should be our right because right now it isn't and it never has been before in this country's history. You will have to convince people to make their elected officials change the laws to make it your right. Just like for all of the rhetoric the right of women to vote simply was not a right at all until it was written into law. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were not inalienable rights until this nation made it so by writing it into law.

Use your brains and your hearts in conjunction. Figure out how to get Mom and Pop Middle-America on your side and watch how quickly the laws change. It's happened before and it can happen again. That was how DOMA got pushed through in the first place. The majority of those who voted for it in congress and the majority of their constituents who made their opinions known to their congressional representatives perceived it as a rational middle ground that they could defend to themselves. They weren't homophobes or extremists. They were simple everyday people with their own lives, their own fears, and their own aspirations. Those are the people to reach out to. Those are the people who will change the law.

NS · 5 months ago

Rational Thought,
I couldnt have put it better - i am straight too and i have gay friends too - who i wish would someday be able to marry and settle down in life.

But, this is going to be hard on the gay supporters of Obama - eventually, they will come around to realizing the futility of putting too much hope on one person or believing every election promise.

This is a matter that is in the hands of average every day people. They alone can lead the charge to repeal DOMA.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Yea, well, if "Mom and Pop Middle America" had been asked then Obama's Mom and Dad would never had had the right to get married. They sure as hell didn't get the right through sweet talking the average "Mom and Pop Middle America." It was a court decision. Virginia vs. Loving...

The tyranny of the majority in the South certainly wouldn't have provided Mr. and Mrs. Obama their marriage out of the "goodness of their hearts."

"The dwindling of Social Security coffers is a very legitimate concern to many people. Particularly the elderly who are the largest voting population in the country. How will you address their concerns that granting federal benefits to same-sex couples will further marginalize what is already perceived as a shaky system?"

"FURTHER MARGINALIZE?"

I tell ya what I have a problem with. I have a problem with the average middle aged man and woman who are so damned concerned about getting their ex-husband or ex-wife's social security from two marriages back yadda yadda yadda... without taking into consideration GAYS AND LESBIANS PAY INTO THE SYSTEM AS WELL. Those elderly folks didn't have a damned problem voting for George W. Bush in huge numbers so he could BLOW a TRILLION DOLLARS in Iraq, now did they?

Sorry, but you've come to the wrong place to try to get all Kum Bah Yah on us.

I'm glad you got your "friends of MANY homosexuals and bisexual" bona fides in there, bubba, or I would begin to think you were being rather smarmy in your "loving concern" and defense of this brief.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were not inalienable rights until this nation made it so by writing it into law."

Yea, well, I'm going to CASH IN my inalienable RIGHTS and demand THAT LAW be honored! Why don't we just tug on the heart strings of "Mom and Pop Middle America" to get them to discriminate against the rights of anyone who gets a divorce to ever get married again or to be cashing in on Social Security since its such a "dwindling resource that shouldn't be further marginalized?"

boytokyo · 5 months ago

and wasn7t the anniversary of Loving v. Virginia just the other day?

lovely timing.

bsaunders · 5 months ago

I don't think you are correct on Loving. By the time the Loving v. Virginia case was won, only 16 states still had miscegenation laws. The hearts and minds of middle-America had largely been won, and Loving pulled along the stragglers.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Thank you for pointing that out. I'm glad to know we need to work on the hearts and minds of "Mr. and Mrs. Middle America" to get them to honor other's equal rights. I shouldn't expect "Mr. and Mrs. Middle America (Land of the Free)" to catch up with Canada, and the European Union when it comes to something as obvious as gays or lesbians getting married, huh?

bsaunders · 5 months ago

As someone else has pointed out here, law is not morality, however much we might wish it should be. I support same-sex marriage rights. I want us to WIN. Screaming "we deserve rights", I'm afraid, just isn't going to work.

Uncle Ludwig · 5 months ago

Yup. In spite of the poster's biases and misinterpretations, the statements being made by the Obama crew are not invalid. They are describing case laws that allow one state to ignore the validity of a marriage performed in a different state. Change THAT first before you aim at universal legalization of gay marriage. Otherwise, married gays will have to be very careful when they leave the state where they got married.

As another who supports the right of gays to marry, I'm also convinced that the movement is pushing too hard, too fast. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure I'll be told that "we've waited too long as it is!" But changing laws and changing attitudes needs one thing - time.

It's often said that Roe v. Wade would've been less controversial if it had taken place in the 80's instead of the 70's. That's partially absurd, because the 80's attitudes were direct outgrowths of the decision. But the better point is that within a decade of the controversial decision, most people were able to accept it and move on; the minority of course who couldn't kept fighting, changing tactics, etc., but the decision has stood in spite of a majority of Republican presidents and a conservative majority on the SCOTUS since then.

These recent state rulings favoring gay marriage and others like Prop 8 banning it are just the beginning of the fight - not the culmination. It has to keep happening in more states, favoring, I mean. And THEN a challenge in the SCOTUS to set the precedent thereafter. Now is still too soon.

Many here may not like it, but Obama and Company get it. One step at a time. And then another after that. And DON'T skip any steps in between.

Patience, children, patience. It's the aggressively impatient who are harming the movement.

Erinn · 5 months ago

"One of the great things about our country is that no law can survive long in the face of the opposition of the people."

YES. Thank you; that was well put.

FastAndBulbous · 5 months ago

If Legality and Morality are cousins, can they get married?

Kim · 5 months ago

Ok I don't get it, I didn't see Obama's name anywhere in the documents. Did he argue this in court? What is this?

nick · 5 months ago

Obamas name isnt on this at all...

Diogenes · 5 months ago

Oh well then, he's innocent. I mean it's not like Obama has any sort of control over the DOJ. They're an independent branch of government, like Vice President Cheney was, right?

PatrickKapty · 5 months ago

Yes, it's sad and disheartening, but hardly surprising, given that Obama said he didn't support same sex marriage during the election. However, he did say he'd revoke the don't ask-don't tell policy, which he not only hasn't done, but actually said that it wasn't a 'priority'. This begs the question, "Is honesty and integrity no longer a core value in the Obama administration?".
The lack of understanding and sheer ignorance of some of the comments here is astounding!
Gay people don't want MORE rights, we want EQUAL rights! There are something like 1000 benefits associated with marriage from the federal and state governments. We want the same marriage rights because we pay the same taxes, and deserve the same benefits as everyone else. We don't want to be married in a bigoted church, or by your bigoted paster. Frankly, any religion that doesn't want us can go straight to their own ideological underworld! We aren't interested in forcing anyone to believe anything that they don't want to believe. We just want to have the same benefits and rights as everyone else. This should be obvious to anyone with half a pea-brain, but the willful lack of understanding and lies that have been spread about this subject is entirely due to fear and hatred by the bigoted few in this country. If just one man isn't free, then all men aren't free! Remember that next time YOU decide to take away MY rights! It may happen to you next, and there we are back in Nazi Germany, where incidentally they killed gays as well as Jews.

Em · 5 months ago

"Frankly, any religion that doesn't want us can go straight to their own ideological underworld! We aren't interested in forcing anyone to believe anything that they don't want to believe."
Thank You!

cyndy · 5 months ago

Frankly, anyone who cannot abide by the basic principles of democracy can go to a non-democratic country. You voted him in. You got him.

Jason · 5 months ago

The American presidential electoral system is an example of a republic; not a democracy. Just an fyi.

So in this case, this would be a basic principle of republican government.

Pam · 5 months ago

You may want to check out the don't ask don't tell situation. That has been resolved (I think last Friday) and it stands. Giving up shouldn't be an option. Paying attention to what people say during an election should be. Nothing Obama is doing is different then what "us losers" thought would happen. Look further then the Daily Kos and Huffington, and you'll find all of the truths. I'm not suggesting FOX, but you really shouldn't be surprised by any of this if you expand your reading you'll understand why.

Bad Brad · 5 months ago

There was a sizable portion on both Daily Kos AND Huffington Post who believed that gay people would not be given their civil rights with Obama.

It was the conservatives who thought that Obama would bring gay marriage to this country. It's why many conservatives that I know voted against him. Can't say enough how wrong they always seem to be.

Cahir O'Doherty · 5 months ago

The Obama administration has just surpassed the Bush administration by arguing in favor of DOMA in a way that even the most homophobic administration is U.S. history eschewed. This brief, which I encourage you to read, is the biggest crock the administration has ever unloaded.

facebook-23900624 · 5 months ago

I admit that I voted for Obama hoping that he would provide and fight for the changes that his campaign stood upon. But, this is ridiculous! I don't understand why so many Americans are hostile toward same sex marriages.

This isn't just some petty argument. Homosexuals just want EQUAL RIGHTS. They deserve equal rights. They've fought harder than any other group I can think of....maybe their fight has been different than the civil rights activism of the past. But, I cannot wait for the day that America is smart enough to give equal rights to all citizens.

This isn't an argument about what your religion believes or what your pastor would say. This is a fight for everyone to have equal rights to marry the one they love regardless of sex. This is a fight for their right to happiness. Isn't this what our country was founded on (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)?

PopeCephas · 5 months ago

"I don't understand why so many Americans are hostile toward same sex marriages."

Because, it is opening up Pandora’s box. Next, it will be three women who want to marry one man; or, four men whom all want to marry each other. Then the dad that wants to marry his son. Then they will start suing the churches for discrimination.
What’s wrong with a man that wants to marry his son? Incest is a Judeo-Christian construct, so don’t tell me that you believe it is wrong.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

1) You already have 3 women marrying one man, they live in Utah.

2) Four men marrying each other? Interesting. Still, even if they DID want to do it.. why would it bother you? How would it affect you? How would it impact your day to day life?

3) Dad marrying his son? That's a bit nutty, though you already have fathers borking their daughters.. i think they call that The South.

At any rate, many nations have had gay marriage for years now and none of this has come to pass.. but, even if it did, WHY WOULD YOU CARE? You're not the one with 3 wives, 3 husbands and your son all under one roof LOL

prettytickedoffbrit · 5 months ago

"You're not the one with 3 wives, three husbands and your son all under one roof LOL"

I smell a sitcom! :D

LiberalIncarnate · 5 months ago

This is such a tired old argument. It has been used for decades. Do you have anything new?

Bad Brad · 5 months ago

Just stop it.

You're embarrassing yourself.

I am so sick of this argument. It really doesn't deserve a response except what I've given above.

Get to know some gay people fool.

cjspark · 5 months ago

Incest is generally a HETEROSEXUAL problem/occurrence, so maybe we should ban idgets like you and other straight males from marrying. It could lead to you trying all sorts of things--oh wait! You already do...

FunMe · 5 months ago

Let's see ... he threw under the bus that preacher.

Then after that correspondent dinner with the lesbian comedian, the threw her under the bus too.

Us GLBT ... he does not care.

Of all months, this on the 40TH ANNIVERSAY OF STONEWALL RIOTS President Obama decides to stick the knife deep on us. And he does not care.

Freaking unbelievable.

My heart aches. But it won't for long. It will be time to fight back and hard.

No More Mr. Nice Gay!

JeepTreats · 5 months ago

He also threw Howard Dean and Gen. Wesley Clark (both have back bones) under the bus as well.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Tell me again how he threw Wanda Sykes under the boss?

And by the way, dyke or not, she was way out of line with her comments about Limbaugh being a terrorist. I mean seriously, wth? I don't like that fat POS at all, but you can't say crap like that and not expect some kind of backlash.

BloggerDave · 5 months ago

Now Obama has really done it... He has not only lost the support of a die-hard but now I will join the ranks of those opposed to him with equal, if not more, zeal. I will stick with the Dems I know and trust but Hussein is no longer my president. F*ck him.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Man you believe everything you read on teh interwebs, eh? "I read it on the internet therefore it must be true!" And you are quick to change your loyalties as well. You're a winner, sir.

Anyone who thinks there's a politician out there who wouldn't spit on gays to gain more votes/support/money is delusional. Anyone who "trusts" politicians of any party needs to look up at the ceiling to find the word "gullible" written up there. Just for the record, all politicians are scum at worst, and at best they have to let SOMEONE down because they can't get anywhere otherwise.

Sorry but thinking Obama is "The One" and was going to be your gay savior is ridiculous. Get over yourselves, the problems in this country are greater then any one group. Change is happening slowly, as it must, and if you don't think change for YOU is happening at all, well I would like to hear your thoughts on why the Po'dunk state of Iowa, which probably has more cows then gays, just made gay marriage legal.

But as typical for Americans, we want what we want and we want it right bloody now and to hell with what everyone else needs.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Yeah, it's only been what.. since the beginning of time for us?

More "sit down, shut up, be quiet, wait" talk from people who have all their rights from birth. Up yours.

I don't give one shit about your problems, breeding stock, because someone long ago already did and that's why you're not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!

*spits at your feet* Pendeja!

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Gridlock I love you, marry me. I'll be barefoot and pregnant for you, baby, anytime.

Joel, I hate politicians and most of my post there was anti-politician. I love how Gridlock took the troll bait. Now that I'm laughing my ass off, allow me to answer YOUR post, which was well thought out.

I actually believe in legalizing gay marriage, but as with most issues, I don't believe in any politician, because their job security depends on lying through their golden smiles just to get votes. The problem with legalizing gay marriage is that right now it's still a hot enough topic in this country where politicians can't actually make it happen quickly without possibly losing their jobs.

Witness Prop8, which failed to be taken down for a NUMBER of reasons (including a shit campaign from the anti-prop8 folks). Prop8 primarily went through because Hispanics and blacks voted for it, because they had plenty of influence in their churches. Also, culturally, the gay lifestyle is not acceptable for either of these two. In order to enact change for the GLBT community, people must be educated, campaigns in favor of gays must be well run, and you HAVE to hit the younger crowd. Older folks, regardless of race, are going to be more resistant to the freedom of gays. It's the up-and-coming group of voters that need to be educated.

To expect the President (who not incidentally, won this election in large part because of blacks and hispanics, the SAME voters who then screwed gays in California--pun entirely intended) or any politician whose job depends on voters, to enact immediate change is preposterous. This is my point, Gridlock, you crazy fuck, about change having to come slowly. If a politician runs hellbent into this issue and demands change NOW, they are going to be standing beside you at the unemployment line pretty quickly. Sorry to inform you, but blacks and women didn't get rights from one day to the next. Ask the slaves, Dr. King, Rosa Parks, and all the bra-burning bitches in the 60s about it if you don't believe me. This crap takes time, and it takes careful steps. Hell, Lincoln frees blacks and gets his head blown off in a theater. If that doesn't tell you WHY change takes time, I don't know what else to tell you.

I don't agree with what Obama did with this particular issue, if it turns out to be truly as bad as this blog makes it same. I have my doubts, because anything I read on the internet is suspect, but this is CERTAINLY not the first time a politician has caused me to roll my eyes and shake my head in disappointment. I'm very cynical about politicians but I also understand why they can't make things happen overnight. To expect otherwise is setting yourself up to be a very very angry little person.

Gridlock, I changed my mind, I don't want to be barefoot and pregnant for you. Go screw a cow in Iowa, por favor. Gracias, papito.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Takes time? How interesting.

*looks at Canada*

Funny. Seemed to happen pretty quickly there, and with minimal fuss.

Perhaps they're less backward and beholden to cavemen scribblings.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Yeah but they are dirty socialists. They also have nationalized health care. We can't be having those kinds of ideas here.

*rolls eyes*

That was sarcasm, by the way, because I happen to think Canada IS a lot more progressive then we are, and it's utterly ridiculous how stupid Americans can be. But that doesn't change the fact that things DO happen slowly here and to expect otherwise is to shower yourself in disappointment.

Joel Villasenor · 5 months ago

"Change is happening slowly, as it must-" Yes, we all know change doesn't come overnight, but did the administration really need to go out of their way to make claiming our rights even more difficult. Not to mention, just plain insulting. I'm really disapointed in the President. I had no illusions about Obama, but I didn't think he would ever go out on a limb like this and make the right-wingers talking points his own. I hope the media brings this up and takes him to task for it. We're still waiting for him to take action on DADT.

BloggerDave · 5 months ago

First of all you read a lot into my words and used them to rant on about what YOU believe and to gratuitously insult. Secondly, this news is not limited to this site but it is evrywhere in print and on the internet. Thirdly, f*ck you you British b*tch...

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

British...?

What the...?

How did you get British from a user name like "LatinaMama."

prettytickedoffbrit · 5 months ago

Lmao, because anyone who says 'bloody' is British amirite? <__>

Anyyyyway, being British myself, it is past midnight and I should be in bed, but damn, this has just lit a (bloody) fire in me. And pissed me off pretty (bloody) badly. :\

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

In the meantime, a straight couple just got caught trying to sell / trade one of their kids, a healthy female, for a large SUV or truck in one of the Talibangelical states on Craigslist. Because, ya know, ALL their opposite sex marriages and families are so much more smiled upon and contribute so much to our society.

FP · 5 months ago

"Because, ya know, ALL their opposite sex marriages and families are so much more smiled upon..."

Strawman! Red herring! Not all opposite sex unions are perfect. Lack of perfection does not negate an argument.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

I can be as rhetorical as I want to be in this case. Ranting is good for the soul.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Are you irish?

Natalie · 5 months ago

Agree cowboyneok. I haven't heard anything from you I do not agree with. Obama for the gay community is a HUGE HUGE HUGE disappointment. What is the alternative though and doesn't he know it!

Mooser · 5 months ago

Look cowboy, a lady sold me a perfect Hammond A-100 just last Sunday. Compared to that selling a kid is not so bad, maybe. Frankly, I would exchange my oldest for a Leslie 122 and adapter and cables.

m · 5 months ago

"Opposite sex" is entirely superfluous as a modifier for "marriage". Unless of course, you are some kind of Orwellian Humpty Dumpty.

Blueflash · 5 months ago

I'm absolutely livid. I'd love to see this story make the Huffington Post. The other day I spent an entire evening there arguing with some of our "liberal" straight Democratic Obamabot "friends" (many of whom seem to enjoy calling us Drama Queens and threatening to withdraw their support of our civil rights if we don't quit acting up) that apart from any inaction on Omama's part, which I for one have never expected or thought advisable this early in his presidency, that his complete silence was nevertheless ominous or should be to all who aren't completely in the tank for him. Looks like I was right.

JustAGuy · 5 months ago

I'd love to see this story make the Huffington Post.

You wish is my command.

Well, partially. At the moment, the Huffington Post is just regurgitating AP wire copy.
-S

Blueflash · 5 months ago

Wow. You're magic. Thanks. Do I get two more?

JeepTreats · 5 months ago

You're good. I no longer try to reason with those people on Huff anymore. I just read the news and to see who else the Wizard of O is selling out.

How is helping those foreclosed working out? Where's the urgency to introduce tough regulation to the financial sector?

Tim · 5 months ago

AH! this makes me so angry in so many ways!!! i agree the financial burden of "scarce resources" really pisses me off. like if all gays decided to be straight and get married to a person of the opposite sex, it would be legal and be the same "burden". Michael Steele tried to pull that same crap. Oddly it seems like many moderate conservatives are even moving towards acceptance of gay rights (cheney for godsake) ahead of Obama. We really need our march on washington!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

Dan W. · 5 months ago

We weren't just stabbed in the back. We were stabbed in the front and maliciously so for political gain.

And just in time for this year's gay pride marches and the 40th Anniversary of Stonewall. At least we know who we're dealing with in the White House. But why should we be surprised yet again that another politician took our money, energy and votes and turned on us?

All he had to do was decline to defend DOMA in court and he wouldn't even do that for us.

Joe Y · 5 months ago

Political sophistication is called for here. Giving automatic support to any Democrat (or Republican) for that matter, is the gateway to political irrelevance. Entering a coalition with the politician (or party) is what produces results. The Republicans can offer credible leverage; for example, their sympathy for state choice, such as Dick Cheney's on gay marriage, can be combined with their constitutional originalism to propose federal recognition of gay marriages. If the Democrats genuinely saw that as a possibility, then Obama's brief would have been much different. However, if rhetoric is enough to get gay votes, then rhetoric is what you'll get.

scottspiegel · 5 months ago

It's true--Democratic politicians may say more pro-gay things than Republican politicians, and Democratic voters may hold more pro-gay stances than Republican voters, but in 2009, Democratic politicians do not govern in a demonstrably more pro-gay way than Republican politicians.

obama's elf · 5 months ago

Every move The One makes is to increase or consolidate his power. It's your job to figure out why he's throwing his LGBT support away like a used condom. Make this action hurt him, instead of helping him. Figure out how he's benefitting from this action, and cut it off at the knees.

sdv · 5 months ago

Obama is really starting to lose my support. Quickly.
And here's my question. I keep hearing everyone saying that we have to make Obama do the right thing, but nobody has any idea of how. Because when I send my emails to Obama, he (or more likely his underling) replies saying how it's important to respect people with different opinions and how we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Well, what's the point? He's (or his people) aren't engaging in any dialogue on these issues. He has his opinion and it's not changing. So everyone keeps saying we have to force him to act, but if he's not open to actually listening to other sides on this, how are we to do this?

JeepTreats · 5 months ago

He doesn't care. How many times have you seen him laugh us off our opinions on the economy? He hears, he doesn't care.

Hey if a man doesn't defend himself (as he didn't when McCain and Palin were attacking him personally), he surely won't defend YOU.

matt · 5 months ago

There is a flaw in part of the legal argument. While first-cousin marriages may not translate over state lines, do they receive federal benefits? The same goes for 16 yr olds married in some states. You may not be able to move and retain your marriage, but you can still file your taxes jointly, yes?

Assuming this is correct, than married gay couples in Iowa, NH, Conn, Mass, and so on should enjoy the same federal benefits. Their marriages are legal in their home states. To do otherwise is flat out discrimination. Frankly, it's a states' rights issue.

BobC562 · 5 months ago

Wow. Fortunately, Judge Carter isn't necessarily a judge that's always in lockstep with the government. Second, there's always an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and if there was any appellate court we'd need this to go to, it's that one. And it's a motion to dismiss, which courts don't do if there's a colorable claim. But still, that sure does explain why the repeal DOMA section on the White House website was suddenly scrapped a few weeks ago.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

I so wish I could say that this shocked me. But we've seen all the warning signs since Obama invited Donny McClurkin to MC his Southern gospel tour way back at the beginning of the campaign.

The arguments put forth are false. We've been stabbed in the back. Dick Cheney is on a higher moral ground than Obama on this issue. How ridiculous is that?!

I don't care how angry this statement makes anyone. Hillary Clinton would not have done this.

Edith · 5 months ago

I am scared more than angry.

The pendulum has swung too far. While we had a petulant, soulless ideologue in the WH in the form George Bush, we now have a soulless, ueber-pragmatist in the WH in the form of Barack Obama. First, signing the equal pay bill to secure the women's vote. Next, a Hispanic female SCOTUS candidate to secure the Hispanic and female vote, announced on the SAME day as the California Prop 8 decision. Anyone else seeing a pattern?

indigogrrl · 5 months ago

he signed the lily ledbetter act that only extended the time you have to sue over pay discrimination... he did NOT sign the paycheck fairness act as far as I know.

he has done next to nothing for women and is still be lauded as a feminist. when sotomayor turns out to be an anti choice justice, it will be too late

Susan Griffin · 5 months ago

Obama worships at the altar of political expediency and nowhere else. This is the latest and absolutely the most despicable of Obama's bait and switches. His relentless breaking of his most important campaign promises has caused me to change my party affiliation to Independent.
I no longer believe a word he said in the campaign, or anything he says now. I will not vote for him in the next election. If Ron Paul isn't running, I won't vote at all.
His betrayal of progressives is shocking in its depth and breadth.

JerryCA · 5 months ago

So what are we going to do about it? I'm carrying a sign "F***K Obama!" at SJ Pride this week end. I'm fricking tired of Obama's defenders. F***K Obama! Gays are behaving like battered wives who keep going back to abusive spouses only to get kicked and beaten repeatedly.

woodroad34 · 5 months ago

Contrary to the belief that this isn't about Obama...it's under his administration that this lawsuit is going forward. And under his administration and his name that this lawsuit, while saying the Federal Government doesn't discriminate, does in fact, discriminate -- you can't be gay and get married to another gay; however, you can be gay and get married to a woman (apparently straight people still have an upper hand). Obama is a lawyer and the arguments given above are ridiculous and do reflect upon him badly. I wonder how many people are capable of reading 54 pages of legalese. John is a lawyer and is properly able to dissect it.

He says he's a fierce advocate...well, he can start being 'fierce' and stop the lawsuit before it becomes judicially encoded. He's adding another blockade. No change I can believe in, that's for sure.

eclare · 5 months ago

Heck, I'd settle for just plain "advocate" at this point, fierce or no.

woodroad34 · 5 months ago

Me, too. I get the feeling he's merely "talkin' the talk"; given his conservative midwestern religious views (which are evident by the churches and their ministers that he frequents--"The Jews are keeping me from him": Rev. Wright), I think it's a really difficult step for him to become "fierce". He's good at pretty words and low-level appointments, but he's afraid of the image of being a real-time gay proponent. It reminds me of that show on HGTV where they superficially stage a house to sell it.

David Goldstein · 5 months ago

Meaningful change will not happen from either the Democratic or Republican Party. I see exactly two paths to follow
1. Form a third party, of which one of its' basic tenats is the removal of "personhood" from corporate entities. This will allow a law to be enacted that prevents corporate donations to either office holders or candidates.
2. It is time for a Second American Revolution

Jeff · 5 months ago

I completely agree. I have wanted to start a third political party for some time. Contact me at www.savethemiddleclass.com. Its time we bring fairness back to government.

nikto · 5 months ago

Fierce fierce fierce!!!!!!!!!!

Great, just great!!

We've got Obama on one side, equivocating and kissing-up to rightwing haters.

And on the other side we have...THE HATERS.

Where else is there to go?

Maybe I'm wrong, but, I think I smell
some Emmanuel here.

Houndentenor · 5 months ago

This sucks. I knew back in January of last year that Obama would eventually throw us under the bus (just like the Clintons did with DADT and DOMA). I didn't think it would be this soon. And of course what are we going to do as that bus is driven by Republicans. I don't think there's any chance of a gay-friendly GOP nominee in 2012 so I am stuck. But it wouldn't have been any better with Clinton and it would be worse with McCain.

Am I wrong to feel that I deserve better than "better than nothing"?

timncguy · 5 months ago

I think at this point we might just as well have the repugs back in charge and let everyone else have some pain to go along with us. Why have dems in control to help out everyone BUT us? Why are we the only group who has to keep taking the hits? Might as well vote for repugs so the others can joins us with some pain of their own

Gridlock · 5 months ago

I'm pretty much down with that. Scorched earth policy.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 5 months ago

Funny, I don't recall anyone mentioning possible monetary savings when justice for black Americans was debated in the 60's.

watchington · 5 months ago

John -- SO NOW will you PLEASE stop talking about it and release one of your sh*tstorms? It is TIME.

Ernie Lijoi · 5 months ago

I'm not going to allow myself to be angry about this. I'm not going to allow myself to be sad. He's not worth it.

I was duped again. It happened with Clinton. And it happened again. I was used as a political tool. I am just a vote. A number. Not a human being.

I should have known better right up front. But I made the mistake of allowing myself to feel hope. Not just for myself. Not just for gay people. But for the entire country.

There is no hope here. We live in a country where 80% of the population still believes in a ridiculous magic sky daddy and have their morality dictated to them by witch doctors who burn incense and interpret scripture. And Obama is one of them.

If I could afford it, I would emigrate. But I can't. So this is what I am stuck with: a society of god-fearing imbeciles warping our constitution into bible of ignorance and hatred.

I should have expected this. I should not have allowed myself to assume anything would change.

Hope is dead.

I won't be fooled again.

lileasy · 5 months ago

"Emigrate?" So, if you could afford to emigrate, where would you go? Where is this utopia where imbeciles, god-fearing and otherwise, are not in charge?

Randy · 5 months ago

Canada. They have legal gay marriage. Full rights, no discrimination. And they have very nice manners.

NealB · 5 months ago

Clearly Obama's not going to take any risks to perform on his promises to repeal DADT and DOMA while health care is being devised. I'm not sure what the blowback would be from homohaters were Obama less forthright in his persistent abuse of gays, but clearly Rahm has made the calculation that it will be a problem for Obama's continued popularity. The decision has been made. We must sit quietly in the back of the bus for another several years or so before he will take another look. He's trading our votes and support for those of moderate Republicans.

Terry · 5 months ago

Rachel Maddow, on her show Monday night, replayed the "I'm a fierce advocate for GLBT people" clip re: the Supreme Court decision not to review the DADT lawsuit .

I'm very emotional and angry right now. Perhaps I'll look at the pragmatic side and political expediency and all of that.

But right now, reading that, I'm bitter as hell. And having this during Pride Month doesn't help.

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

Yes, trading us like cattle in a Chicago stockyard.

joshquasimoto · 5 months ago

Gosh you are on such a roll here, now you are telling us that Obama is treating us like animals. Next you might tell us that he is treating us like dust bunnies. That he looks forward to wiping us away.

Why don't you just say it, you don't like or agree with Obama then back it up with solid facts?

You know it is always much easier to burn things down than to build them up.

greensburg · 5 months ago

Well that pretty much sums it up for me. Time to actively work against the "established" democratic party and look for new blood to replace the a*sholes in position now. That includes Obama himself. And don't give me any of that "it's only been 4 months", this administration has made it perfectly clear that civil rights for gays just isn't anything more than a sound bite for our loquacious (sp?) presidon't.

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

Oh c'mon...Barry will suddenly change his mind about all of this as soon as it's time to begin fundraising in 2011.
Face it, Barry lied to us in order to tap our bank accounts. He has no intention at all of doing anything positive for us.
He cares about us in the same manner that I care about Palin.

greensburg · 5 months ago

At least they got the money saving part right...on my side. I'll be damned if any democrat gets any money from me or any of the big organizations (HRC) that supports this "just gayly following the law of the land" administration. Thanks BO, you saved me oodles of $.

tigergrrldc · 5 months ago

I decided with the Rick Warren debacle that he wasn't getting another dime from me! Let the right-wing fund him since he's trying his best to suck up to them.

Hereindc · 5 months ago

Limit 2 kids per couple so they aren't a burden to the government.
How about snuffing out old people, they are a drain to the Social Security system.

timncguy · 5 months ago

oh, come on, it's gonna be DOMA is GOOD, they argued DADT is good in the last few days. So, why wouldn't they argue DOMA is good.

What difference does it make what Obama said on the campaign trail? That's not relevant one you win!

timncguy · 5 months ago

It's a "MONEY SAVER"!!!! Are they crazy?

Want to save even more money? Let's stop federal recognition of all straight marriages that take place from this day forward.

MARRIED IS MARRIED

Steve · 5 months ago

Let me really go out on a limb (not) and predict like a number of other GBLT campaign promises (that Rahn Emmaul) the Obama Adminstration will backtrack and defend the federal DOMA. They will ultimately say it's up to each state to define marriage.

Hates Crime with sexual orientation may pass and the President may sign "and take credit" even though he did nothing to push it forward. A federal ENDA with sexual orientation - I'll believe it when I see it.

DADT - a pathetic joke. 69% of Amreicans and 58% of damn conservatives for god's sake are ready to let gays serve openly in the military (and probably a majority of the rank and file), but a few backward generals and I hear Secretary Gates would rather hold off. Once again Rahn Emmmaul has convinced the White House to not let it's domestic agenda get bogged down in a "1993 gays in the military" controversary in 2009.

Problem is 2009 is not 1993 as far as society is concerned.

Folks, GBLT are expendable in this White House. We are "their Uncle Tom".

timncguy · 5 months ago

If he signs hate crimes into law, that will create a "suspect class" out of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. That will invalidate one of the arguments put forth in this document.

Corey Schmitz · 5 months ago

I've been defending the administration about this issue, hey, it's only been a few months, give them a break. I think I'm done with that now. I'm not one of the people who was demanding that Obama fulfill all his major campaign promises on day one. But I expected him to at least not actively fight against them.

tigergrrldc · 5 months ago

You have to be fucki*g kidding me! If resources are so scarce, then maybe opposite marriage should be suspended, so that money can be used for other things. This is the best they can do? Wow!

FFups · 5 months ago

What a *nice* present for Pride Month from Obama! Just add “no offense to anybody” like former Miss California and everything will be alright…

Rus · 5 months ago

Why does this surprise you? DOMA is the law - the government is REQUIRED to follow the law regardless of their personal feelings or possible objections to a particular case. Until DOMA is NOT the law, the president and the Justice Department are SUPPOSED to fight to support it. This is pretty basic really. I don't like it either, but it is to be fully expected. While GW nitpicked about what laws he wanted to follow, it is not a good precedent to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws any given administration should follow... They should be expected to follow ALL the laws.

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

Yes, yes. All we need is another round of Kum-ba-ya.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

listen carefully. i'll say this slowly. the executive branch is under no legal obligation to defend a statute in federal court, especially with disinformation.

Rus · 5 months ago

Wow. Really? You're so smart. I never knew. Thanks for filling me in on that one. I'm so glad there are people out there that understand the Constitution and what it expect of each branch of government.

Mawm · 5 months ago

Another Obama sycohant, much more interested in defending the homophobe than fighting for his rights. Unless you are just a straight Obamabot trolling America Blog?

Gridlock · 5 months ago

If you had known, you wouldn't have bothered with your first post.

timncguy · 5 months ago

my understanding is they are only required to defend a statute if they feel it is constitutional. But, if they believe it is unconstitutional, they are not required to defend it.

So, no we know Obama feels that BOTH DOMA and DADT are constitutional.

I could understand defending the portion of DOMA that allows states to not recognize another states marriages. But, to say it is constitutional to deny federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in a state where the state has legally defined same-sex and opposite sex marriage as EQUAL is totally indefensible. ESpecially when they are making the claim that the marriages are NOT equal even though the states say they are.

pjkool · 5 months ago

If only Michigan and Florida had counted in the primaries.

Houndentenor · 5 months ago

Do you think HRC would be doing anything different? It's her husband who signed DOMA in the first place.

millineryman · 5 months ago

If that's the case of saving money not to recognize my rights then I'd like to have my tax money back.

evan_la · 5 months ago

Hear hear. I'm tired of subsidizing others (children, schools, married straights, faith-based programs) when I don't have full equality. Treat me as a full partner, then I won't mind at all.

timncguy · 5 months ago

I believe the Iowa Supreme Court already very effectively knocked down that "cost containment" argument in their unanimous decision.

Randy · 5 months ago

The brief is wrong. The Congressional Budget Office did a report on gay marriage and its effects on federal tax revenues. Its' conclusion? Unequivocally, the treasury gains. I know this because my friend worked on the report, and it also gained wide publicity. How the gov't could lie about something that is so easy to check is beyond me.

I can understand them defending the law, but they can't just make up shit to defend it.

And no, the govt is under no obligation to appeal a ruling. They could have just let the lower court ruling stand.

MadBiologist · 5 months ago

Sounds like there needs to be an amicus filing with that report in it then. That would take away the talking point of 'legitimate government purpose' and help expose the real reasons for this fetid law.

Humbug311 · 5 months ago

The "rational basis" test, however, is not dependent on what the facts ultimately or actually support. It is based on what it was "rational" for the legislature to believe at the time it passed the law. It does not require that any study had to be done to support their conclusions, only that their conclusions had a "rational" basis at the time. Under this test, the argument would be that it was rational for Congress to conclude that extending benefits to more couples would cost more money.

Ruttle · 5 months ago

Fucked, once again.

Indigo · 5 months ago

What a one term wonder!

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Time for a tax revolt.

I'm not entirely sure the administration has a choice in whether or not they'll defend it. None of us like it, but it is a standing law. As far as I know the executive branch is required to defend existing federal laws regardless of whether the president agrees with them.

nikto · 5 months ago

Well then, RainbowPhoenix, in that case, then I wish Obama would uphold and defend the law like Bush used to defend laws he didn't like.

Remember how Bush "upheld" environmental
laws he opposed, etc etc etc?

I wish Obama would do the same.

But no.

yecch.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

That's kind of my point. I don't want another president who ignores the law at whim, even if it's a law I don't like.

timncguy · 5 months ago

there is a difference between ignoring a law and defending one that you are not legally required to defend.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Thank you for clearing that up.

kcinci · 5 months ago

There is no legal requirement to defend a challenge to the law. This was absolutely a choice. It is often the case that the DOJ (yes a part of the Exec. branch) doesn't defend challenges to laws as a matter of strategy.

The rationale used for defense is despicable, utterly.

the LGBTQ have been kicked in the teeth with this one. There are several constitutional scholars (including the president's own professor) who've written very well reasoned opinions as to why DOMA is unconstitutional.

Nothing like a fierce advocate for equality. And this president is nothing like a fierce advocate for equality.

Sick-n-Tired · 5 months ago

obama used us to get his black ass in office just like Clinton,,

Carol · 5 months ago

Thank you for showing yoru racist ass.

Last time I checked Obama was elected by a coalition of the young, AA, Latinos and women. I wasnt aware that 52% of the American population is Gay. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Keep it all your true colors are showing you basically USED the AA candidate to get your narrow agenda and then when he doesnt satisfy it in not 4 years not 1 year but six months he is referred to as a black ass.

Carol

cjk002 · 5 months ago

And this is why Black people voted for prop 8. The minute a black person does something you don't like, you immediately reference race.

Nice job!

timncguy · 5 months ago

it is NOT the reason. Non religious blacks didn't vote for prop 8 in any larger numbers than any other group. It was religious beliefs that caused the support for prop 8

cjk002 · 5 months ago

Black voters voted nearly 70% for prop 8. This is because the No on 8 campaign did no outreach. They didn't go into the churches or the community centers, they just assumed that blacks would automatically vote with them, and they were complacent. Then, as soon as the election was over and they found out how the black community voted, they immediately began making the same kind of racial remarks we see on this thread today.

This is why we lost, and if this kind of crap keeps up, this is why we will continue to lose. Just because you don't want to accept the truth and want to defend the racists won't change the underlying facts.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

What racial remarks? It was ONE REMARK.

ONE.

UNO.

1.

cjk002 · 5 months ago

There were discussions all over the gay community and on the internet about race and gay marriage, and many of them were loaded with racist remarks. I know because I participated in the discussions and was appalled at what I heard.

If you want more examples of bigotry in the gay community, then look no further than your comment below.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Yeah again, being against religious bigotry does not make one a bigot. It makes one RIGHT.

Give me a fucking break. Nice right-wing talking point.

cjk002 · 5 months ago

It's now "right wing" to call people out for making bigoted statements about religion?

Wow.

Like I said before, this is why we lost on Prop 8, and as long as people like you continue to paint everyone who is religious as "rain dancers" and "chicken bone throwers", we will continue to lose.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Again, and maybe I need to break out the crayons and simple geometric shapes for you, but being opposed to religious bigotry DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BIGOT

you can't be bigoted against bigotry. One side is correct; the side that is resisting the oppression.

I use expressions of scorn in regards to religion to those who use it as a weapon.

Christ, nobody is actually that dim.

cjk002 · 5 months ago

You are bigoted because you used derogatory terms to refer to religious people.

If you don't understand the definition, then maybe you should look it up.

timncguy · 5 months ago

the 70% figure you are quoting was debunked shortly after the elsection. Further analysis of the exit polls showed, just as I said, that non religous blacks voted in percentages similar to others. And, religious blacks voted for prop 8 in the same percentages as non black religious voters.

cjk002 · 5 months ago

Those numbers were from the CNN exit poll, and while they can't be taken at face value because exit polls are often inaccurate, it doesn't change the fact that Latinos and African-Americans voted for Prop 8. It also doesn't change the reason why they voted the way they did: because the gay community has failed to convince minorities that gay rights are civil rights.

The comments on this thread show just how bad the problem is. referring to President Obama as "his black ass" and calling religious people "chicken bone throwers" won't win us one more vote. In fact it will lose us votes. In opinion polls taken since Prop 8 passed, we have lost ground on the marriage issue.

If we don't respect people, then they aren't going to respect us.

Mawm · 5 months ago

People voted for Prop 8 because they are bigots, not because the Gay community is racist. We are the least racist community out there. Stop with that meme.

cjk002 · 5 months ago

You just provided a perfect example of what I'm taliking about.

This is why we lost, because you label everyone who voted against you a bigot, and people like the one I was replying to immediately reference race.

If you think the gay community is the least racist out there, you're just fooling yourself. The gay community has the same race problems the rest of the country has. I would suggest that you actually go out and ask people of color if they have ever been treated differently because of their race in the gay community, and you'll see what I mean.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Everybody who DID vote against gay marriage is a bigot. What the fuck else do you call voting against the enshrinement of equal rights for a minority? Enlightenment?

and don't trot out that religiuous "they just voted for their beliefs" shit either. I couldn't give a rats ass what kind of 'get out of jail free' card people think the invisible sky fairy gives them.

When your rain dance, chicken bone throwing nonsense keeps other people from equality, that's when religion is being used to oppress.

cjk002 · 5 months ago

Another perfect example of the kind of stupidity that I'm talking about.

There are plenty of people who voted for prop 8 who aren't bigots, and many of those same people could have been convinced to vote otherwise, but people like you are what keeps us from making any kind of progress with them.

If you don't have respect for other people and their beliefs, I don't see how you can expect them to have any respect for you.

Your comment is particularly ironic because someone above tried to make the case that there is less bigotry in the gay community than anywhere else, and you just proved that person wrong.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

1) Voting to strip rights from a minority, given that the subject is an unchangeable inherent attribute in them *much like skin color), is bigotry.

2) People using their religion as reason for said bigotry, and/or a shield to hide behind to forward their bigotry, are bigots.

3) Being intolerant of bigotry does not make you a bigot. You can't be a bigot against bigotry. That's fucking asinine.

4) Anybody who tries to oppress me, take my rights away, or relegate me to second class citizenship DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPECT. They have effectively lost any I might have had for them.

Again, god is not a "i can do wtf i want and get away with it" card to be used as a weapon. That's not a belief. That's an excuse for pogrom.

Your argument is illogical, unfounded and patently idiotic.

cjk002 · 5 months ago

You showed the kind of person you are with your previous comment. You are just as bigoted as the people you claim are bigots. If you can't accept that, that's your problem.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

I'm bigoted against people using their religion to oppress me?

OMG I HAD NO IDEA I WAS SO CLOSE MINDED

You're such a dumbfuck. Truly. The breadth of your inanity knows no bounds.

Take yourself away before to reap more laughs of scorn.

cjk002 · 5 months ago

Call me whatever names you want, all you're doing is displaying the same kind of behavior that continues to keep us from making progress.

If you think that this is the kind of dialogue that will persuade people to vote with us, then you're sorely mistaken.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

1) minority rights are only up for a vote in banana republics.

2) I dont want to persuade them. I want to destroy them.

cjk002 · 5 months ago

1. Prop 8 is now law, and the only way it can be overturned is by a vote. I guess California is a banana republic.

2. The only way to overturn that vote is to PERSUADE voters to vote your way, "destroying" people doesn't equal votes. See the results of the Prop 8 vote for proof.

3. Numbering points doesn't make them anymore valid.

Savage8862 · 5 months ago

Is it any surprise that once again the GLBT community has been duped by Democrats? I mean come on. What did we get when they were in power with Clinton - DADT. What are we going to get with Obama and Democrats in power - nothing.

Houndentenor · 5 months ago

Not duped. Just forced to choose between bad and worse.

It's weird that the politicians are 10 times more homophobic than the population.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

that was fierce advocacy if i ever heard it.

tigergrrldc · 5 months ago

Yes, the Fierce Advocate strikes again!

john · 5 months ago

Why is this a surprise at all. Look at the defense of all of Pres. Bush's view of the PResidentail powers. The spying. The torture. The directing the AG to not go after crimes of the lawyers and others.. including most likely the Pres, VP and their cabinet.

It looks like a bold face yyyyyy.

ROB · 5 months ago

America Blog and the rest... pushed Obo down our esophagus. I knew Obo was not to be trusted.

YOU WANTED OBO YOU GOT OBO. DEAL WITH IT! HE GOT YOUR MONEY AND NOW HE STABS GAY PEOPLE.

SUCKERS!

nicho · 5 months ago

What were our choices? The corporatists only let us choose between McPantsload and Obama. And, I'm not sure Bill and Hillary II would have been any better. How the hell do you think we got DOMA to begin with?

Mawm · 5 months ago

The problem is not that someone voted for the Homophobe Obama. The problem now is that we as a community need to stop with the sycophantry, the utter adulation and worship of this fraud. Until we do, we won't be able to fight effectively for our rights. Even now, I see many comments about how we need to "chillax" and let Obama work on the really important things. They believe Obama is somehow working in the background and only pretending to hate us. This attitude needs to be rooted out, and we need to FIRE groups like HRC that took money from Dems and Obama. They are part of the problem too.

DYB · 5 months ago

We got DOMA to begin with because of conservative Democrats in Congress. Clinton did not create DOMA, Democrats and Republicans in Congress did.

Terry Andrews · 5 months ago

In my opinion, this tells me all I need to know about repealing DOMA. It ain't gonna happen with this administration.

Ok, I'll pose a question ala Rachel Maddow: someone talk me down, please. Because I am seeing, even right now, us being thrown under the bus big time by this President and his adminstration.

But gosh, why should I bitch...we got a Pride Month Proclamation.

timncguy · 5 months ago

and, didn't that proclamation express the opinion that married gay couples should get all federal level benefits?

Gary · 5 months ago

I don't think anyone can talk you down. Unfortunately some of us came to this conclusion earlier than others. For me it started with McKlurkin & was etched in stone with Warren.

Jim Olson · 5 months ago

Olbermann and Maddow need to be on this one. ASAP.

Adam · 5 months ago

For you to attribute this brief to the President is simply false and shows a complete lack of understanding of the legal process.

Terry Andrews · 5 months ago

This is Barack Obama's government. This is Barack Obama's Justice Department.

Unless you're thinking of another President we currently have.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

The buck stops where?

Gridlock · 5 months ago

LOL please enlighten us.

nicho · 5 months ago

I think an intern wrote it as a prank and submitted it without Obama knowing anything about it. Happens all the time. /sarcasm

Randy · 5 months ago

I read the brief. Interestingly, it has the phone number and email address for the trial lawyer printed on it.

Just sayin'

DYB · 5 months ago

Isn't this who you voted for? Weren't you paying attention to Obama when he campaigned with Donnie McClurkin, James Meeks, Mary Mary? Didn't you see Douglas Kmiec campaign for Obama in California as Prop 8 came up? Didn't you see Obama go to the gym instead of attending the Gay Pride Parade in Chicago last summer? Didn't you notice that he refused to be interviewed by any gay publication for most of the primary? Didn't you hear Gavin Newsom say that Obama refused to have his picture taken with him? No? You didn't know about any of this? Well, then, I suggest you start paying attention. Better late than never.

Houndentenor · 5 months ago

Yes, and I argued about this until I was exhausted a year and a half ago. My choice was between this guy and the Clintons (who gave us DADT and DOMA).

We deserve better. And don't assume I'm not willing to sit at home or throw away my vote on a third party candidate in 2012. I will be living in a swing state for the next 4-5 years, btw. My vote will count very much.

DYB · 5 months ago

Hmm...no. Clintons did not "give us" DADT and DOMA. You need to do some research on the fights that broke out over these issues. DADT was pushed through by the likes of Colin Powell and Sam Nunn (both Obama supporters). DOMA was passed by Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress. Clinton acquiesced because he had no political capital, but especially with DADT - he opposed both.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 5 months ago

You forgot to mention the anti-gay minister at his inauguration.

Steve Scott · 5 months ago

And Hillary's State Department recognizes gay relationships.

I agree with some of the other comments. Obama was pretty homophobic during the election, this should be no surprise. He's done nothing for us so far either. But you know what? He doesn't have to. Next election, we will still have to vote for him, to keep a Republican from office. He knows that. He knows he doesn't have to do a thing for us and we are still stuck with supporting him.

SCLiberal · 5 months ago

"Next election, we will still have to vote for him, to keep a Republican from office."

No we don't and I won't. If he acts like a Republican what's the difference?

fredndallas · 5 months ago

Please. I, and others here need an in-depth, blunt posting that delineates the practical realities of what options the administration of President Barack Obama has in regard to these DOMA cases. I have inferred from what this and previous posts have said that there is wide latitude available to this administration on how to handle these cases, but. . .

I would greatly appreciate John and Joe and perhaps other experts laying it out for us point blank in a way that laypeople can understand.

Because IF in fact President Barack Obama is making a clear-cut, absolutely unmistakable choice in these cases to obstruct GLBT's path to marriage equality in this country (when he positively could freely choose otherwise), then we damn well need to know and face it now.

And if so, it should be widely known, proclaimed and confirmed as to what a political fraudster and charlatan this man is.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 5 months ago

Well said, Fred.

timncguy · 5 months ago

Can't wait to see what Joe Somonese has to say about this. He was made privy to the Obama "secret plan" after all. And, he was satisfied with it too according to what he said.

So, I'm guessing he shouldn't have any problem with this.

Chaya · 5 months ago

Clinton pandered to gays for their vote, then turned against them with Don't Ask Don't Tell and the DOMA. Bush even pandered to gays during his first Presidential campaign--and quickly reversed course after election--so quickly that most people don't even remember what he did. Now Obama. Like others, I've tried to be patient and I've tried to defend him. He's convinced HRC that he has some kind of grand plan for gay rights. All I see is him actively enforcing each new tragic loss. I really thought that this one time we had a candidate who was telling the truth and speaking from his heart. I'm so disappointed.

Dee · 5 months ago

Obama is a disgrace... I can't believe I voted for this guy... not next time

Mike_in_the_Tundra · 5 months ago

I'm not happy that I voted for him either, but I couldn't have voted for McCain without causing serious psychological injury. Unfortunately, I cannot be an one issue voter.

tigergrrldc · 5 months ago

We always talk about how the right-wingers vote against their best interests. It's the same in this case. If this continues, I won't have a problem sitting home in 2012 or voting for a third-party candidate.

joshquasimoto · 5 months ago

I have to say that in and of itself this seams troubling but I would have to agree with a few comments here.

1 The executive branch does not create laws and although it has line item veto power (something frequently used by the Bush Admin) I believe Obama for the most part is reluctant to using this for a number of reasons but chiefly among them is that he would be seen as the same sort of power hungry executive trying to force his ideology on American and Congress as GW Bush.

2 I think Obama has always made it clear that in order for change to happen we all have to work our asses off to make our Congressmen and women listen to us. Whether that be with writing them weekly, visiting their office, forming a group to appeal to them it really differs on how to go about but at the end of the day, unless Congress backs new legislation anything coming from the executive branch will smell like a power grab or ideological policy.

3 Keep holding Obama's feet to the fire, please. This is our civic duty but please don't forget that real change is the sort enacted by the people for the people and of the people. And the people's body is congress. So hold their feet to the fire as well. More importantly we need to hold business accountable for their lobbying decisions, especially those that run against popular public sentiment. It is clear that most Americans are supportive of a nationalized healthcare, yet it is seems their is a well entrenched enemy against this option. Why? Business! This is why it is essential to look at the entire picture. As for DOMA, it should be repealed, I mean just look at the public polling on this issue, especially those in the 18-45 demographic and it is clear that the current is running against the anti-gay marriage crowd. However it would seem that a whole bunch of conservative white men (for the most part, yes their are some minorities in conservative circles as well as women but the group as a whole is white men) are holding up changing this legislation based on a small minority of people (sometimes their most influential political backers) or for their own moral reasons. Of course they forget that they themselves are a part of the demographic who has cultural attitudes who are going the way of the Dodo, so of course they are in for a fight.

But if you want to go ahead and blame Obama, feel free, I just think your looking at rather norrowly. I would say the same thing to a group of people who blame GW BUsh for everything not realizing that he had ample amounts of help along the way to ruining this nation.

timncguy · 5 months ago

on your point #2

Obama also made it clear that he would be our fierce advocate. And, he would use the bully pulpit of the preseidency on our behalkf.

Can you point to any evidence that he has done either of these yet?

DYB · 5 months ago

"1 The executive branch does not create laws and although it has line item veto power (something frequently used by the Bush Admin) I believe Obama for the most part is reluctant to using this for a number of reasons but chiefly among them is that he would be seen as the same sort of power hungry executive trying to force his ideology on American and Congress as GW Bush."

This is interesting in light of the fact that poster after poster here blames "the Clintons" (only one of whom was President) for DOMA and DADT.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

"I would say the same thing to a group of people who blame GW BUsh for everything not realizing that he had ample amounts of help along the way to ruining this nation."
=======================================
Whether it is GW Bush, Congress, or Obama; what's the difference, our lives are still ruined because of this amicus.

I also, think Rahm Emmanuel and Obama have had their feelings hurt by us recently and this could also be a way of shutting us up. He needs to be protested everyday and perhaps, another march on Washington is appropriate since we really are second-class citizens if Obama thinks our discrimination is constitutional.

boltgirl · 5 months ago

Actually, the president only had a line item veto 1996-1998, and Clinton only used it 11 times. Perhaps you're thinking of signing statements, which Bush transformed into a de facto line-item veto...

Dee · 5 months ago

blame Obama because he isn't doing what he said he would do... if we can't hold these people to their words then we have nothing

mwells · 5 months ago

There isn't a bit of his voice in that! But he allowed it. I am starting to really wish I just hadn't voted......

empireofno · 5 months ago

this is why several of us wanted hillary in the primaries.

obama has never been comfortable with gay people or our issues. yes i'm glad he's in instead of a republican but i don't expect anything positively good for gay people as a result of this administration, just that he'll be less bad than any republican.

Phoenix Justice · 5 months ago

I, like you, supported Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Presidential nominee because I foresaw that then candidate Obama was not "gay friendly". His refusal to not only denounce but to also remove the anti-gay rapper from his "revival meeting" was the biggest indicator.

So many gays jumped on the Obama bandwagon, some because they were Clinton haters, some because they thought a black man would understand. As we now know, not only were gays duped, but so were a lot of Americans.

I am tired of waiting for my equal rights to acknowledged and I am tired of this administration being nothing better than Bush lite.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

Just updated the post. They invoked incest and marrying children.

dlh · 5 months ago

i reviewed the document. i see obamas name nowhere and its dated aug 2009? one of many submissions gathered for obama to review, because he is indeed working on how to best remove the gay stigma in military and civil service employment, and also institute full equal rights to gays? i dont beleive he will disappoint. give him a few more months. he said weeks ago he had the military branches reviewing how to best change dadt. if he just makes dadt invalid, the rules revert to what they were prior to dodt. not good enough!

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

We, and the gay groups, informed the White House over a month ago that the DOMA cases were coming up. They knew about this, and they approved it. Please do not suggest that Obama and the White House had no idea this brief was coming out. They knew and they approved it.

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

My partner and I happily maxed out our campaign contributions to see Barry elected.

I will gladly do it again.

For any progressive candidate, with a proven Equality track record, who will challenge Barry for the Democratic nomination in 2012, that is.

Barry's pretty words about being our "fierce advocate" are not worth the breath it took to utter them.

joshquasimoto · 5 months ago

Calling him Barry does not make me think you have a positive view of our president. His name is Barack. I realize that he called himself Barry for people who had trouble with his name when he was growing up, but the only people I know who use the name of "barry" instead of Barack tend to be those on the center-right to right blogs.

No doubt you are right to think that since Obama came to office he has made moves that do not lend themselves to the opinion of Obama as a "fierce advocate" for the LGBT community.

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

You are absolutely correct. I no longer have any positive view of Barry, he has been a huge disappointment since the Rick Warren debacle. And he has continued, at each and every turn, to be a disappointment.
Barry's silence on Equality issues is deafening, and his continued work against us is of great concern.
But me being "center-right", nope, you have that entirely wrong.
When, and if, Barry begins to defend us, stand up for us and speak loudly for full Equality for all of us, I will happily show him the then deserved respect.
Until then, not so much.

joshquasimoto · 5 months ago

This lawsuit was a bad lawsuit. It's legal reasoning meant the plaintiffs had no standing because the law which is at issue here is very broad and allows the judge to issue a decision based on that legal basis.

As far as your statement about equality issues, I guess what you really mean are those issue revolving around the LGBT community. Surely torture and equal protection of habeaus Corpus is an equality issue? Surely hiring many presidential appointees from diverse cultural backgrounds is a equality issue? Surely talking about the rights of Israel and a Palestinian state (Palestine) is about equality? Oh but as you say the President does not care about equality issues.

With a name like Ben Dover, I can see that you are to be taken seriously.

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

You are correct. Barry is all for Equality.

Where it applies to everyone else.

He's all for Equality. So long as some are more equal than others. Barry now has a proven track record on this.

joshquasimoto · 5 months ago

Great response, way to avoid any of the issues I pointed out. Apparently like many Americans, you seem reduced to only seeing one issue as an important barometer on change. I am sorry to hear this, because as I said above it is very important for you to hold the President feet to the fire as well as your Congressmen and women.

timncguy · 5 months ago

and you seem to be perfectly willing to avoid any acknowledgment that equality should include LGBT issues.

Would it make you more comfortable if people were more specific and just held up signs that said "failure on gay equality" instead ofthe more general "failure". Would you stop complaining then?

joshquasimoto · 5 months ago

Uh, No I said that DOMA should be repealed, you must have missed that above. I also believe that DODT should be repealed. My perspective relates to the fact that congress should be doing this not the President. My other perspective is that calling Obama out for not caring about equality issues is borderline nuts. I do not disagree as I said above that Obama would not at this point be considered a "fierce advocate" for LGBT issues.

The LGBT community is not made up of a single mindset, as evidence by the difference within the community about religious issues, economic issues and social issues. There are many different opinions. I agree that same-sex marriage should be treated equally as regular marriage. As long as they are treated the same in the eyes of the law, i could give a crap about what they call it, civil unions, same-sex marriage or whatever. Gay couples deserve the exact same treatment under the law as does a hetero couple.

Is that simple enough for you?

I am afraid that anyone who says they voted for Barry, does not seem to me to be someone who really supported Barack Obama. Do a quick google search and you will find endless right-wing blogs which call him Barry instead of Barack. Similar to the case of the GOP wanting to rename the Democratic party the Democrat party. It is an insult.

timncguy · 5 months ago

you are on a gay blog, reading a thread about gay equality issues. I think it is safe to assume when a posters says Obama doesn't care about equality issues, they are talking about LGBT equality issues. Maybe you didn't understand that, or maybe you're just willfully ignoring it. Or, maybe you disagree. And, if yo believe Obama does care about LGBT equality issues, you should be able to point to some actions where he has demostrated that caring.

As far as the lack of respect in calling him "Barry"... Respect is a two-way street. Obama has shown no respect to the LGBT community either. His verbal comments related to the LGBT community have been to make a joke about our same-sex marriage victory in Iowa at the Corrspondents dinner. Then, to show concern over Prop 8 in CA, he made a joke about the protestors outside his CA fund raiser on the day the CA Supreme Court decision was announced.

Making the LGBT community the butt of jokes shows no respect from him. So, I have no problem with anyone who wants to call him Barry to show their lack of respect for him.

SimoFish · 5 months ago

Obama is such a joke -- perhaps you kool aid drinkers should stop drinking the kool aid. You never bothered to look into his past. Sarah Palin has done more for the LGBT community than Obama ever has and so has Hillary Clinton. No I am not a republican - I was a Democrat until May 31st, 2008.
Obama is a liar and an opportunist - always has been. So - here you have your "cool" president -- the only change you can count on is his changing his mind on his campaign promises.

joshquasimoto · 5 months ago

Can you back this up with some evidence, "Sarah Palin has done more for the LGBT community than Obama ever has"?

Just google it and see what you find, here is what I found,
"Sarah Palin is opposed to gay marriage. Alaska was one of the first states to pass a "Defense of Marriage" law, banning marriage between same-sex partners in 1988 and Palin supported it. Her campaign website for Governor in 2007 stated: I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman."

So you are looking pretty ridiculous with your statement so far, let's see what else we have here on a search for 2 minutes....

"Sarah Palin not only supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning marriage equality but, in her less than two years as Governor, even expressed the extreme position of supporting stripping away domestic partner benefits for state workers. When you can’t even support giving our community the rights to health insurance and pension benefits, it’s a frightening window into where she stands on equality."

Ok now you are looking like a real loon with your statement, maybe their is more to be uncovered,
I am not going to prove how ignorant and wrong your statement is, so if any additional readers would like to do some research here is a nice starting point,

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism...

The GOP never has and probably never will support any sort of progress on LGBT issues. They are a roadblock towards progress as I see it and will continue to be because the heart of the GOP is older, mostly hetero and white whihc basically means their made up of a group which fundamentally does not want to see LBGT issues treated equally with hetero-issues.

SimoFish · 5 months ago

Yes - the first bill to come before Sarah Palin on LGBT issues - she signed. She doesn't back away.

WTF has Obama done? He votes "present" --

Who cares about her veiws? At least I know where she stands. But when it comes down to doing what is constitutionally correct - she follows the law.

She doesn't flip flop around like a fish the way Obama does. I want to know where the politicians stand -- with Sarah I know.

DYB · 5 months ago

Palin actually vetoed Republican legislation in Alaska that was going to strip benefits away from partners of state workers. That is a fact. Look it up.

Roy Heath · 5 months ago

He sure did a good job tap dancing for those vote didn't he? I had complication voting in the 'historic election', but this only makes me happy that I didn't waste my vote on false hope. He is batting a 1000.

Clem · 5 months ago

As angry as I feel after reading the memorandum of law, I don't think we can entirely blame Obama. Part of the problem is that gay people are not viewed as a "suspect class", which means the government can do just about anything it wants under the guise of a "rational basis". Unfortunately courts will find just about any lame excuse in the world "rational" when it comes to the government. That's why they can rely on things like how much it supposedly costs the government to allow gay marriage. And what is a suspect class is, unfortunately for us, the product of hundreds of years of Supreme Court decisions, and with this court that is not going to change.

What I really find condescending is how they repeat the bit about how there are other "loving" relationships, like siblings, that don't get people the rights married people have. Talk about relegating gay people's relationships to the back of the bus.

One last thing, a criticism of the people who brought this suit. This case will probably get knocked out because they lack standing. These couples should have tried to get federal benefits before bringing this suit. I'm really tired on people rushing to the courthouse with weak lawsuits. It doesn't do us any good.

Domaq · 5 months ago

It does make the Feds show their hand in what their defense of DOMA will be. The arguments may not be surprising, but it will be easier to prepare for the next case.

obamacrat · 5 months ago

Remember when I mentioned during the primary between Clinton and Obama that you would soon be criticizing him the same way you would her. Politics is what it is. The best method of change but frequently slow, frustrating, and unpredictable. And what seems like a loss may not be in the long run. When the civil rights of one group are respected in only increases the likelihood that the civil rights of all will be respected in the long run. It may not come immediately, but it will come. This post is for my wonderful nephew who at one time was my wonderful niece. If you don't realize how meaningless these distinctions are that we draw around people with respect to sex, you do after it involves someone you care about. The character of a person, who they are, has nothing to do with their sexual orientation and it never will. Don't give up on the guy. He's just getting started. But 'give'em hell John. In a good way, of course.

concernedboutthis · 5 months ago

I support gay rights. I helped raise awareness in Maine and helped them pass the gay marriage bill. I was planning on helping this fall to keep the bill defended from a ballot initiative but you people are really turning me off. Just like the abortion folks, you feel this compulsive need to put gay rights at the front of the national agenda when there are poor people in our country and around the world who don't have the luxury of time or money to be concerned about wedding ceremonies. I don't mind your monomaniacal focus on gay marriage until you people start holding signs that say "Fail" underneath a picture of Obama. Shame on you. You are losing my support. I hope you can get a grip and lend a hand in the push for a public plan for health care. That is THE most important issue right now, because I bet a lot of you gay people have insurance, and 47 million Americans don't. Can you think about someone besides yourself for, like, a couple months?

Gridlock · 5 months ago

We've been thinking about other people for 2000 years, most of the time not by choice.

"Oh there are other, more important things to deal with"

You go back in time and tell Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the fucking bus because everybody else will be late if she doesn't.

Arrogant, entitled dumb ass. When you give up all the rights you inherit by birthright and live your life persecuted, without legal recourse and unacknowledged in the courts, THEN you can tell us how we should be feeling according to your standard of "what's more important".

Until then, shut your trap. I'm fucking tired of listening to breeding cattle telling ME what I should be thinking.

greensburg · 5 months ago

I am thinking about someone other than myself, foolish person. I am thinking of my lover of 10 years who has no insurance, I do, he would if we could get married. See how everything concerning equal rights under the law ties together or is that a little too complex for you?

kevinbgoode · 5 months ago

I hardly think the law is about marriage ceremonies. Perhaps, as an apparent heterosexual with a couple of thousand special rights that are taken for granted, you don't understand the idea of all citizens being considered equal under constitutional law. The embarassment here isn't about the gay community "asking" for rights - those rights are allegedly supposed to already be there. Somehow, the heterosupremacists running the country interpreted constitutions as being meant to secure special rights for themselves, only - while gleefully levying the tax burden to support those special rights on all of us.

And don't tell me what to think about - members of the gay community deal with every other issue that faces this country, including poverty and health care issues. This notion that we are not supposed to demand our constitutional rights and protections because of these other matters is an insult.

mooresart · 5 months ago

Goodbye! Support like yours we don't need. I'm gay, 64 years old and don't have insurance because I can't afford it. To say gays have more insurance than the general population is disingenuous at best and down right ignorant at worst. Shame on John? No, shame on you.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

The term "you people" is usually considered a red flag.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

"I have gay friends, BUT..."

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Go Eff yourself... I volunteer at the damned homeless shelter, and also volunteer for "backpacks for kids" that feed kids who's straight parents can't feed them properly. My volunteerism doesn't keep me from working towards equal rights for all. You think us gays should just continue to volunteer our asses off while our civil rights are being trashed because it might cost more money to ensure our kids and families get a "fair shake?" The Obama Administration ALWAYS has time and extra room on the plate for any issue they want to spend their time on. Its not like they are IGNORING this issue. They are ACTIVELY fighting AGAINST our rights! They are spending political capital to FIGHT US.

concernedboutthis · 5 months ago

You are an angry man, intent on whipping up a lot of hatred toward Obama. I don't trust people like you.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Aww cowboy.. you have your own personal Freeper! It's like a service they provide. They stand next to you and spout fake platitudes so people think you're an unhinged loony by comparison.

nicho · 5 months ago

Where is my can of Troll-Away? I put that somewhere.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

This is the candidate who ran on his ability to multitask. Just saying.

timncguy · 5 months ago

your argument would carry more weight if Obama hadn't already wasted time on issues such as stem cell research which has nothing to do with the current economic environment. Congress is wasting time passing legislation about giving the government control over tobacco which has nothing to do with the important issues of the day, etc, etc, etc, etc

Jophus · 5 months ago

Wasted time on stem cell research. Brilliant argument.

eclare · 5 months ago

If healthcare is THE most important issue right now, then why is the Justice Department wasting resources defending this execrable legislation? Seems like that energy would be better spent elsewhere.

frankly0 · 5 months ago

You couldn't be more right.

What gays need to do is to learn to take one for the team. They've been doing this for thousands of years -- can it be so hard to do it again?

They need to get comfortable with their assigned place under the bus so that Obama can do what he absolutely needs to do for the American people more largely speaking: provide them with compromised and deficient health care reform.

Mission Accomplished, President Obama!

lilnemo · 5 months ago

Wow....just wow. You actually believe this is about the right to have a wedding ceremony? So let me get this straight: you'll continue to support my basic human right to establish a family and personal relationship with another human being of my choice/desire, and to thereby enjoy the same civil protections for my family and the same economic rights that you and your partner take for granted, only so long as I sit quietly and don't rock the boat. Your commitment to "my people's" rights is so commendable. Have you been as supportive as you claim to be because you believe it's the right thing to do, or because it's the new cause celeb? As a gay person, I read this briefing and I see every hateful, bigoted, and discriminatory conservative legal statement and rationale ever made about me, "my people", and my family in one document as was ever written. And this was written by a friendly administration? I doubt Bush's justice officials could have written anything more hurtful and vile. Do "we people" a favor, please...shove off. As the old saying goes, with friends like you...

Jim · 5 months ago

"you people". Thanks alot. What a supportive lefty. At least the Repubs have the cajones to be honest about their discrimination.

concernedboutthis · 5 months ago

It is a goal of the Republican Party to stoke up anger at Obama from the gay community. There are probably Republican operatives among your ranks posing as liberals to get you worked up. Divide and conquer. Do not be duped. Gays have made more strides in the last year or two than ever and yet they are angry at Obama? Doesn't that strike you all as strange? Your leaders are in bed with Republicans and a corporate agenda.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

Do you really think gay people consult "operatives" to determine how they feel? That's very insulting.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

They've made those strides outside of the Obama admin, thanks. On the state level.

JardonZ · 5 months ago

I WANT IT ALL AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

Jesus X, it's been four months in Obama's presidency...lighten up! He will do what he said he intends to do, not with a damn band-aid but with concrete solution, at the federal level.

This concerns Federal law vs State law limitations, in other words, the role that the fed should play in the marriage debate. Obama has said repeatedly that the federal government has no constitutional right to address "marriage".

You need to direct most of your "outrage" at congress, Republican and Dem alike or your State legislatures. because they turn the wheels on this issue.

We're in the worse mess this country's seen since the Depression thanks to 8 LONG years of Bush and his mob.

All of this hysterical hyperbole and anger from you guys is disgusting and pathetic!

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

Barry could make a simple statement, along the lines of: "Inequality will not be tolerated. My administration will do everything and anything to make certain that this injustice is corrected, now. Three-fifths has never worked and will not be allowed to continue."

Barry's silence is deafening.

His actions speak much louder than his flowery words of "fierce" advocacy. From watered down policies on the WH website to his inadequate "proclamation" he continues to stand for what's wrong instead of what's right.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

We've wanted it for 2000 years. He is actively working AGAINST our goals. ACTIVELY. What part of that is slipping by you? Look at his fucking record.

He campaigned on certain promises which have been 'changed', watered down or eliminated altogether. He's not even stood still, he's regressed on them.

If there was some forward movement on his part on ANY OF THEM, we wouldn't be having this conversation.. instead, he's moving backwards, hence why gays are pissed off.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

"All of this hysterical hyperbole and anger from you guys is disgusting and pathetic!"

You wouldn't be calling it hysterical hyperbole if you were consistently treated as an "institutionalized second class citizen" your entire life. Again, I volunteer in my community and I help out everywhere I can to diminish the pain and suffering my fellow Americans are experiencing because of the last eight years. I don't need any kind of lecture on WAITING for my civil rights.

CuriousMWM · 5 months ago

well, you get what you ask for. this site was Obama, Obama, Obama, until you helped get him elected. Now reap.

jen · 5 months ago

So, John, you are at your best when organizing a protest. How about doing that here? This is utterly despicable on the part of the Obama administration.

We won't get ANY rights by patiently sitting in line waiting for 'our turn'. If we start a drumbeat, that is persistent and relentless and force them to experience the consequences of ignoring glb civil rights, only then (maybe) will we make any progress at all.

sullivan · 5 months ago

This is a great opportunity for us to leave the "spandex thongs" home for the gay pride parades and festivities coming up and create powerful signs and brochures to pass out which explain our frustrations and anger. America needs to see us in this light.

nicho · 5 months ago

So, you go to gay pride and all you see are spandex thongs. I've seen something like that on 0.00001% of the participants. Hmmmm, interesting that you focus on that.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

I dunno, I have to agree.. i hate thongs on ANYBODY...

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Last time I went to gay pride, I saw a lot of gay parents pushing strollers.

sullivan · 5 months ago

I see parents with strollers as well......and church groups with supportive banners but all it takes is one float from the local gay bar with gyrating, thonged, oiled men to feed the stereotype and turn the public against us. End of rant.

judybrowni · 5 months ago

As tho the bigots would be supportive if the entire gay pride parade was pushing strollers.

You'd hear cries of "Pedophilia parade!"

Don't you get it? They hate you no matter what, so there's no reason not to have fun in your own damn parade.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

Sorry. . . I've seen worse actions at the annual Marti Gras celebrations and no one seems to care about that. Do you suppose it all has to do with it being gay men rather than drunken straights?

genobuilt · 5 months ago

But whom is offended besides the predisposed to stereotypical images of provacative gays? Mostly I think people are not distinctly anti gay. They are feel apathy towards us.

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

I agree 100%.

Jim Black · 5 months ago

The analogy to Loving v VA is false. Interracial marriage was out right outlawed and there were criminal penalties for it... The problem with gay marriage being litigated in courts is, as the brief argues, it is not ILLEGAL. That is what the court is saying, it is saying, there is no injury under the law and there is no issue to be addressed. Until gay marriage is illegal courts can't make it legal. Marriage is not a constitutional issue...no marriage should rise to the level of constitutionality. This is technical legal issue. Obama has a constitutional obligation to the make sure "the laws of the United States are faithfully executed." As the man said don't be mad at Obama for doing his job be mad at Congress for not simply overturning the DOMA with those lush majorities the Dems have.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

and be mad at Obama for not doing one whit to move them in that direction.

UbiquitousA · 5 months ago

Obama's name isn't anywhere in this, and this is the Department of Justice writing this thing NOT Obama.

This post should be revised to at least attribute the document correctly to the DOJ's attorneys.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

The buck stops where?

Gridlock · 5 months ago

You're right. Presidential administrations have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Dept. Of Justice once elected.

*sighs and rubs temples*

nicho · 5 months ago

This is the talking point. The shills are fanning out across the blogosphere with the same stupid claim, even as we speak. If this is the best they've got, they are really fucked.

nicho · 5 months ago

So, by your reasoning Obama has done nothing since he took office -- since all of the correspondence, etc. is written by someone else. No wonder he has so much time to go to plays and eat cheeseburgers.

Bryce · 5 months ago

The team that wrote this brief in defence of DOMA were HAND-FUCKING-PICKED by Mr Obama. You Obama-mites make me sick to my stomach! Did you not even pay attention just weeks ago when Mr Obama never said ONE WORD AGAINST Proposition 8 in California?

Mr Obama has been underhanded from day one of his political career starting in Illinois ... it's ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE -- mark it down and remember it. He's NOT a friend to the GLBT community nor is he a friend to the middle class.

ignoreland · 5 months ago

Is it possible that a ruling against the administration would actually help the case for civil unions? Maybe they could put one of those Liberty/Regent Law graduates on it. "Yer Worshipful Scalia, it is bad because we say it's bad. We believe it's bad because people tell us it's bad. And they think it's bad because we tell them it's bad."

JardonZ · 5 months ago

Did any of you read the damned thing yourselves?

It's 54 pages...READ IT.

This isn't about Obama, it's about the legality of the Federal government juristiction on this issue.

A lot of you obviously have a problem with Obama anyway so there's no way anyone can reason with you but the rest of you, please be objective and look at the document for what it is.

Jeez, you guys are as bad or as worse as the rightie wingnuts sometimes.

nicho · 5 months ago

Took the apologists a while to get going, but they're cranking now. You think the DLC would have alerted them this was coming, so they could be prepared.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

We were the first major blog to support Obama versus Hillary, and any Hillary supporter here can tell you. So spare me the crap about hating Obama.

Second, this isn't about Obama? We informed the White House a month ago about all of this. The gay groups did as well. They knew these cases were coming. They approved of this language. This is not a surprise to them. I'm telling you this as a fact, not conjecture.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

... which Obama's DOJ, yes HIS, is defending in court rather than not bothering at all. It's under no obligation to defend it, yet it is.. vigorously.

sullivan · 5 months ago

Yes I did read it but since I have severe problems with the legal lexicon, I can not fully understand it. Reads somewhat like the fine print on my credit card bill.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

Read the quotes I posted above/ They're quite readable.

MK · 5 months ago

I left the states 9 years ago to come and live in Japan. While Japan does not offer any same sex benefit it has no obligation to do so since I was not born a citizen here. The US however holds the Constitution as its highest law which does guarantee me the right to equal protection. Deny me rights and I deny you my tax dollars. I'll stay just where I am and let life in the US go on without me.

Peace

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

IF THIS IS WHAT A FIERCE ADVOCATE does for us, I think I'll take a gay basher any day. At least when it comes to a KKKristianist Talibangelical we aren't surprised with a sucker punch.

Scott · 5 months ago

The faux outrage from Obama supporters is adorable. There may be merit in the claim that this is a state's issue. But, umm. The Obama DOJ is saying that in those states where gay marriage is recognized, it is not entitled to federal recognition. Which is a federal issue.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

Well, now that he has shown his true colours on this subject, it should be easier to move away from his presidency. Are we now, ready for a new progressive party to replace the democratic wolf in sheep's clothing party? We were lied to by one of the best liars and it came out of our own party. Perhaps, we can make him a one term president and find someone to run against the republicans that will "talk the talk and walk the walk". I am thoroughly disgusted with this. Not only were we pushed under the buss but stabbed in the back along with it. I guess his official website doesn't have to lie anymore about DOMA or DADT.

Trev · 5 months ago

I can understand how infuriating it must be for straight Obama fans to see a core Obama constituency turn against him, and I can empathize with the gay Koolade drinkers' struggle to reconcile their support for Obama with his consistent pattern of letting us down, but it's time for you all to stop telling me to be patient.

You've got to find a more constructive way to deal with your disappointment than telling me to wait to become a first class citizen.

eclare · 5 months ago

Meh, as a straight (former) Obama fan I'm not infuriated with a core Obama constituency turning against him. I'm infuriated with him for turning against a core constituency. More importantly, I'm infuriated with him for not doing what is clearly the right thing. Equality, justice, civil rights - these aren't just buzzwords. They're values that I actually hold dear, and I once believed that Obama did, too.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

Nice of him to help the right by giving them their talking-points.

Jim Olson · 5 months ago

Is it possible that

1) Obama is staying hands off of this one publicly so that he can get health care through (which is, honestly, important to a lot of people, including teh gays...)

2) he is setting up the very real possibility of a Supreme Court challenge (something we've wanted for a long time) and taking the chance that it will all get struck down? This brief does take some real outrageous positions.

I'm upset about this too, but I'm trying to take the long view here.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

If so, Jim, he spent a LOT OF ENERGY arguing some very despicable things, wouldn't you say? Boy, they sure can find a lot of time and energy to argue vociferously against our rights when its convenient, huh?

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

What a great pity. Obama is now officially behind the curve on gay issues, and has become a drag on gay rights.

nicho · 5 months ago

Bingo -- even if he wanted to take that route, he didn't have to parrot Focus on the Fucking Family and the Mormon Cult.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

I respect your opinions, Jim, but I have trouble with your number 1. Attitudes are changing. Why back off on gay issues to gain health care? Why make it a balancing act when it doesn't have to be? Why say that one group of people must give up something that Obama has promised in order to gain something else that Obama has promised?

Also, Obama can not be said to be "hands off" on gay issues. He is as of today very much "hands on", and not in a good way.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

That's a definite possibility, but until we have more evidence for that, we need to treat this for what it is at face value.

ScottLanter · 5 months ago

It was the homophobic Clintons who created DOMA and DADT in order to attack glbt people. We need to give Obama a chance. He is smart enough to know that right now if he were to defend our lifestyle, the Republicans would regain power. If we support Obama as he defends DOMA and discharged gay soldiers, he will eventually help us out in a few years. I think the people criticizing Obama are such bitter Hillary supporters who still can't handle that they lost.

DYB · 5 months ago

"A few years?" You want equality in "a few years?"

And this fixation on "Clintons gave us DOMA and DODT" is ignorant. Look up those fights and see who gave us these laws: Colin Powell, Sam Nunn, and other conservative Dems in Congress.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

bullshit. American's attitudes are changing and Obama is BEHIND THE CURVE.

FU · 5 months ago

Yes, and ALL the Kool-Aid drinking Obamabot gays need to STFU NOW!!!!!!! YOU were part of the problem during the election and it IS YOUR FAULT!!!!!

F U!!!!!!!

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

Lest we forget why we have DOMA in the first place.

ScottLanter · 5 months ago

Obama is the most pro-gay President we've ever had. Let's give him time to make a plan. We must never return to the horrific and homophobic 90's under the evil Clintons. Obama has a strategy and if it includes discharging gay soldiers, doesn't he at least deserve our respect for electing him?

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

I suggest you read what your pro-gay president just said about you. He compared you to incest and child rapists. There is no plan. People who are your friends, who have plans to help you, don't compare you to incest and rapists.

ScottLanter · 5 months ago

I was being sarcastic, sorry.

eclare · 5 months ago

Sorry - please disregard my post above, then.

Generic User Name · 5 months ago

It sounded pretty sarcastic to me.

Obama is a fraud.

eclare · 5 months ago

What evidence do we have that he is the most pro-gay President ever?

JerryCA · 5 months ago

Oh no, ScottLanter, I for one was NEVER a Hillary supporter so don't even try to lump anti Obama folks in that category "bitter anti Hillary losers". How about you open your eyes and look deeper into Obama psych and see what is really behind the mask?

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

I want to know where every gay rights organization stands on this. Not ONE MORE DOLLAR from me until I hear where they stand on this. If they are FOR THIS and APOLOGIZE for Obama then they will LOSE ME and MY SUPPORT. I'm talking HRC, Lambda Legal and the rest of 'em. If they want to play "the cool kids" and keep their precious access then they can do it without my financial support. If they came out strongly against this then I will continue to support them 100%. I'm waiting...

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Go further. Take them all down. Use your money to destroy them. Break the backs of sycophantic, mealtymouthed organizations that do nothing for us.

Presidents, congressmen, senators, gay orgs, religious right orgs.. wipe them all out.

That which does not work for us and/or actively opposes us and/or sells us out is to be construed as an enemy and destroyed.

No fucking mercy.

Jim in MN · 5 months ago

My hope in this is simply that this "Brief" has been worked on for the past year (since the original case was filed) and that Obama has not been SPECIFICALLY made aware of this. As much as we'd love to believe that Obama has his finger on the pulse of everything going on, I have a hard time believing that he would let this go thru if he'd been made aware of it. At least that is my hope. We shall see what he does not that this has become national news.

nicho · 5 months ago

If they filed him without clearing this, everyone involved should be fired. But they won't be, because I don't think that's what happened. If it did -- then it shows he's really not in control. And, that would be more frightening than anything.

Also Sam · 5 months ago

Why? This is a response to a crap case in a district court. Do you really think the President should be in the loop EVERY time the Justice department files a brief? I doubt even Holder read this.

Wait until we get an appeals level brief in the GLAD or Olson/Boies lawsuit. That might actually represent the views of the higher ups.

samthor · 5 months ago

i am particularly offended by the statement that denying gays the right to marry would save money. I bet we could save the government loads of money by just canceling everyone's rights to everything.... yeah sure, let's do that.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

EXACTLY! Why should we pay more taxes? Since we are second class citizens why should we have to PAY TAXES at all? Just askin'...

suzyku · 5 months ago

I'm having great difficulty believing this!

Klad InVermont · 5 months ago

We need to inform Axelrod, that along with losing the LGBT communities' votes in 2012, they've also lost the votes of our families, friends & most likely the majority of under 30 voters too.

dckit · 5 months ago

Rahm "Iago" Emmanuel strikes again!

melchore · 5 months ago

I want to know when is Obama going to talk about any of the issues LGBT people face. Yippee...he recognized Pride Month. He has consistently remained quiet. After the Rick Warren situation, his administration said they would be listening to LGBT people and including them. No one openly on the cabinet...this brief...not preventing the discharges...the scrubbing of the website. LGBT people are merely money people. My partner and I have been together for 12 years....longer than most politicians have been married to their second/third/fourth partners but my relationship doesn't count.

A Gay Grad Student · 5 months ago

I don't know how to get to e-mail Obama or Rahm so I guess I'll comment here to say that I've lost all hope for this administration as of 23 seconds ago.

the last timelord · 5 months ago

umm .. president@whitehouse.gov

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Go here and vent!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Guest · 5 months ago

Here's my e-mail to the White House. I encourage you all to write your own:

The Obama administration simply can't stop themselves from throwing gay citizens under the bus at every opportunity.

You've treated us to:

- Rick Warren at the inauguration; - Apparent support of don't ask don't tell (a nice about face from the campaign, by the way); - And now, a motion to dismiss a lawsuit (Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer v. United States of America, State of California, and Does 1 through 1,000) where the DOJ compares gay marriage to incest and child marriage, and further argues that it is appropriate for the federal government to treat gay people differently than straight people because it saves the government money. Pat Robertson and James Dobson could have written this motion if they had the legal education and acumen to do so.

I just wanted to personally thank the Obama administration for continuing the long respected Democratic party tradition of pandering to the LGBT community for fundraising and votes and then turning on us at nearly every opportunity.

Where's the change that I, as a gay man, can believe in? Looks like more of the same to me.

Here's my promise, and unlike some, I keep my promises:

I will not give a single dollar or single vote to any democratic candidate who hasn't meaningfully demonstrated through actions and not words that they support full equality for ALL citizens.

In case you're wondering, you're not making the cut right now. Are you going to do anything to change that?

Alan · 5 months ago

I just did so. And yours was so good that I took the liberty of copying a portion of your text into my own.

Sam · 5 months ago

Its a joke to compare the constitutional rights of blacks and gays. No one needs to know your sexual preference. You cant hide being black. Seriously, get over it...

nicho · 5 months ago

So, gay people should just hide who they are? Go fuck yourself.

Sam · 5 months ago

There are more important issues than the need to legalize your coitus.

judybrowni · 5 months ago

Fuck you big time.
My brother and sister are gay, each in a relationship for over 30 years.

Iver three decades with each of their partners -- and yet, my brother could lose his house if Larry dies early, my brother can't collect Social Security payments like any "married" couple of over thirty years.

DOMA affects his health care: if my brother loses his job, he can't be put on Larry's health insurance, despite the fact that they've been together 35 YEARS.

They can't adopt in their state, and a hundred other legal benefits of marriage, because you and your disgusting ilk are BIGOTS.

GO FUCK YOURSELF, BIGOT.

Sam · 5 months ago

Wow!! Thanks for the obscenity laced explanation. Makes everything much clearer. Again, there are much more important issues than that.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Let's see, we can be fired for being gay, we can be evicted for being gay, we can be kept away from each other in emergency even when our paperwork states that we are to be allowed to stay together, when one of us dies, the relatives can take everything even when our wills state that everything is to be left to the survivor. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Go sit on a pineapple.

Sam · 5 months ago

Thats it?...really? Wow, you really are a minority.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Read the second to last sentence, that's all just the tip of the iceberg.

Sam · 5 months ago

Might take me a while to get what all the hooting and hollering is about but thanks... really.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Come back when you've been finacially ruined and left homeless by disaproving in-laws. Until then, you are merely being a jackass.

Sam · 5 months ago

And ... this happens to so many more demographics than you care to count.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Straight people are protected from things like this by marriage. Gay people are not.

Sam · 5 months ago

No Phoenix, was actually talking to steve.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

My point remains.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

shit for brains.

Sam · 5 months ago

So much anger. Please explain.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

My post above explains it quite well.

celticdragon · 5 months ago

Go troll somewhere else.

Sam · 5 months ago

Neh...free country. Con troll where I please.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

You need to keep your trolling to yourself.

greensburg · 5 months ago

I really adore you!

Also Sam · 5 months ago

That's already legal. This is about marriage. Catch up.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

Oh Sam. I responded to one of your posts above because I took you seriously. But I should have read this post first. Forget it.

JeepTreats · 5 months ago

Why should I "hide" being a lesbian? That's what I am. I am black in name only. My new and only identity is: Lesbian.

Sam · 5 months ago

No, I'm not talking about hiding. Keep your politics, religion and sexual preferences to yourself in the workplace. Period.

JeepTreats · 5 months ago

Oh so straight people should keep pictures of their wives and husbands to themselves as well, right? Or it just the likes of me who should keep that to myself, hide it like you sad?

By the way, some people can't hide it like you say, they were born that way, it's obvious that they're gay.

I don't hide it, but 99% of the time, people don't know that I am a lesbian.

ScottLanter · 5 months ago

Who would have suspected Liberace was gay or even Richard Simmons. Sexual orientation is such a very private secret issue.

Sam · 5 months ago

Emphasis on 'private'.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

When we can look at ads and not see sexy straight people posing and pouting, looking at straight people holding hands and making out on the street, sharing tender intimate moments, being in every facet of media and advertising with their blatant sexuality being shoved down our throats... THEN you can talk about "private"

Till that point, shut the fuck up.

woodroad34 · 5 months ago

Oh, surely, not me. I was so horrifyingly surprised when I found out Paul Lynde was gay. Talk about a hunk of butch manmeat.

Ed · 5 months ago

You shouldn't have to hide sexual preference. You're born gay just as you're born black.

melchore · 5 months ago

Actually...some LGBT people cannot "hide" their identity. Many people can't tell I am a gay male; however, a good friend of mine is told that everyone recognizes him as gay. Furthermore, are you saying that I shouldn't be able to talk about my partner or have his picture up in my office? Why should I hide my relationship?

woodroad34 · 5 months ago

Hmmm, Michael Jackson and Diana Ross come swiftly to mind. Many light-skinned blacks used to pass for white in the day.

It's kind of hard to pass for straight when you aren't married and in your 50's. I suppose you could get married to a straight person and wreak emotional havoc on that person and whatever kids you may have produced and yourself. There are a lot of people who just can't simply put on a straight demeanor convincingly. Frankly, I've seen some very soft heterosexual men who can't pass for "straight". We've even tried to hook them up with gay friends to our embarrassment.

Seriously, get over your bigotted self.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

You're right, Sam. You can't hide being black, and you didn't have to. There are differences. Gay people didn't typically have the support of their families, friends, churches, etc. when they realized they were gay. When most realized they were gay, they were alone. Fortunately that is changing, but it used to be that being gay was a deep, dark secret. Black people never faced that. Their difficulties were different. Now, we could get into a whole debate on "who has suffered more", but that would be pointless. And it would obscure just how many similarities there are in the constitutional struggle for racial minorities and gay people.

As for "get over it", nobody is getting over anything. You know that.

Stephen · 5 months ago

Well "didn't have" to doesn't make sense in the context of "can't" however that's not entirely accurate. Many people "passed" as White because of what being Black meant and that was definitely a deep dark secret that could get you killed if it was exposed.

JeepTreats · 5 months ago

Told you so. Judge Obama by his actions not by his sweet words. He's an opportunist. He'll toss anybody under the bus for an election and high polling numbers. Get real people. He will never get another dime or support from me. I don't care what his reasoning is. This is very insulting, again.

woodroad34 · 5 months ago

Exactly, his 'fierce' actions speak louder than his 'fierce' advocacy.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

i will support his health-care initiative with my money. but i now hope he gets primaried in 2012.

BW · 5 months ago

That settles it. BHO should be stripped of his crown by the Miss California Pageant Committee.

woodroad34 · 5 months ago

Well, he would then just complain it was because he didn't want to pose nude ('semi' or otherwise) in Playgirl.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

I think this has done it. This was the straw that broke the camel's back with the LGBT community. Just sayin'...

celticdragon · 5 months ago

I agree. This has torn it with me. I campaigned for him this last fall, and it was the first time I had ever supported a Democratic candidate.

At least with a Republican we know what to expect, it seems.

Natalie · 5 months ago

I worked my POSTERIOR off for him and for what? So he can argue don't ask don't tell is just swimmingly great and so he can argue that DOMA is just brilliant...SICKENING..I'm sickened by him now... I LOVED him I really really did. HUGE disappointment but again...the Republicans would like to do to homosexuals what they do in Iran, behead them. So I guess just "tolerating" us and having a few NE liberal states Like Mass and don't forget our Iowa defend us we have to be happy. Kind of like blacks should have been happy when they were merely ALLOWED to read. The NERVE thinking they could go to the same schools as whites OR the nerve Mrs. Obama thinking she could marry that black man. Hell that was illegal in how many states? How come DOMA doesn't apply to that?

Snowman · 5 months ago

I'm aghast.

And do not expect the HRC to do a thing about this. Which doubles the feeling of betrayal.

facebook-605178280 · 5 months ago

Shame Shame Shame , this is going to look so stupid in years to come ..........sigh

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Please explain "this"... are you talking about Obama's Justice Dept position or the uproar caused by it?

the last timelord · 5 months ago

don't blame me, i voted for john mccain.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

heh... yea... I guess if we got "big bad John," we could have seen the baseball bat coming?

FP · 5 months ago

"Them Jews" are behind this!
Buyer's remorse, anyone? It's remarkable how otherwise bright people fell for the hope & change BS.

Blueflash · 5 months ago

Lot's of us were leery of Obama. Who wouldn't be after his flirtation with the fraudulent "ex-gay" McClurkin and then huckster theocrat Rick Warren. But what choice did we have? A Republican? Or another Clinton whose husband did more than anyone to set us back and who at one point referred to Obama as "having San Francisco values"?

Stephen · 5 months ago

What BS exactly? He's certainly pushing forward with important things like health care and diplomacy. Only fools thought puppies and gumdrops would follow the election.

FP · 5 months ago

"What BS exactly? He's certainly pushing forward with important things like health care and diplomacy."

You've just named 2, although I call them "health denial" and "projecting your inner pussy". I'll add his stimulus as a third. Don't fret--the adults take over the congress in '10 and BHO becomes a first term lame duck.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

"Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review."

I know - LETS PRESERVE SCARCE GOVERNMENT RESOURCES - and just dissolve ALL marriages! Again, why should gay families pay taxes? Someone please tell me why I should pay taxes so opposite sex families can benefit, but our families can not?

ReallyNow · 5 months ago

Every word of the brief is true. Why all the hoo-hah?

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

somebody must have referenced this thread on free republic. the asshole bigots will start swarming.

Blueflash · 5 months ago

Yep, probably. Social Conservatives always need an authority figure to tell them what to do. Thinking for oneself is a dangerous liberal thing.

shell · 5 months ago

Every word? Yeah, an "IQ of 70" person, for sure. No one with a functioning brain would think EVERY WORD in a very long brief is true.

She never got past the first paragraph. That's our problem in the U.S. -- too many people can't READ.

lessthanacitizen · 5 months ago

It is high time that an organization emerged that would encourage LGBT citizens to withhold paying taxes altogether. There is nothing in the constituation that says a citizen's sexual orientation bars him or her from full participation in the responsibilities of citizen ship (as in DADT) or from the benefits (as in DOMA). Waving a biblical text in a secular society, however meaningful to some, is insulting to others. This is not a matter of outrage at broken promises. It is a matter of outrage.

JeepTreats · 5 months ago

I hear ya. We should not be taxed since we're not considered first rate citizens.

Harry · 5 months ago

Sounds like a reasonable legal brief by the Obama administration, as well as completely consistent with his policy and beliefs Obama held prior to and during his campaign.

Why the surprise?

Weren't you listening to Obama (and most of the rest of the African American community) during the campaign?

Didn't you hear the response from the African American community in California re: Meas 8?

Stephen · 5 months ago

57% of AA voters in Cali voted for Prop 8. That represents that AA community as a whole how?

One could easily point to the fact that Obama received less votes from Gay Americans than Kerry did as evidence that many Gays are bigots. Is that really where you want to go or do you want to stick to the legal merits of the case?

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

Funny, I don't remember Obama comparing gay marriages to incest. I don't recall him saying that DOMA was reasonable and constitutional, and in fact a good thing because it saves the taxpayers money they wouldn't have to pay those pesky gays in benefits. In fact, he called DOMA "abhorrent."

Stephen · 5 months ago

You're exactly right. They probably shouldn't have let some asshole from Alabama write the thing.

Stephen · 5 months ago

To add, the probably shouldn't let a Bush administration asshole from Alabama write it.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

this sounds remarkably like some other troll that just got banned

"Seems like a reasonable brief backed by precedent and fulfilling the normal presidential function of defending the Constitutionality of Federal statutes."

Funny that. You guys all on the Freeper LAN or what?

concernedboutthis · 5 months ago

Has anybody checked out "cowboyneok." I think it's interesting that his name is cowboy neo k. As in, neo-conservative. Look at how much effort he is putting into whipping up hatred here. This is part and parcel of the Republican strategy to divide and conquer. His comments are sooooo odd.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

I know who cowboy is. He's a friend of mine. You're an idiot.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

What????? First of all, you're completely off base about Cowboy. Secondly, Obama has just whipped up this controversy. No need for any help from the GOP.

genobuilt · 5 months ago

The Democratic Party tries to sound consistent on these kind of issues that need not be so 'thorny.' Like Gay Rights or support for the Iraq War. But standing up for something viewed unpopular is a strength. Obama represents the kind of Democrat who straddles a fence between two opinions. That is why I left the Democratic Party (to be Independent). I also want to tell you I never felt so free. Anybody calling me conservative--save it. I am more liberal than the average Dem.

JerryCA · 5 months ago

Why are you picking on him? Get off the analytical chair and be really "concerned" about Obama and the direction he's taking us.

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

you're obviously new here. and now likely to get banned on your first day.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

chortle.

neok - North Eastern Oklahoma

The "star" means I'm a moderator on here.

As far as being "Republican" is concerned, I'm the vice chair of my counties Democratic Party.

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

You dolt. He's referring to his being "cowboy in east Oklahoma".

Good grief...

One of the best long-term posters (along with many, many others) here at ABlog is cowboy.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry at the sheer stupidity of this statement.

shell · 5 months ago

ROFL! "Cowboy Neo K"!! She thinks "K" stands for "conservative." You can't even get mad at illiterates like this. You must just laugh at them.

aratina · 5 months ago

No wonder he propped up Rick Warren--they're on the same page.

Mooser · 5 months ago

Obama propped up Rick Warren in the "republican position"? Man, talk about unsafe sex!

aratina · 5 months ago

:) Not a Republican page! That would be Foley.

Steve · 5 months ago

Or Barney Frank

Stephen · 5 months ago

The rational basis test is not the "republican position" as far as the position it's indefensible from a moral standpoint. However, though he is responsible for the arguments of his subordinates Obama didn't write the thing.

Mooser · 5 months ago

Barack Obama won "Wanker of the Day" for this at Atrios!

Well, well, well. If the government can pass judgement on gay marriages, there is no reason why they won't soon be banning marriage for those with unpaid parking tickets. Oh that's a joke, but how about banning subsequent marriages for unpaid child support? Like that? Hows about banning marriage for felons, or anyone who was sentenced to over 12 mos. in jail? Oooh, here's a good one; ban marriages for anyone with a sex offender record!
Look, if you need statistics to support these things, I can supply them without a problem. Marriage is not doing so good these days, but if we ignore all the marriages which broke up due to anything else but the chosen factor, we could make a pretty good case. Mixed Jewish-Protestant marriages? Bound to go pffft! At great cost to the federal budget. Ban 'em.

I've got a little list,
of marriages we'll nix.
Those misbegotten unions,
which must end in a rift.
They never will be blessed,
They'll none of 'em be blessed.

Look, I'm just getting started, why don't you try a verse?

eclare · 5 months ago

"Hows about banning marriage for felons, or anyone who was sentenced to over 12 mos. in jail?"

Here's where things get particularly absurd. Incarcerated felons already have a constitutionally protected right to get married. So - mass murdering serial child rapist on death row wants to get married? No problem, as long as it's not to another man (or woman, as the case may be, although rarely ever is).

PS - why is DISQUS being a pain in my ass?

jefCostello · 5 months ago

You were all warned, Obama is a fascist.

MarkJ · 5 months ago

Soooooooo.....how's that Hope 'n' Change thing workin' out for y'all these days?

Maybe it's finally occurred to you that, in ObamaWorld, his election was less about "hope 'n' change" than "It's all about the O."

Harry · 5 months ago

Maybe it's finally occurred to you that, in ObamaWorld, his election was less about "hope 'n' change" than "It's all about the O."

===

All about the "O"!!!

Go with the "O"!!!

Mr Cool, the Big "O"!!!

Get "O"ver it, the election is "O"ver, you l"O"st, and "O"bama won.

L"O"L

Nobama · 5 months ago

Sorry now? Oh, wait, Zero's not just hurting women anymore.

Too bad. You broke it, you bought it.

Chris · 5 months ago

I mean, "buyer's remorse" is a bullshit thing to say. Obama consistently stated during the campaign that he doesn't support gay marriage.

While I'm all for marriage equality, the author of this post is quite disingenuous and clearly doesn't know anything about legal argumentation. Re. the incest comparison - The gov't was citing cases supporting the proposition that states have the prerogative, supported by caselaw, to not recognize marriages. When citing supporting caselaw, it is required that you include a paranthetical describing the holding or subject matter of the cited case.

Besides, were the authors of the brief to take the correct viewpoint-that denial of marriage equality is violative of equal protection-they would be asserting an argument that the Court, given its current composition, would never countenance. This would cost the attorneys much legitimacy in the eyes of legal observers, negatively impacting their ability to pursue progressive litigation down the line.

The case for marriage equality on the federal level can only be made after a couple nominations replacing conservative Justices. Until that date, any assertion made by the administration that denial of non-heterosexual marriage is an EPC violation would be grossly counterproductive, and would set back the gains made in individual states.

This brief is in no way homophobic, and the hyperbole engaged in by the author of this article borders on reckless. You are doing the LGBT community a grave disservice. Go to law school, or at least learn the first damn thing about equal protection jurisprudence, and then maybe you should consider writing posts such as this one. Though obviously then you would have to adopt a much more reasonable tenor.

HuffPo just dropped several pegs in my book by linking to this article. Marriage Equality will come, but complaining in a hyperbolic fashion about the best president we've had since LBJ won't do a damn thing about it.

Ben Dover · 5 months ago

Obviously you have never read John's profile and credentials.
Might want to give that a quick read-through.

Chris · 5 months ago

I see that he's an attorney. I refuse to believe that an attorney would make such disingenuous arguments, but I suppose that ideology can blind us all.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

are you an attorney? What are your credentials for this line of argument?

Chris · 5 months ago

Not yet. One year from now I will be. Now that I've read up on him I applaud much of the work that John has done, but in this post he is purposefully misrepresenting the arguments being advanced by the government.

And were it not for DOMA, as despicable as the legislation may be, we'd have had a shitstorm on our hands after the MA supremes granted marriage equality.

joshquasimoto · 5 months ago

OK it is official you are a troll.

Every time someone comes on here to argue the actual legal brief you go back to your same invalid argument.

Of course with a screen name of Ben Dover, on this blog of all blogs might tell most commentators all they need to know.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

So comparing gay relationships, 2 consenting adults, to incest is reasonable and not homophobic?

Chris · 5 months ago

No comparison was drawn! Those cases support the proposition that states can impose limitations on marriage. In no way does this brief say gay=incest=man-on-dog.

Sacrificing the nuance of the law does nothing to advance the cause of marriage equality. We need to be lobbying the administration on things we can change NOW - a federal statute prohibiting orientation based discrimination, adoption rights, &c.

Let's face it-until we stop election shitty federal legislators, we're not going to have national recognition of gay marriage until two of the five current conservatives on the bench have been replaced. There's nothing that I, Obama, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster can do about it.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Obama has had plenty of opportunity to change things. One thing he could do is a STOP LOSS and stop enforcing "Don't Ask / Don't Tell." He won't even do that much for us. This is just one more example of how he refuses to advocate for our civil rights. You only get so many strikes before you are out.

Chris · 5 months ago

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why we should focus our energies on making him follow through on his pledge, rather than nit-picking arguments his Justice Department is unfortunately more or less compelled to make by the current zeitgeist.

He did pledge to end DODT as soon as he got in to office, stirring up a bit of controversy and igniting much criticism. Can we please stop acting like Obama is an enemy of the nonheterosexual community, and instead focus on achieving those victories which can be realized?

Gridlock · 5 months ago

I would actually tell you go to look at his voting record and get back to us.. voting against pretty much everything, or not voting at all makes you the enemy.

judybrowni · 5 months ago

"The best president since LBJ" -- in several months in office you've got the proof?

Hey, I was alive in those years, and LBJ helped destroy the Democratic Party, and his own work on a Great Society by his stubborn refusal to end the Vietnam War.

I remember the chants "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

The Vietnam War also bankrupted the War on Poverty, the Space program and set this country on fire and divided the nation.

And left the door open for Nixon to lie that he would end the Vietnam War "with honor" and win the Presidency for Republicans to come.

Yeah, like we want Obama to follow in those footsteps, to screw enough of his Democratic base that the Republicans can lie their way back into office.

jjv · 5 months ago

Seems like a reasonable brief backed by precedent and fulfilling the normal presidential function of defending the Constitutionality of Federal statutes. Why wouldn't you argue these things? Changing marriage to be any twosome may be a goal of a subset of homosexuals but why is it considered the only position a Democrat could take? Obama said he is for traditional marriage and the repeal of Doma. This is perfectly consistent with that. It is only inconsitent with the "nobody gets to vote once we gays have decided" position.

As for race/gender the next time we fight a civil war with 600,000 deaths and a martyr Republican President to mainstream homosexual behavior you'll have a better argument.

(over the top and BANNED)

Gridlock · 5 months ago

*eyerolls at your entire, ridiculous post*

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

I look forward to writing a post quoting Obama's defenders, to show him the company he is now keeping.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Thanks for your kind, wise thoughts equating LGBT civil rights to slavery. Hope you enjoy the ban.

genobuilt · 5 months ago

Don't worry about me. I'm doing fine. I don't even believe in the sanctity of marriage anyway. It's just another social construct. I am for anything you wanna do that is your own business and doesn't present a clear and present danger. So if ya wanna marry a stone, that is your right. Personal liberty is all I care about, with holy rollers, hypocrits, and tyrants out of the picture.

genobuilt · 5 months ago

Since when is the Constitution assert "traditional boundries." Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech? I have no use for a Republic so wayward as to preserve and protect the tyranny of the majority the Framers of the Constitution warned later generations about, and so, to the Devil with it! Whatever happened to the Dont Tread on Me principal that our forbears gave their lives up for. This is the most selfish and egotistical generation of Americans since the time a certain Amendment declared blacks were 3/5ths human.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Advocating for a another civil war that killed 600,000 Americans in order to garner equal civil rights will not be tolerated. This isn't FOX NEWS CHANNEL here. You come on this site, and you are expected to argue your points without shouting "'FIRE!' in a crowded theater." For instance, if you start calling an OB/GYN a "baby killer" on this site, you will get banned for that kind of behavior as well. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that is what you are asserting with the "Freedom of Speech" argument?

genobuilt · 5 months ago

I am not advocating anything other than equal rights in the truest sense of the word. I don't know where you're going with all [that]. I don't wanna tread on anybody, least of all heterosexuals who don't like homosexual's tone or methods. I just think this Republic is not the Republic the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. Before any so-called Democracy there was Natural Law. Enlightened thinkers felt Man was good before he became civilized, but since then 'everywhere He is in chains.' Denied marriage rights may not be viewed as chains to you, but to someone whose 'love dare not utter its name', it is most certainly is'chains' they're in.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Again, straw that broke the camel's back on this one. Fasten your seat belts, America, from now on its going to be a bumpy ride.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

This really did turn Gay Pride Month into a joke, didn't it? In some ways Obama would have looked better now if he hadn't make that proclamation. This just isn't a new kind of politics.

Matty_J · 5 months ago

I am a tea party conservative, and I stand with Dick Cheney. Freedom means freedom for all. I fail to understand where the federal government has a stake in this. Let the states decide. Then, on reciprocity, same sex and traditional marriage will be protected, because less tolerant state legislatures will not be able to deny rights to those legally married in other states. At the state level, it is more tied in with the will of the people, and most people don't care who you love.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Yea, Dick and Mary Cheney sure did a helluva lot for the GAY COMMUNITY when they were in power, huh? Now that he is no longer Vice President he wants to be PFLAG member of the year? Nope... sorry... go away DICK.

Cheney for gay Marriage 2012 · 5 months ago

Seriously, john mc-cain and dick cheny could run for president with a platform of doing what obama said he would do with not taxing health care benifits, and actualy overturning don't ask don't tell, mabey even having gay marriage for everyone. So you have progressive policy for the rights of people (actualy happening) and don't have to waste exesesive amounts of money along the way with failed companys.

You realy bad at being a progressive when dick cheney out-progresses you (he came out of the closet and or in support of gay marriage).

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Dick had EIGHT LONG YEARS to make a difference and DID NOT so he needs to STFU.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

So you'd put Darth Cheney back in power just so "teh gayz" can get married? I find it laughable that you even believe that Cheney would bring in some sort of rainbow-shrouded wonderful era to this country in the first place.

Your logic baffles me.

ScottLanter · 5 months ago

Is this defense of DOMA really that surprising considering Obama said that God is not in the mix in gay relationships?

concernedboutthis · 5 months ago

Well, it's just ironic, then, Cowboy Neo Kon.

Oh, no. Not banned?!

Well that type of childishness wouldn't surprise me coming from your crowd. You all sound like a lynch mob. Keep whipping up the anger. Maybe you'll inspire another shooting.

The above article took great liberties with a case lawyers made. To suggest that Obama is connecting incest to gay people is to reveal your agenda is more about yourselves and your self-righteousness than understanding and calm, rational debate.

genobuilt · 5 months ago

But doesn't Obama's lawyers have to claim a Constitutional mandate on what looks, walks, and talks like discrimination? Shouldn't they argue the merits of Freedom of Speech, if anything? Why does 'traditional' this and 'traditional' that earn such a high premium? Woman's Suffrage wasn't opposed on the grounds of tradition? Weren't Abolistionists fighting 'tradition' as viewed by slave owners in the South? In the final analysis, I don't see how Gay marriage is harmful to society at all.

Allie · 5 months ago

My voter's card says I'm a Republican, but I describe myself as someone that wants the Dems out of my wallet and the Republicans out of my bedroom. I couldn't care less who bangs who, who dates who, or who marries who - as long as all involved are adults and capable of consent. NOT MY BUSINESS.

I'm shocked that anyone is shocked that The Chosen One has not kept his word - did any of you believe that at any time? O is all about O - period.

While everyone is screaming about the political parties - are you missing something? Hispanics in the majority voted to ban gay marriage. This is a group that liberals love to protect and advocate for. Face it, millions are here illegally, they live, drive, work, and look like any other citizen. Or are here from last amnesty or are 'anchor babies' grown up. Are you surprised that they voted? The politicians cater to them because they know they are overtaking this country and want to get their votes.

Change immigration laws and boot out the 12 million illegals and limit legal immigration and that takes away a LOT of the folks voting against gay marriage rights.

I'm not racist, I'm not anti-hispanic - I'm pro-American - I'm for legal immigration. These are not 'undocumented' people - to call them so is an insult to our intelligence - they are criminals. California is bursting at the seams with them. And you all are surprised that Prop 8 didn't go your way?

Tim · 5 months ago

those illegals couldnt VOTE on prop 8 stupid.

frank · 5 months ago

Did you lose your job? Poor thing go back to school and get retrained

Stephen · 5 months ago

Criminals? What statute have they all violated?

Allie · 5 months ago

Tripped over this site while surfin the net - evidently some folks didn't like my response - oh well :) BTW I have a job Frank - have the day off. See - us employed folks can do that and get paid without having to have the public pay for it. I'm a single mom - have my own house - well the bank owns part but I'm not upside down on it and can pay the mortgage - 2 cars and a motorcycle paid for.

What law made them criminals? Uh, the US has immigration laws and sneaking over the border is illegal - gee, that's why ICE exists and they get deported. If it weren't illegal they could just saunter through border posts and say "I'm here for my free stuff". Unfortunately there are too many these days that we can't keep up with them. Try sneaking over the border into Saudi Arabia and see what non-wussy countries do with illegals. Tim - just like a liberal when faced with facts - resort to name-calling :) Those illegals can and do do many of the things reserved for CITIZENS. Thank goodness Maryland just finally passed a law closing the loophole that allowed illegals to get drivers licenses. Almost all of the illegals are engaging in identity theft - those were used to vote and there were many reports this election about voters not having to show any ID - tons of illegals (and dead people) voted for O.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Uhh you're a moron. Illegals couldn't vote on Prop8, or anything else for that matter. Your statement is pretty anti-Hispanic and fairly borderline racist as well. It was LEGAL blacks and LEGAL Hispanics that wtfpwnt gays in California, and it has EVERYTHING to do with religion. Blacks and Hispanics are deeply Christian people, and the folks who were running the anti-Prop8 campaign FAILED to reach the church-goers and young people, because that particular campaign was like one of the worst run campaigns ever.

Hispanics are, as a culture, deeply homophobic, but that's because machoism runs deep in our countries of origin. And a man taking it in the butt isn't a man, according to our history, and on top of that you got the Bible telling us it's wrong too. So you're talking about centuries upon centuries of culture and religion you have to defeat, even in those Hispanics that are now Americans. And frankly, you won't get the older Hispanics to change, it's the younger folks, the ones growing up around gays, that you need to reach.

As a Hispanic woman (with legally Americanized parents) who was BORN and RAISED in Miami, Florida (very heavy Hispanic influence there), I support the right of gays to get married. But I also know that it's an uphill battle with blacks and hispanics.

If you booted your 12 million illegals back to their poverty and disease-ridden hells known as countries, you'd still have lost the battle over Prop8 in California. Sorry to burst your racist bubble, but your post tells me clearly that you know nothing about Hispanics, their culture, and why they are anti-gay.

Allie · 5 months ago

*sigh* Another one that can't have a 'conversation' without resorting to name-calling when they don't like what they hear and can't defend it. If you really think a bunch of illegals didn't vote you are as naive as they come. Guess you also believe they don't drive, suck up healthcare resources, fill the schools, collect food stamps etc too? I know about Hispanics and the heavy Christian influence and why they voted they way they did.

Because I'm against criminals - yes - illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS - I'm a racist? Really? If there were 12 million illegal Japanese here I'd say the same thing or 12 million illegal Brits or Norwegians. California just happens to have a large population of illegal Hispanics and not Japanese or Brits or Norwegians. It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with following the law. So convenient to toss out the 'racist' label when you can't argue your point logically. But don't let logic spoil a good rant.

The fact that YOU make it about race says more about you than it does me.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

I mentioned race because YOU mentioned illegals were the main cause for Prop8 going through. To suggest that you didn't bring up race is disingenous at best. You were very clearly targeting illegal Mexicans and Hispanics in your comment. I know illegal kids attend public schools and go to the hospitals, etc. But the parents don't tend to vote for a number of reasons, primarily that they are afraid of getting caught and tossed back to their countries. They don't care about your politics, they care about picking enough tomatoes in a day so that they can bring home those dimes to feed the kids. Illegals didn't cause Prop8 to go through, legal citizens of California did, religious leaders both FROM UTAH and California did, and lousy campaigning on behalf of the anti-prop8 crowd did.

Allie · 5 months ago

Just gotta address this:

"If you booted your 12 million illegals back to their poverty and disease-ridden hells known as countries,"

sounds like excuses for illegal immigration. Uh, why don't these hard-working illegals work hard at fixing their own country then?

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Actually I do believe illegals need to get legal. My parents came here legally, so why can't they? I don't want them to stay, my tax dollars are stretched enough as it is.

But you fail to see why they are coming here anyway, which is why I brought up their shitty countries, which incidentally, I have personally seen a number of. The situation really IS bad in those countries and they are desperate enough to cross deserts to get here.

Asking why impoverished folks have no power to fix their third-world shitholes is like asking why gays haven't forced our government to let them legally marry. It doesn't happen overnight, and when the tide is against you, there's not much you can do to fight it. Since you know nothing about Latin America, allow me to enlighten you. Central and South America is primarily heavily impoverished because their politicians are more corrupt then anything we got here in the States, so they skim off the top of the taxes over there. Furthermore, MANY politicians down there are paid by drug money to keep the status quo. And speaking of drug money, the drug gangs, drug cartels, etc, are the biggest reason there's so much misery. They are the ones who abduct dumbass American tourists for ransom. They are the ones paying politicians to STFU. They are the ones driving the poor people off their farms and out of their mud huts to pave the way for more drug growing plantations. They are the ones stealing 10 year old boys from their families, giving them 3 meals a day and a gun and telling them to start shooting. And they are the ones sending folks with bombs strapped to their chests into churches or news studios to blow shit up to make a point.

I'm sorry, you didn't know all this? Of course you didn't. America has her head so far up her ass, she doesn't notice what constitutes real suffering. The MSM never covers this shit. I mean if 9/11 was happening in America every 3 months, say, would YOU want to stay here? Knowing that your kids might be in school one day and get blown to bits by the local cartel? Knowing that you could be at work and someone could run with a gun and blow your head off for no good reason then because they were told to by the boss?

Of course not. You'd either leave, or you'd pick up a gun and fight back and get killed. Well some folks down in Central and South America fight back, but others run.

Now is this a good reason to allow illegal immigration to tax this country's resources? Of course not.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see illegals sent back to their countries, and I'd like to see the media reporting the atrocities that happen daily in their countries, and I'd like to see some moral outrage from Americans about the conditions in those countries, and I'd like to see maybe some offers of help from America for those countries. I mean we already like to police the world, tell Israel to play nice and invade Iraq and take over based on a lie and such. Why not extend those efforts to some actually humanitarian efforts for people who are genuinely suffering?

Just a thought.

obamacrat · 5 months ago

John,

You are wrong that this undercuts other attempts at the state level to have gay marriage recognized as law. These efforts have been far more successful at the state level than anyone could have predicted just a couple of years ago. And they have been successful because of arguments based on state constitutional provisions, not federal ones. In short, gay marriage is being recognized on a state by state level. And as those states that have recognized gay marriages by court decision or legislative enactment suffer none of the predicted ill effects, this fact will be used as an argument in favor of enactment of similar laws elsewhere. If the constitutionality of DOMA is upheld, it will not invalidate the state law within the state that enacts it or the right of any other state to give full faith and credit to gay marriages performed in other states should they so choose. Calm down. You haven't really lost. DOMA, after all, was a measure enacted to placate the Pat Robertsons of the country who were pressuring the GOP to enact a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Had that effort succeeded you would have a far more serious hurdle to overcome and no state would have the option of allowing gay marriage even if it wanted to. I'd say on balance you guys are doing alright with the state by state approach. The demographics favor you. Younger people simply don't have the same problem with gays that their parents did. I have known young, born again, fundamentalist, don't believe in evolution types, who literally break with their parents on this one issue. And they do so because of exposure to gay people who have come out of the closet whom they respect and admire. What I am saying is that the actual affect of upholding DOMA in the long run will likely be as a bullwork against the forces who argue that gay marriage will be forced on them from on high by the federal government. If they start agitating for a Constitutional Amendment again to ban gay marriage arguing this is necessary to prevent it from being imposed on them, you can reply with one word, DOMA. And when they argue that recognition of gay marriage will lead to a slippery slope of legalizing marriage between people and sheep or whatever stupid argument they make, you can point to Iowa and say, "Well, that did not happen." Their public policy arguments against gay marriage will never have the same weight because you will have real life experience to contradict it. I actually think that this is where Obama is coming from. I believe he wants to ensure that the states are allowed to decide this issue for themselves for now and he may be right. And before you decide that you want to be considered as a "suspect class" for the purposes of Constitutional protection, keep in mind the resentment and charges of favoritism and reverse racism that that clearly justified status still has the power to evoke in certain elements in this country. I do not believe the president is betraying you. I think he is looking at the long haul and what is the best way to get there. Everyone has a part to play. Yours may be to not settle, but his is to maintain the forces of moderation while progress takes hold. They may be at odds currently on this issue but may come together again at a later time. The ultimate goal of each I believe is that same. Please do not put him on a par with Pat Robertson. That is so ridiculous I can't even find the words to express the ridiculousness of it. Fight the good fight as you have to but for the love of heaven, keep it in perspective.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Wow! This was a well written reply, good sir. I'm stirring the pot elsewhere just to piss people off, but I really appreciate what you've said. It's an intelligent conclusion, even if I don't agree with most of it.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

LOL yeah, I'll let the people who actually have law degrees, you know the authors of the article in question, have the last say over some random internet personality with no credentials.

LowKey · 5 months ago

Paragraphs, PLEASE. ;-P

ScottLanter · 5 months ago

Is GOProud really the answer?

Laughing · 5 months ago

This really is quite funny to see. Your blind hatred for Bush led you to follow a guy that any thinking person said wasn't trustworthy.

Kalex · 5 months ago

It wasn't blind haterd - it was well-warranted. And, no, he did not make us follow Obama. We supported Obama because he wasn't John McCain. Duh.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Thank you.

blackjack00801 · 5 months ago

Well, we will have another president in 2016 or maybe 2012. Try again then?

Lukas · 5 months ago

John - this is the same man you FAWNED over during the primaries while you VICIOUSLY, DISGUSTINGLY maligned Hillary. You deserve this.

johndog · 5 months ago

good point lukas. i agree. the anti-hillary slant was so severe i had to quit reading during the primaries. no, she didn't support gay marriage either, but she's always been a stronger gay advocate than obama.

this doma filing makes me ill.

Tim · 5 months ago

enough with this "i told you so" bullshit about obama. i dont think gay has a political party. democrats are the best we got, and he was always clear during the campaign about his opposition to same-sex marriage. because you may vote for some one doesnt mean you agree on all their positions. regardless of who its coming from, this brief is despicable and enraging.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

He was also clear on his support for the total repeal of DOMA. Yet here he is defending it with the typical homophobic talking points.

DADvocate · 5 months ago

It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees.

Once you get beyond comparing everything to Bush, youi'll make tremendous progress in understanding. According to your analysis, this is worse than Bush.

PKRT · 5 months ago

How sad. I had hoped I could vote for equality for America's 2nd Class citizens but Clinton and Edwards conspired at the NAACP debate to "limit the field" and NBC took it to the Nevada Supreme Court to UN-INVITE the only pro-gay progressive from the debates and the primaries themselves. Then the Inner Party ran 4 challengers against Rep. Kucinich for his House seat to teach him and the rest of us liberals a lesson... WE ARE NOT WANTED IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The DNC
will take our votes and our money but it's crystal clear as to their priorities be it torture or equality among other issues - "Change" apparently means "stay the course" in Newspeak.

The more we settle for "the lesser evil" on election day the more we enable the status quo and become Uncle Tom sell-outs ourselves.

Dick Cheney is more progressive than Obushma on this issue... 'nuff said...

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

again, DICK CHENEY, was in power for EIGHT YEARS and did nothing... He is OUT OF POWER now so I don't want to hear what an advocate the Cheneys are for equal rights.

PKRT · 5 months ago

He's not gay bashing like Obushma RIGHT NOW is he? Cheney might be the biggest liar and war criminal who ever lived but he's not railing against equality at this moment... lying his ass off to try and rewrite history, yes, but he's not coming out with the incest and pedophilia crap Obushma just pulled out of his butt. This crap about budget and small business costs is what Micheal Steele pulled out of his rear end May 16th and, along with other anti-gay Reich-wing talking points Obama is recycling like he's part of the lunatic fringe echo chamber on FIXED News.

If Malia or Sasha was gay Obama could be Alan Keyes at this point...

Julie · 5 months ago

I'm sorry, were you actually expecting Obama to DO anything for the gay community?

How odd.

I'm sure I'll still see those ridiculous Rainbow-Nation-for-Obama teeshirts around my town though.

Allie · 5 months ago

Of course they did - they drank the Kool-Aid

simplethinker · 5 months ago

Off course all this discussion is way off the basics of the entire debate. Obama was right to argue there's no connection to Black issues since being Black is something you are born with and cannot change. It'd be fundamentally unfair to discriminate in that case. The situation with the homosexual issue is not the same as it does not involve a basic condition of the individual. The choice to live a gay lifestyle is just that - a choice. Thus, our society can discriminate against this choice all it wants just like it discriminates against all manner of choice people come up with.

(race baiting will NOT be tolerated)

DD · 5 months ago

We protect religion under the discrimination laws, and that's DEFINITELY a choice.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

good point.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

If you're not gay, you're not an expert on whether or not being gay is a choice. But thank you for your opinion.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

anyone who thinks its a choice, has obviously "chosen" their particular orientation and has the luxury of choosing which means they've AT LEAST had bisexual thoughts... just sayin'...

I'm as gay as they come. I don't have the luxury of even choosing between men and women. I don't see women as anything but platonic friends.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

The notion that being gay is a choice is ridiculous, and it is usually applied politically. As for me, I'm an eight on the Kinsey Scale, and it only goes up to six!

Gridlock · 5 months ago

When did you choose to be straight? Can you tell me which day you woke up and decided who you were attracted to?

It's not a choice, are you fucking kidding me? NOBODY GETS TO CHOOSE WHO THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO. It's as biologically ingrained in you as skin color.

That ridiculous argument is so 1983.

Blueflash · 5 months ago

Spare us the race-baiting nonsense. We've heard it all a thousand times before - usually from cynical conservative whites who've never been terribly enthusiastic about blacks.

Jim · 5 months ago

I'm gay and I can tell you first hand it's NOT a choice. NOT a 'Lifestyle" Never has been. Please once and for all get that through your thick skulls.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Deciding to overeat, smoke, getting tatoos or being an outdoorsman are LIFESTYLES, idiot.

Sexual orientation is NOT something you wake up and decide to "do" because you decide you want society to treat you like a pariah.

If you think its a choice then maybe there is something you need to tell us. Are you living a lie? Are you one of us, and trying to be straight? My straight brother will be the FIRST ONE to tell you he never chose to like women. It just HAPPENED. Just like my orientation just HAPPENED.

I will say your chosen screenname is perfect for you, though. "simplethinker" really describes you perfectly.

reality-check · 5 months ago

If your orientation is to be in an unnatural sexual relationship you can try to blame it on your genetic makeup rather than accept responsibility for your choice to either reject your predisposition or continue to reside in your bent for seual misconduct.

Jason · 5 months ago

How long were you gay before you decided you like the va jay jay more? You know, in order for sexuality to be a choice, all of us than are bisexual, and CHOOSE which sex we gravitate towards. So when did you decide you didn't like cock anymore?

Allie · 5 months ago

Religion thinks it's a choice, science says gay or straight is inherent in your DNA. As much as some would like it to be so, law is not to be based on religious beliefs.

KeepTheChangePlease · 5 months ago

Woooo, first thing Obama has done that I agree with! Go BHO, go!

Steve_in_CNJ · 5 months ago

sick maggot.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

Bored? Looking for a lot of arguments?

kladinvt · 5 months ago

What's up, tired of yelling at your TV?

Hurricane · 5 months ago

Funny how you bash those "evil" Republicans when you write "It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. "

Looks liek the joke is on you! You got egg on your face this time....oh wait, that's not egg.......loser.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

And your problem or problems are what???? Oh....you're another bitter repug, I see.

robert · 5 months ago

I may have it on my face....but you just swollowed mine....punk!!!!

andy · 5 months ago

gay isn't a protected class. what you do in the bedroom isn't a civil right. it is not reasonable to ask for the right to marry. i am all for individual rights. go ahead and live together, register so you can get domestic partner bennies. fine with me. but really, stop trying to sell the whole 'gay is normal' thing to the rest of us. it isn't. you are a small group of people. majority rules. california voters say so, and so does most of the rest of america. if someone doesn't agree with your views or agree with your lifestyle they are 'homophobes' and need to be referred to counseling. well, you are 'conserviphobes'. it's not right or fair that you don't believe in what i believe. it's wrong and you should be ashamed of yourselves. now go back and worship your king perez and leave the rest of us alone.

RitornaVincitor · 5 months ago

Is that your understanding of what it is to be gay? What people do in their bedrooms? I'm afraid your understanding of gay people doesn't run very deep.

Is that your understanding of the Constitution? Majority rules? I'm afraid your understanding of the Constitution doesn't run very deep.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

1) It's not about what is done in the bedroom, it's about the rights we get when we marry our partner, the same rights you enjoy. All you neocons think about is SEX SEX SEX. It's not about fucking. It's about marriage. Get that through your thick, troglodyte skull.

2) Small group of people? 1 in 10 are gay, and that's the conservative estimate. That's about 35 MILLION PEOPLE alone in the US at the very least.

3) Minority rights ARE NOT TO BE DECIDED BY A MAJORITY VOTE. If that was the case, no minority would ever get any rights. Desegregation was opposed by 71% of the population at the time it was instituted.. i guess, by your logic, that should never have happened? READ A HISTORY BOOK.

4) How about YOU leave US alone. Stop standing in our way. Stop oppressing us. Stop keeping us from having our rights. That's all we want: OUR RIGHTS. We don't WANT YOU BOTHERING US. Stay the fuck out of our way and there won't be a problem, will there? What we do DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, so mind your own fucking business.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

and you are shark chum here. Just keep it up and get eaten alive.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Uh, according to you Socrates, what a person does in bed (my, my you Cons sure are obsessed with sex, aren't you???) isn't a civil right, then all str8/mixed sex couples should not be afforded the federal rights that they are granted via marriage. Unless str8/mixed marriages are on a "higher plane"???
Assuming anyone would want to marry you & assuming your a U.S. citizen, married couples should all be afforded the SAME rights & be TAXED the SAME, but we're not.
For some unknown reason troglodytes like YOU, believe you're "more equal" than other U.S. citizens.
So why is that? Why do you deserve more than me???

Allie · 5 months ago

Don't you realize that stooping to the level of the person you are responding to makes you look just about as crazed as they are?

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Freepers do that to me.

PKRT · 5 months ago

Aren't you late for your domestic terrorism meeting? Isn't Boss Limbaugh on the air now? It's crimethink to miss the dayorder from B.B. so be gone, you!

(What people do in the bedroom isn't anyone's GD business is what you should have said.... you know... that whole 'freedom' thing terrorists like you apparently hate.)

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Why are supposedly straight men obsessed with the idea of two men having sex with each other? Is there something you would like to tell us?

Richard · 5 months ago

What I do in my bedroom is not the issue idoiot.

I certainly don't want to know what u do in yours. You are the one who should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you tell anyone to be ashamed to want the same rights as you. You are not "all for Civil Rights". you are all for your own civil rights.
What diff does it make how many gay people there are?

You ARE a narrow minded HOMOPHOBIC person.

Gays are just as entitled to happiness as you are. If the government cannot offer the perks of marriage to gays they should not acknowledge marriage at all. let EVERYONE file for domestic partnership .

Blueflash · 5 months ago

Does this end the debate about whether it's premature to approach the federal Supreme Court in the next few years on same-sex marriage? I thought so and now I feel almost certain about it.

m · 5 months ago

"Opposite sex" is entirely superfluous as a modifier for "marriage".

kladinvt · 5 months ago

You must feel as though you are the 'standard' then.

Disappointed · 5 months ago

Obama is NO Lincoln or Truman.

dantes · 5 months ago

Are you finally realizing Obama is a narcissistic statist? Vote for Hope and Change!!!

Remember, it's the knuckledragging wing of the Republican party that told you so first.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

... the wing that's actually worse than what we have at present? LOL

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Oh you mean the Rush Limbaugh wing of the knuckledraggers?!

Allie · 5 months ago

I have to admit, I do love when I surf and run across websites where the Obamalovers have seen the real person they elected instead of the Candidate and are disgusted, disheartened, and saddened by him. I can only hope that they'll remember the lesson next election. He's always been nothing but an empty suit, and always will be - he'll just be a rich one with a place in the history books now. McCain sure wasn't my favorite, but at least he had a work history, had actually voted in Congress and had served his country. Hope you all get a moderate next time that will actually keep his promises to champion the lesbian and gay marriage rights.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

One word regarding McCain...Palin! Good grief, you sure didn't want her anywhere near the presidency!

Allie · 5 months ago

Sorry - I'd still take her over that idiot Obama. She at least has some experience working.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Working what? The runway? Please. Let me know when she gets a real degree from a real university and gets some real foreign policy experience beyond seeing Russia from her porch. Can you imagine what the Middle East would look like right now after one of HER speeches? Mother of God, we'd be in some serious trouble today.

Thank God you don't get to make decisions, because Palin's a freaking moron and her being in the White House for any reason, even so much as scrubbing the toilets there, is a frightening thought. She and Todd are too STUPID to know when to STFU. Those two have the collective IQ of a box of rocks. Possibly two. We don't need another president with W's level of mental midgetry.

Allie · 5 months ago

Ah, out comes the name-calling when you can't argue your point logically :)

At least Palin HAS worked - gee she's been Governor for some time and held elected office before that. Do I think Palin was qualified to lead this country as President - nope. But she has actually worked.

Obama has never led a single gov't department or even in private business supervised or was the executive of anything. The CEO of my company has more experience leading people and a budget - and he's not qualified to be President either.

Other than a paid part time lecturer, his claim to fame was being a Congressman that didn't even vote on almost anything that came before him. He was a 'community organizer' - yeah right - he sat on a Board for about 4 months before bowing out. He wrote 2 books. Ok - Steven King writes books - should he be President?

Way better to have a narcissist and his band of thieves and tax-dodgers in the White House right?

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

When it comes to support of Palin, there is no logic.

Sorry but she shot herself in the foot during the campaign. Wise man say, better to stay silent and let others believe you are foolish, then to speak and remove all doubt.

She removed all doubt. I don't care what she's been elected for, she proved during the campaign she cannot be president. When media folks like Couric and Letterman can prove you're a moron, you are unfit to be near the White House. Palin will never be president. If she runs in 2012, all she's doing is giving Comedy Central better ratings. She has proven her foolishness time and time again. She failed to debate well against Biden, and my god, how hard is it to debate that goofball? She didn't know the issues, she has no sense of reality outside of her snowmobile, and she ran around insisting that small town America was the "REAL AMERICA."

What the hell does that even mean?

I'm sorry but the more educated, intelligent, and better speak won the presidency. I say again, can you imagine what the Middle East would think of us if she were president? You think they threw shoes at W? I'm pretty sure what they'd throw at her would be worse. She has no education and no tact for diplomacy, speaking, or politicking.

She needs to stay in Alaska. She has already proven herself nicely to be useless anywhere outside of her state.

Allie · 5 months ago

Again, when you can't logically discuss your position, you go off on a tangent. Did you miss the part where I said I don't think Palin was qualified to be President? Or did you just skim that so you could do an anti-Palin rant? Feel better now that you got that out?

Palin wasn't qualified to be President. Obama is not qualified to be President. Which of them had more leadership experience and work experience before they were candidates? Palin. That was what my post stated. But don't let fact get in the way of your rant ;)

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

And I'm telling YOU that Obama was more qualified to be president, apparently you missed that with your Palinesque glasses. I said it up there already, Palin HAS no leadership experience. Obama was the better speaker, better debater, and had more knowledge of the law because he was a constitutional lawyer. On top of all that he was an elected official. He WAS more qualified to be elected. You are basing qualifications for a president purely on elected office. I'm not. My rant up there was to prove that Obama was more qualified then Palin, whereas your argument is that because she was a mayor, she is qualified then Obama. I was debating with you.

Perhaps, instead, our debate should be more centered on what exactly qualifies ANYONE to be president of the US.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Experience? Working? As what? You should post her resume here & let's take a look, huh.

Allie · 5 months ago

Try looking it up - City Council, Mayor, Governor - for 17 years. Do I think it makes her competent to be President - nope. But it's sure a hell of a lot more than O has ever done.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

A city council person, a two term mayor of Wasilla (pop. 5449) and 3 yrs as governor. 1987 Journalism major, Univ of Idaho.

She's not qualified to be a Representative, let alone a Senator or President.

Allie · 5 months ago

Nlo more or less than Obama was/is. He's completely unqualified to be President and proved he was unqualified to be in Congress -his voting record (or non as it may be) proved that. BTW - 17 Presidents were previous Governors.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

And 3 yrs as governor of Alaska, qualifies her for what, not to mention her extreme lack of knowledge of the law, foreign policy or even basic civics, like how our gov't works. BTW, why are you going on about Palin anyway, she lost, remember.

Craig · 5 months ago

Stop asking for "marriage". Call it "Civil Union" and demand the exact same rights. You'll get them. And isn't that what this is REALLY about?

You're over-reaching in your quest have it codified into law as "marriage". Like it or not, some people believe that gay unions are wrong in the eyes of God. And like it or not, they have a RIGHT to those beliefs. Are their beliefs wrong-headed? Maybe so. I think so. But do they have a right to those beliefs? Absolutely. Without a doubt. That's something you're just going to have to accept. They have as much right to their beliefs as you to to be gay.

Do they have a right to prevent gays from enjoying the same rights straights do? Absolutely not. But the other side of that coin is, do gays have a right to deny people holding these beliefs the right to live within them? Again, absolutely not.

You're correct that this is a "rights" issue, but to a majority of the country, it's the rights of those who *oppose* gay unions that will be trampled on if DOMA is overturned. If gay "marriage" is codified as law, it's only a matter of time before a pastor, minister, or priest is hauled into court for refusing to marry two men in his church. He will be guilty of "descrimination". Members of that church will be forced to allow things to happen in that church that they feel are immoral or wrong. They will have lost their right to decide what they will allow and what they won't allow in their own freaking church.

Or take the couple that runs a B&B that allows weddings to be performed there. They happen to be Catholics and happen to think that gay marriage is wrong. So a gay couple shows up on their stoop and wants to book a wedding. They say, sorry, we don't do gay weddings. Next thing you know they're in court, for trampling on the couple's rights.

If you don't think that is what will happen then you're not being honest with yourselves.

On the other hand, call it a "civil union", and the priest/pastor/B&B owner has an out. "We don't do civil unions. We've never done civil unions. We've always done marriages, but not civil unions. Paster Dave over at First Lutheran does civil unions though, you might give him a call." That's not descrimination. That's choosing what services you offer and what you don't. It can't be construed as trampling on someone's basic human right to choose their partner freely and enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

Yes, there are people out there who don't want you to have the same rights as straights. Screw them. They're a minority. Most of us think you should have the same rights as everybody else. But we care about EVERYBODY'S rights -- not just yours. My daughter is gay, I love her dearly, and I will fight for her rights until my dying breath. But I voted in favor of Prop 8.

It isn't just homophobes, "haters", and religious fanatics who oppose gay marriage. But few of us who oppose gay marriage want to deny you your rights.

eclare · 5 months ago

If you knew anything at all about DOMA, you'd know that it denies any federal rights that that might be conferred by civil unions. Until DOMA is overturned, civil unions do absolutely nothing on the federal level.

And what you're arguing for is called separate but equal, and it's unconstitutional. You say you love your daughter, but you're relegating her to second class status. I mean, your relationship with your daughter is your own business, but I would be pretty damn angry if one of my parents behaved this way.

Also, your concern that preachers will be hauled into court are misplaced. Churches are already allowed to discriminate in any way they wish. They dont' have to marry anybody they don't want.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

In addition, as for the duplicitous rant that gay couples will come storming down the nearest hate-filled church is ridiculous. Why would a gay couple try to celebrate their marriage in a place that loathes them?
Would you force yourself onto someone or some organization that viewed you as vile?
Stop allowing the right-wingers to use far-fetched arguments to play you, instead use you own sense of reason to figure things out.

Humbert · 5 months ago

"Why would a gay couple try to celebrate their marriage in a place that loathes them?"

You mean like in the U.S?

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Well in some parts of the U.S. unfortunately that's right, but at least not where I live in Vermont. My str8 neighbors are coming to my wedding.

lilnemo · 5 months ago

Hhhmm...I guess you are trying to be supportive in an off-hand crumudgeny way, but did you really vote to deny your daughter, whom you claim to love dearly, the right to marry the person she loves? It seems you are confusing the civil definition of marriage and the religious definition of marriage. Gays and lesbians are not fighting for the right to force Pat Robertson to perform our marriage ceremony against his will (or to throw him into jail for denying to do so). We are fighting for the same protections and rights you and your spouse enjoy; these rights have historically come from the institution of marriage, not the institution of "civil unions", whatever that is. Separate but equal did not work in the past, and it won't work now just to get some people past their queasiness of two same gender people loving each other.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Wrong! I live in Vermont & our legislature passed Marriage Equality, defining marriage as the union of two persons.

Is that definition, so very difficult to get through your head???

Thank the Universe, I live in Vermont, where ALL citizens are equal.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Yeah but Vermont is full of dirty socialists.

Yeah, I said it, I said the dirty "S" word.

Seriously, I live in Florida and I'd give a lot for these banjo-dueling fucks who run my state to be even 1/4th as progressive as the state of Vermont. *sigh*

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Well I have a lot of family in Florida & they're all progressives, so at some point (hopefully in the not too distant future) the balance will tip. At least we know that people under 30 are a helluva lot more progressive than the old white men running the repug party...it's just a matter of time....

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

We need more! Send more progressives down to us! Please!

Allie · 5 months ago

Reasonable and rational - like those kinds of posts. However, I think 'marriage' is a religious institution - or should be. I think any consenting adults should be allowed a civil union as a matter of law - period. Then if they wish a religious ceremony on the basis of their faith - they can do that too. Puts everyone on the same playing field.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

In the eyes of the states, they're all "civil marriages". That's what str8 people currently have in those states where only they can marry. NO state sanctifies a "religious marriage", otherwise what's the marriage license issued by the state about? It's a civil marriage. The religious part only comes into play when a couple wishes to have their magician of choice, say an incantation over them.

Allie · 5 months ago

Because everyone gets all tied up in that word - marriage. Marriage licenses, civil marriage vs. civil union, etc etc. Make all gov't ones - civil unions - then if people wanna do it again in their faith - have at it. Or don't because you don't have a religious thing. Make all gov't approved ones 'civil unions'.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Yea, at one point I even believed that might be an answer, then my state legislature passed Marriage Equality & defined marriage as the union of two people & now sees me as an equal citizen. So in terms of "legal evolution" you can start with civil unions, to get those frightened of allowing gay couples to marry, used to the notion, but in the long run & what America is about is equality under the law. All people are created equal & civil unions just don't cut it.

Allie · 5 months ago

You missed the point - if ALL the gov't sanctioned ones were civil unions - hetero and homosexual - ALL - then everyone IS equal.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

By the definition of civil marriage that we have already here in Vermont, we all are equal...at least in this state. Civil unions no matter how you cut it, are not the same as marriage. And by your system, we'd still have the fundies running around referring to themselves as married (because they had a magician say some words over them) while the rest of us are something less.

Allie · 5 months ago

If ALL civil unions were equal, in every state, that in effect replaces 'marriage' in terms of the government - and everyone would be equal. Who cares if a bunch of religious people run around saying they are different or better or more than anyone else? Religions do that to each other constantly. If they want to labor under the delusion that they are 'closer to God' or 'better' or 'morally superior' because of a religious ceremony over a civil union - let them have their little fantasy - no harm done.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

So what's the problem with civil marriage, then? It's already the law in 6 states, the sky hasn't fallen in, everyone seems to be coping with it. Why should civil unions be the rule, when it only seems to be something to placate the lowest common denominator in our society?

Allie · 5 months ago

I have no issues with civil unions at all. Realistically, I don't think we will see in our lifetimes and acceptance of the word 'marriage' in a secular world along with gay marriage. So why fight it so hard? Why not just change the gov't sanctioned version to civil unions for EVERYONE. No fighting over one stupid word, no group of people having rights others don't - just do away with gov't sanctioned MARRIAGE.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Like I've said & maybe if you don't live in any of the 6 states that have passed Marriage Equality, you don't get it, but the standard term is "marriage" & that's what my state has granted all of its' citizens. And I can tell you, there's nothing to compare with the feeling of finally being viewed as an equal citizen by your government, whether it be local, state or federal.

Allie · 5 months ago

And that's why I say change the 'standard' to civil union - and that's all anyone gets from the government.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

OY! And that's why I say, "civil marriages" for everyone, that's what str8s have & that's what all of us in the 5 states in New England have or will have, it's what Iowa has & it's what the 18,000 couples in California have. There is a difference between the terms marriage & civil union. Good luck to you.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Three states. It hasn't gone into effect in Vermont or New Hampshire yet and it could still be stopped in Maine.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Vermont goes into effect Sept 1, NH Jan 10 & Maine may have to deal with another fundy referendum, but that is not certain. And what I meant was it has already passed in 6 states, despite what the fundies say or do.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Under that logic we should count seven.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

Who's the 7th? I know of 6 that have passed it, clear & free.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

California, we did have it there.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

True & you still do have 18,000 legally married couples. It's just too bad that the Mormons have such an influence in CA.

Mark in Colorado · 5 months ago

If you were my parent, you would be dead to me. If your daughter has any amount of love for herself she would reject you outright.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

If something give the same rights, then there is no need to call it something different. Furthermore, the first amendemt garantees the rights of churches to define marriage within their church. No catholic priest has ever been forced to marry someone who has been divorced. I pity your daughter. My parents were aware that if they had voted for Prop102 it would have been the end of our relationship and there would have been no repairing it. I hope your daughter disowns you and cuts off all contact. You don't deserve her.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Like it or not, it's marriage. We're not going to be satisfied with merely getting on the bus if we still have to sit at the back.

Other more enlightened countries have laughed off this ridiculous, exclusionary and cliqueish nonsense about "protecting" the word "marriage."

Secondly, marriage IS NOT an exclusively religious word. Get over that. It has a dictionary definition.

Thirdly, NO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION ANYWHERE THERE ISW GAY MARRIAGE HAS BEEN FORCED TO DO A MARRIAGE CEREMONY THAT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THEIR DOCTRINE. That's a red herring, false argument.

Lastly, you sold your daughter out. If i were your child, i would never speak to you again and skip your funeral. You would earn nothing but enmity and a deep seated hatred for making me a second class citizen. Frankly, I hope that happens. You repulse me.

Mark in Colorado · 5 months ago

Well said Gridlock. I wish I had said it, especially your last paragraph.

I am so glad I don't have a slimy parent like this one.

Allie · 5 months ago

Just throwing this out there...

Isn't that last paragraph a bit hypocritical? You vilify the poster for not accepting his child for who she is. But his child should disdain and despise him for who he is? Parents are people too, with all their faults and flaws. Is the poster not entitled to unconditional love and support as the child is? We can't love people with different viewpoints, opinions, or deeply held convictions even if we're sure they are wrong? You expect him to do so towards his child, but expect the child to turn her back on him.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

When parents reject their children, the children should do the same to the parents. I see nothing hypocritical.

Allie · 5 months ago

Reject their children? Or reject a part of their life they don't agree with? If a parent turns their back totally and completely on a child, then yes. But if a parent says "I love you, but I do not approve or support of X" - then no. There were plenty of parts of my life my parents didn't approve of - and let me know it --- and vice versa. Didn't mean I expected unconditional love and acceptance from them but didn't return the same back.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Rejecting a FUNDAMENTAL part of their child's life. I was fully ready to disown my mother if she kept up the crap about me needing to be celibate, just like she was ready to disown her mother if Grandma hadn't stopped acting like an ass about my parents' marriage.

Allie · 5 months ago

Maybe you need to just tell your mother that your decision to be celibate, or not, is none of her business and you aren't going to discuss it anymore. That's what I did when my mother got more in my business than I wanted her to be - and I didn't have to turn my back on her either - and I even took care of her end of life and went to her funeral.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

I can't have a relationship with someone who rejects a core part of my life. My mother can disagree with my choice of life partner, but rejecting my right to have one is going too far. As far as end of life goes, she has two straight sons who can handle that.

Allie · 5 months ago

Just as a core part of her life is that homosexuality is wrong - whether you, me, or the fencepost agree with it. Shame you can't have the tolerance you want everyone else to have. But, your choice.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

It would be a shame if my mother decided that her prejudice is more important than her child.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

No more wrong than the color of her daughters skin, yet this is somehow more acceptable?

Oh right, cuz JEBUS said so.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

Allie, a human being's sexuality (orientation) is the core of their humanity -- it is not merely "a part of their life". It is foolhardy to suggest that you love someone and yet reject who/how they are made. That is a sham and negates "love".

If the rejection is "limited" to a child's right for marriage equality, that is neither loving nor just. A parent is entitled to "not approve of" the government recognizing same sex marriage but rejecting the power/right of a child to fully engage in her deepest relationship is not loving, where perhaps not approving the specific person a child chooses might well be motivated by loving concern. There is a big difference.

It is critically important to have a bright white line that identifies when parental "disapproval" crosses over into the clearly unacceptable.

While making that vivid distinction, I do agree with you that it is incumbent on children to do everything in their power to practice unconditional love and respect of their parents and not mirror their parents inadequacies at love. The unfortunate truth is that such lack of love from a parent significantly and deeply weakens the relationship despite even the most exceptional loving efforts of the child.

My behavior may be subject to evaluation. Neither my rights nor my being are. Period.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

No, his child should reject and disdain him for keeping her from getting her equal rights.

An opinion is one thing: using political force to actively strip the rights of a minority your child belongs to is.. well, revolting!

Let's put it another way:

How about if said person adopted a black child, and then voted against desegregation or voted against their right to vote.

Should the child remain meekly by, merely accepting it?

Funny how the argument always seems to be poo-poo'd when its gays involved. Like our oppression just isn't as bad or as hurtful, or relevant or important.

Tired of This · 5 months ago

Does "separate but equal" sound familiar? It wasn't right for African-Americans and it's not right for gay Americans. Get a clue, Craig.

Katie · 5 months ago

You are a moron!!!!! This country is not based on YOUR christian beliefs, God holds NO standing when it comes to the constitution!!! Marriage is not a christian word, the pagans married centuries before Christianity was a blip on the screen! Homosexuals shouldn't have to get a different word for expressing their love for one another and you are too stupid to realize that by crapping on other's constitutional rights you are helping the government take steps to one day violate YOUR constitutional rights!!!

brem_tom · 5 months ago

Its not fair - you're right, this country WAS based on christian beliefs. This should be a fight over the seperation of church and state. The state should allow civil unions for everyone (man-woman, woman-woman or man-man) and those individual's churches determining if they will call it a marriage.
Do you want the right to be with your loved one in the hospitol, file a joint tax return and be covered on your spouses health insurance plan? Then you want a civil union (state recognized). If you just want to say "I'm married" then find a church that will perform the ceremony and call youreself married (church recognized). They can and should be completely seperate from each other.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Try civil marriage. Why is it every other country you can get married at city hall, and/or go get a religious ceremony on top of it, and yet they're both called marriage?

You don't own the word.

Craig · 5 months ago

Boy. And you guys accuse us traditionalists of hatred.

Keep it up folks. Being nasty, vindictive, and hateful will always get you what you want.

I'm sure glad I raised my daughter better than your parents raised their kids.

Pathetic.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Hopefully you raised your daughter not to follow in your footsteps.

You cause our hate. If it wasn't for people like you, attacking us at every turn and oppressing us, we wouldn't have anything to bitch about.

All we want is our equal rights and to be left alone, sadly people like you aren't satisfied with that.

When you mind your own business and keep your face out of our affairs, we'll stop bitching.

See? Simple.

You people created us and now you're whining now that we're pissed off at the treatment you give us?

Incredible. Stupid too.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

First of all Craig, we aren't "asking" for marriage. We are calling for rights as established in this country's Constitution and legal precedent. If those rights are denied us after full due process of law, then any person who can read and understand language will know that the law in this country stands for nothing -- is a complete sham.

I'm not sure for whom to feel more pity -- you or your daughter. At least your daughter can be realistic about being burdened with a parent whose own fears, prejudices and selfishness prevent rational thinking. You, on the other hand, are cheating yourSELF from the fullness of the relationship you could possibly have with your daughter -- and your own pettiness prevents you from seeing it. That's very sad. How incredibly arrogant, smug and small you are.

How dare you have the gall to tell any other human being whom they can love or how they may NOT describe their commitment together. Frankly your "thinking" that we "should" have "the same rights as everybody else" may seem quite charitable to you, but none of us is interested in your, or anybody else's charity. (Actually, respectful discussion is the only thing that prevents me from suggesting what you can do with your charity.)

You may not think you are homophobic Craig, but you are. You may not think you are a religious fanatic Craig, but you are. And you may not think that you want to deny me my rights Craig, but you do. And you may think that all of us should just shut up and accept what you are "willing" to "give" us, Craig, but you are wrong.

I hope you can build on the apparent desire you have to truly be a caring, loving father and human being. Your daughter deserves nothing less.

Eric · 5 months ago

Well said Craig. Whether it's called "civil unions" or "marriage" its going to bring more problems into play, as you mentioned in paragraph 7. Honestly, if I were gay which I'm not, I wouldn't care if it called "civil unions", "marriage" or "monkey marriage" but the fact of the matter is that everyone has the same rights. However, if someone refuses to wed a couple, it should also be there right. Sorry people, you can't have it both ways.

Mike G · 5 months ago

"It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees."

"Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional... [Obama] chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent."

So in other words, he DIDN'T file the brief a Bush appointee would have, which would have made a legal argument about Congress's right to pass things it has a right to pass, but instead muddied the moral waters with all kinds of pandering. Seems to me you owe Bush appointees an apology for tarring them with Obama's crudely homophobic brush.

FreeAgent · 5 months ago

oh well...... some you win, some you lose. Suck it up. Or, whine and pout and have a trantrum like a 4 year old girl who just got her lollypop taken like Perez Hilton did when the former Ms. Cali popped his bubble with an honest answer, such is life.

lilnemo · 5 months ago

Thanks for elevating the debate by bringing Perez Hilton and the former Ms. Cali into it - read "People" much?

kladinvt · 5 months ago

And you want to talk about "not whining", after we've all endured months of whining, crying, name-calling, hysterics from all the Freeper dregs of American society...it is to LAUGH!!!

judybrowni · 5 months ago

I have a gay brother and sister, one a doctor, the other a respected business executive.

Each has been with their partner over 30 years. EACH, IN A LOVING, COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP FOR OVER 30 YEARS.

In that time, my sister has saved lives, my brother loyally served just two firms -- each working for the betterment of heterosexuals, who enjoy the priviledges of marriage.

My sister has probably saved the lives of bigots like you, my brother may have helped bigots like you to feed their families.

They've paid their taxes for over 30 years while being denied their civil rights, they've voted, they've served their communities.

You know who sounds like a four-year-old girl? You.

You know who sounds like responsible adults, despite being denied equal civil rights: my brother and sister.

I urged my brother to follow Obama's campaign, contribute and vote for him because Obama was the better candidate than McCain. (I had earlier supported Edwards because I felt he had a better platform on healthcare and poverty.)

I'd like my brother's campaign contribution back. I'd like a better option than Obama, if he's supporting the denial of my brother and sister's civil rights and comparing the family life of these two upstanding American citizens to pedophiles and incest.

What my brother and sister want and need is not a lollipop, it's the right to visit their partners of 30 years in the hospital, the right to adopt, the right to pass on their social security benefits so that their partners don't die in poverty, the right to share their health insurance with their partners, and a hundred other benefits of the right to marry.

You, sir, are a toad.

If you're the face of Obama's support, even he deserves better.

Allie · 5 months ago

Good to see some 'buyer's remorse' from those conned by The One. Um, if your brother is a lawyer, then SOME of those rights he can take care of. I'm a heterosexual who chooses not to marry right now - my partner can come visit me in the hospital, in fact he has all my rights if I become disabled including my care, and if I die he gets to decide what to do with my estate - because I signed the papers that say so. I am denied the rest of those rights because I'm not married, not because of my sexual orientation.

I know I made the CHOICE to not have those rights, a choice gays don't have in most places, I'm just saying that some of it can be handled other ways like I did.

PS - if you are counting on Social Security to keep your partner out of poverty, big surprise coming your way - and not a good one!

Erkhyan, Madagascar · 5 months ago

Yep... Sorry to pipe in, but you're definitely right in some choices we weren't given. For example, thanks to DOMA, I'm somehow forced to live literally on the other side of the world from my partner because 1) we don't bathe in dollars, 2) I don't have a thick stack of diplomas, 3) I had the bad luck of being born without a US citizenship and 4) well, I'm gay.

It's sad to consider that I have friends who got to join their spouses in the US because THEIR heterosexual relationships were consistent with the "traditional definition of marriage", but I can't do the same. It's sad to know that some of these friends considered immigration as a goal when they married, while I consider immigration as a means to finally marry the one I love. And it's sad that, because we're gay, the only options left to us by DOMA are illegal immigration (no thanks), praying for a miracle, or having HIM join me here instead, in an African, deeply christian-conservative country that's been just ruined by a months-long political crisis...

Screw taxes and all that, I just want to be allowed to live with my partner, as binational married heterosexual couples already do.

lore jones · 5 months ago

Dear John,

Long ago I used to read your blog avidly; then I stopped because of your unabashed bias for Obama over Hillary. This guy was so obviously promising everyone everything. How could you not see it?

Iraq? Are we out anytime soon?

Gitmo? Ditto.

Prop 8 + DADT? How's that working out for you? (Except in the State department)

Single payer health? Foggetaboutit !

Bail out's for bankers? Geithner = Paulson.

Hillary was, despite all press bias to the contrary, more honest.

Please next time do not be fooled by smooth talking man.

All the best,

Lore in Prague

Allie · 5 months ago

Oh lord - even I thought O was better than Hildabeast! Many of my Repub friends in VA (where they don't have to vote on party lines) voted for O just to keep Hildy outta the White House. She is pathological - truly crazy. O might be narcissistic but she's just plain scary crazy.

fredndallas · 5 months ago

Well said, Allie.

lore jones · 5 months ago

I can't believe a thinking woman would repeat this kind of bullshit about another woman. "Hildabeast"? Do you know how to think for yourself or do you just repeat stuff you hear on blogs?

What about hill's policies in the state department or hasn't that gotten through your spam/bias filter?

When women learn to support other women the way blacks stuck together in the 2008 primaries (90%) we will finally have a female president and one who will support gay rights. (we have certainly already had a male gay president but no help there).

Equality for all and no gutter sniping!!

Lore

Allie · 5 months ago

I am a thinking woman. You have just proven you are not. You're right down there with racists. I believe a President should be elected based on qualifications - not race and not gender. I find it amusing that you feel we should all be part of 'the sisterhood' - screw that - having a vagina does not make one a better person, nor a better politician. Feeling that way, are you being sexist against men?

-When women learn to support other women the way blacks stuck together in the 2008 primaries (90%) we will finally have a female president and one who will support gay rights.-

PS - Hildabeast is truly pathological - why you think O gave her a job that takes her out of the country most of the time lol.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

She NEVER said having the vag makes us better politicians or people. NEVER. Stop shoving your bullshit down her throat.

I believe what Lore is suggesting is that women need to avoid the sexist bullshit and stick together in outrage against said sexist bullshit. Hillary was treated like SHIT during the campaign by the media. She was treated worse then Palin, and frankly as much as I hate that dumb Alaskan bitch, Palin was treated in a sexist manner as well. Women need to demand equality for our politicians, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on.

In other news, I don't think pathological means what you think it means. Anyone who is truly pathological wouldn't be SoS of this country. I don't know if you know what the SoS does or how much power that position has, but look it up, sweet cheeks. You might learn something. But if you don't, well then rest assured that you don't just assign any scrub off the street to that position. It's way too important.

PS Hillary is shining as SoS. Way better then that limp, flaccid yes-woman Condeleeza Rice.

Allie · 5 months ago

LOL - god you are amusing! She expected me to have a diff view of Hildy just because she is a woman. She stated we should support women in elections - just because they're women. She stated we should stick together in elections - just because we're women. If that ain't sexist bullshit, don't know what is. I didn't say Hildabeast was pathological because she's a woman, I said it because she's pathological! That's not sexist. So why don't you stop trying to shove your 'spin' down people's throats.

I know what pathological is - do you? Hildy's disease is she's mentally unbalanced. It's not temporary, it's not situational, it's in her to stay!

Yes I know what SOS does. condescension is so unappealing - especially when done by someone like you who has no clue. Are you really trying to get anyone to believe that because someone holds high political office they are guaranteed to not have any mental defect? Or even be smart? Heck - Haig was the one that didn't even know the chain of command or who was in charge of the country when Reagan was shot. And O got elected. Nuff said.

Condi Rice is quite an educated and accomplished woman. You sound jealous. Not nice for someone who's in the sisterhood ;)

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Condi Rice should hand back her PhD and stick to shoe shopping during natural disasters.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Yes, when there was a smooth talking woman bleating about being under fire in Bosnia, and whose husband signed DADT and DOMA into law.

Boy howdy, how could we try the evil we didn't know instead of the evil we did know?

Silly us.

lore jones · 5 months ago

Wow! (Forget about Gridlock I'm renaming you Knee Jerk.) If you are still bringing up the Bosnia meme you are missing the point about the media bias

Men are so slow to admit they made a mistake but you calling BHO "evil you didn't know" is interesting.

Do you at least recognize Hillary's moves in the State department for benefits for same sex couples?

Lore

P.s. And the rest of you please don't believe everything you read in MSM.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

LOL the media bias? So that wasn't one of her goofy misteps? Ok then. It was all a miraaaaage.

LowKey · 5 months ago

My apologies if this has already been brought up - but 450 comments are just too much for me to read right now.

In regards to the comments that it sounded like it was written by one of Bush's lawyers, it probably was. Most of the lawyers in the DOJ aer civil servants who do not just get fired when there is a regime change. So the author of the brief could very easily have been a Bush hire, it could even have been a Bush Sr. hire. Moreover, "W. Scott Simpson" just struck me as a mormony name. (Mormons are fond of using initials, it dates back to the polyg times when initials identified which of your fiathers wives was your mother.)

His westlaw directory entry didnt have any of his background info, but I did find that he published a comment in the BYU Law review in 1986. Which means he probably went to BYU law school, and was probably a Bush hire.

Mike G · 5 months ago

Are you seriously suggesting this one just slipped through Obama's justice dept. unnoticed?

LowKey · 5 months ago

No, I am not seriously, or unseriously, making any such suggestion. The Department of Justice has been run by the Obama administration for several months now, and Mr. Simpson's new boss has been in office for about a month or two. I don't know how you could have read into my post that this was not from the Obama DOJ, but if you did, sorry for giving you that impression. I was merely commenting that the author of the brief was a mormon who was likely a Bush administration hire. Which explains some of the anti-gay rhetoric.

Mike G · 5 months ago

Ok, are you seriously suggesting that this brief in a high profile case does not represent the intentions and carefully thought out position of the AG and president, regardless of which midlevel staffer did the actual drafting and who hired him? Because it seems like you're trying to cut them some slack on that basis-- it wouldn't have had such tough anti-gay rhetoric if someone else had drafted it. Where it seems to me that it doesn't matter if Hitler appointed the guy, once it goes out the door as their position, it has to be assumed to be 100% what they meant to argue.

Dennis · 5 months ago

Barack Obama hates gay people.

The Democratic Party hates gay people.

Allie · 5 months ago

Obama doesn't hate black people. He's a politician - he'll exploit anyone any way possible if it furthers his goal. Just like any other politician.

Allie · 5 months ago

Uh, should have said 'doesn't hate gay people' - sheesh.

hilda · 5 months ago

that is an amazing statement........and all these years I have heard that the Republicans hate gays. I will just have to change my way of listening

Allie · 5 months ago

All Republicans don't feel that way, Democrats just tell you that so they can get your vote.

Cali Canadian · 5 months ago

I'm moving back to Canada... screw Obama and his plan for 'change'.

Sasha · 5 months ago

Does anybody know who wrote this crap? Specifically? By name?

LowKey · 5 months ago

Scott Simpson, a mormon trial attorney for the DOJ.

Adri · 5 months ago

It doesn't matter who the president is, there will always be a large part of the US population who decides that the president has "failed". Obama's only barely gone into office and half of the people who voted for him are questioning him and calling "failure" out loud - not to mention most republicans. Give him a chance and deal with the few things that happen that you don't like. It's impossible to please everyone, you can't say you'd do any better in his position. Besides, what makes any one thing so special?

Human nature is egotistical - see the bigger picture please. What about healthcare or something that effects every single person, let's hope that he follows through with that.

I agree with Craig that overturning DOMA will only make others sacrifice their rights. Why would it be so bad for you to only be able to get Civil Union by certain priest/pastors/ministors/or other religious leaders? I, myself, can't just walk into any church and get married, I need to go to a church that I belong to. It's part of my religion - and even if I belong to the church, they have to approve the marriage beforehand. why should you have MORE rights, shouldn't it be the same? I am also against any type of predjudice and in fact in the last election I voted against Prop 8 - But I see this point very clearly.

The problem is that you're asking for the word "Marriage" and this is what makes a difference in most religious settings, it IS a religious sacrament afterall. And most religions do not favor same-sex marriage, that is just how it is. Why ask them to believe differently at this point? You can't, because they won't, and you will be forcing them to do something they don't want to do. It's sad that this is a fact, but it is. Fight for an official civil union and rights that go with that, and go to someone who is obviously gay-friendly when it comes to performing any type of union ceremony - wouldn't you want the person who is performing the ceremony to be whole-heartedly into it anyways?

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Marriage is a word with a definition in the dictionary. it is not inherently a religious word.

No religious institution has been forced to perform a ceremony outside their doctrine where there is gay marriage. None ever will. Nobody is talking about going to a church that clearly despises them and trying to force a marriage ceremony out of them. Civil marriage versus religious marriage. Other civilized countries have civil marriage. I've been to about 5 gay marriages at city hall. It's not a civil union. It's marriage.

I'm not sitting in the back of the bus just because some asshole doesn't want me in their little club. Fuck whoever tries to stop me from sitting at the front.

Separate is not equal.

Marriage is NOT inherently religious.

Nobody goes around saying "Oh, this is my civil partner, we're civil unioned."

We're married. Deal with it.

Adri · 5 months ago

And whoever said I had a problem with you being married? All I said is that the majority of people who have a problem with gay marriage think that the word "marriage" is the problem - I've had several discussions about this with friends and I just find that's a common believe they have. I don't think that discrimination is in any way good or a way of solving a problem that's exactly why I voted against prop 8 and I would again. And if you are married then good for you, and if it's an official civil union, call it a marriage - we all do. I know it's the same thing. Race, women's rights, or whatever are issues as well. I am a woman who is also considered a minority, I know about inequality and I do believe it's important to ask for what you believe in. But sometimes when you want something from someone, you have to ask in a different way. You do this everyday, when you have an argument with someone or you don't like something at work or whatever, you try different things before you get what you want, all I'm saying is that may be more effective - let's be smart about it.

Adri · 5 months ago

Also the word marriage may not be inherently religious but most people believe it is, so saying it's not, isn't going to solve it.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Most people could believe the sky is green but that doesn't make it so.

gordon_geise · 5 months ago

It does NOT in the slightest matter whether 99 and 44/100ths percent of people believe marriage to have a religious component; it is the legal components and ONLY the legal components that are up for discussion in DOMA. State and federal legislation about marriage is ONLY about the legal rights, appurtenances, and responsibilities that attend the institution of marriage. If marriage were perforce a religious institution, are you saying agnostics and atheists should be forbidden to marry?

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Something that gives all the same things doesn't need to be called something different. Churches will never lose their rights to make rules for their faithful to follow.

Adri · 5 months ago

And if there is a perfect solution out there in which one can get married and not violate the rights of others in any way than go for it. For example, if there's a liberal, gay-friendly baptist or catholic to perform your ceremony then ok. I just hate to see the "solving" of one problem presenting another large problem.

sobie1980 · 5 months ago

There are open churches to the idea of gay marriage, but the have been stripped of thier doctrines because they supported gay marriage. Now there are priests, pastors, etc, that cannot perform gay marriages even if it were legal because they cannot even preach at the church they once belonged to. and giving gays the same rights as everyone else does not present more problems, what lense are you looking through?

Adri · 5 months ago

There are a lot of different churches that have a more liberal view in general - not just on gay marriage and not just one priest or pastor or whatever inside of a church.

gordon_geise · 5 months ago

Ah, yes, another large problem... like the veritable epidemic of gays and lesbians rushing into churches and forcing the clergy at gunpoint to marry them.

I'm frankly sick unto death of hearing the religious whine about how legalizing same-sex marriage infringes on THEIR religious rights. What is that, the right not to be made to think about two men loving each other for life? The right not to have one's own hetero marriage put to shame by the devoted dykes down the street?

Nobody has the right not to be offended by public policy on behalf of their big imaginary friend in the sky. If G-d or whoever doesn't like gay marriage, PRODUCE HIM. Deposition him. Have him argue his own case in court. Otherwise, stfu.

Barney · 5 months ago

I can't believe you're whining about the obamanation now. He's been caught in so many lies it's unbelieveable. Even GW didn't lie as much as this moron does. He sweet talked gays, college kids and welfare recipients into voting for him and is now systematically turning on the ones who put him in office. You're getting what you asked for...Da ****** in da house!!

Blatant racism has no place here. More of it and you lose your commenting privileges.

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

STAY CLASSY BARNEY.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

All the way from the Klassy Kuntry Klub!

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

Gridlock, I think I could learn to like you. You're really intelligent (yeah I know I called you an idiot before, and I'm sorry), but you're also VERY emotional in your responses. Me, I just troll. But we're on the same side of the debate, you're just way WAY further left field then me. It's okay, I can dig it. Makes discussions interesting, to be sure.

Pendeja indeed.

Curtis Kline · 5 months ago

I feel that I should be entitled to not pay any tax whatsoever now within the United States, if my freedoms are being so unabashedly argued away and removed.

Now you can keep all YOUR money, and I'll keep ALL of mine!

LiberalIncarnate · 5 months ago

I agree! No taxes or much less taxes until we gain the same rights as everyone else!

John · 5 months ago

What is wrong with incest? Polygamy?

There have always been limitations on marriage. To argue for gay marriage is to destroy marriage by definition.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

LOL because marriage has never changed, not once, since it was instituted. It's stayed EXACTLY the same since the dawn of time, right?

Dumb.

LowKey · 5 months ago

When this country was founded the husband basically owned the wife. If the husband wanted to move and the wife did not, who cares what the wife thinks. If the husband wanted the wife to work, she worked, if he forbade it, she didn't. He was also free to rape her and beat her whenever he wanted.

That's "traditional" marriage.

The marriage as a partnership of equals is something invented in the 20th century.

shriekingviolet · 5 months ago

Are you married? If so, may I ask if your marriage, or the marriage of someone close to you, has been "destroyed" since Massachusetts first let its gay residents get married 5-6 years ago? Did it continue to suffer even more harm as 5 more states followed MA's lead? Are the bonds of straight couple weaker knowing that their gay neighbors might enter marriages of their own?

If marriage is solely about the sex of its adherents, and can be threatened when that line shifts, it doesn't seem like a very meaningful or powerful institution to me.

LiberalIncarnate · 5 months ago

The definition of marriage is a social construct that has been changed by straight people over the centuries to suit their needs. Once it was marriage of convenience and marriage forever, then it become ok to divorce and remarry again and again and again. So, tell me... who has been redefining marriage here? The LGBT community that just want equal legal protections and recognition or the elitist straights that protect their sacred cow?

Bad Brad · 5 months ago

Only in your little, pea-brained mind does it destroy marriage.

In quite a few countries same sex marriage is a right. Sometime in the next decade or two it will be a right here as well, and many will miraculously learn that their marriage hasn't been destroyed.

Shocking, I know.

ALAN · 5 months ago

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN A POLITICIAN IS LYING?

THEIR LIPS ARE MOVING AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY ARE MALE OR FEMALE, BLACK OR EVEN WHITE.

ALL POLITICIANS LIE

LatinaMama · 5 months ago

^This. 101% agree.

Al · 5 months ago

Anybody consider the idea that maybe they are trying to avoid a decision from the supreme court that would ban gay marriage absolutely. The argument that just because it is legal in some states it should be recognized in all states is a recipe for disaster. It's a constitutional discrimination case and should only be considered on those grounds. Remember, there is another case in California that is arguing the constitutionality of the marriage bans. The others are more likely to lead to decision you would not like.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

We're not mind readers. I suggest you may be right, but this needs to be taken for what it is at face value.

kladinvt · 5 months ago

For the Supremes to rule that Marriage Equality passed here in Vermont is unconstitutional or illegal they would then need to rule that a free & fair vote by our state legislature (which passed the law) is illegal too...and that as far as I know has never happened & would set a very dangerous precedent.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

Maybe, but I don't see how comparing my relationships to incest and pederasty accomplishes that purpose. Can you explain that for us?

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

Refuge in audacity maybe? An argument so ridiculous that it's either disregarded or with the current courts is accepted thus preventing a debilitating loss? I don't totally get it either.

Adam · 5 months ago

Stop the hyperbole. I support gay marriage, but that was citing legal precedent. In no way was a parallel being drawn between homosexuality and incest, except in making the case of what is acceptable in certain states but not in others. Of course, you chose to read into it what you wanted to.

I mean, someone above said that homosexuals were killed by the Nazis along with the Jews. Does that mean that person was comparing being gay to being Jewish? Of course not.

If you can come up with a reason one state would not recognize another state's legal marriage that doesn't have something to do with age or familial relation, I'd like to hear it.

Jordan · 5 months ago

Thanks for a voice of reason amid the flurry of absurdity that this thread has devolved into.

It seems that, perhaps, the outrage of this post will probably be tempered in the coming days by an increased understanding of the subtleties of this political maneuvering, and that maybe the best bet is to cool it for a minute, curb the outrage, and realize that there are other, bigger things going on on the same front.

brem_tom · 5 months ago

No - Sorry. You can't take it for what the narrator claims it to be. This is political manuvering to prevent the door from closing but also not moving forward right now when there are so many other things going on that need to be focused on.

PatrickHenry · 5 months ago

Suckers!

TraderVic · 5 months ago

And now how foolish do you all feel for having trusted a black male President and a black male AG with your civil rights. Face it, blacks in general are the biggest bigots in the population, not only against gays, but against other minorities, and see progressivism as nothing but an opportunity to realize their self-interest. They generally have no principle other than that. They should be booted out of the progressive coalition for the a-holes most of them are......

Barney · 5 months ago

LOLOL

sobie1980 · 5 months ago

WHoA!!! hold on there Tradervic, blankent statments are no good for any of us.

TraderVic · 5 months ago

Oh, that's right. Let's be principled, because they are, as their 71% vote on Prop 8 demonstrates.....which means that if you took out the ones who are themselves gay or bi, practically every last one of them voted against us....and this was in progressive California, not Mississippi or Alabama.

It's not an accident that the same black ministers who aggressively try to deny us our rights at every turn are the same ones who fabricate "racism" charges at every turn, even when they don't exist a la the New Haven case....

It's their culture--and I personally am fed up with them and their culture. Do you honestly think that this country would be worse off if they were not part of it, considering not only this matter, but crime, poverty, and the like? And then there is Africa....and Jamaica.....the most homophobic hells on Earth.....

Sorry, but I have had it with the hypocrisy and their obnoxiousness--they obviously learned nothing from their historical experience except how to manipulate white liberals to get what they want out of them while they shit on everybody else......

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

They voted 57% against us., and that can be accounted for by the fact that the black community is in general more religious and less educated.

Anna · 5 months ago

Just because the black community is more religious and less educated (in general, as you say) doesn't mean a damned thing. Don't blame any one group of people or any one factor. Sociologically and statistically, your entire premise is not sound. That's just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.

threadmonitor · 5 months ago

TraderVic,

This is not the place to vent your racist crap. Write more of it and you will lose commenting privileges.

dozer · 5 months ago

Sounds like censorship to me! That's the way your tolerance works, demanding tolerance for your deviant behaviors but not tolerating any opposing position.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Racism is the opposing position? Hardly.

LiberalIncarnate · 5 months ago

We tolerate those that respect others, not those that do not.

annoyed · 5 months ago

You are SO gay! You came onto this site because you are GAY. You had to hide it from all of your buddies at the tractor pull so they don't read anything into the way you look at them so you write this crap so you can "prove" your manhood. You are so transparent. In fact, you are probably just overcompensating for that recent gay experience and wanted something to brag about.

PatrickHenry · 5 months ago

Suckers!

spgno · 5 months ago

time for some fabulous riots.

dozer · 5 months ago

I wish you would, fascist. remember clown you only make up less than 5%of the population(and that # is inflated) So go ahead and riot, then we can classify you as enemy combatants and you and all your Gay buddies can get shipped off to Guantanamo bay and turn it into an extension of the Florida keys. The people spoke and told you no, Now shut up

threadmonitor · 5 months ago

This blog isn't the place for you, dozer.

Sick of Whiners · 5 months ago

Why not, because you gays think you should have everything your way. Get over yourselves. We have just as much right to post here as you do. You spoiled perverts don't want equal rights you want special rights. Your just like everybody else, right? So stop whining for special treatment.

Jkay · 5 months ago

if they are just like everyone else, they should get the same rights that you do. & that's the right to love & to marry. It's not special rights at all; it's not special treatment, it's equal treatment & you just don't see it that way because you're not in their shoes.

threadmonitor · 5 months ago

Ditto, Sick of Whiners. Not the blog for you.

Kaden Wilson-Craft · 5 months ago

You're so deep in the closet you're in Narnia.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Actually, the conservative estimate is 1 in 10 people that are gay.. really want to face down 35 million of us?

TRY IT.

We'll make your hair look like SHIT.

Allie · 5 months ago

Seriously? This is ridiculous.

You really want to face down 9 to your one? If you meant it figuratively speaking - you already are - and obviously not winning yet. If you meant it literally - in general, conservatives are anti-gay, and pro-gun - and have most of the weapons.

Narfy · 5 months ago

Minorities standing up for civil rights against armed opponents has a history of winning (see Ghandi & MLK Jr), although not without casualties. Check out www.pinkpistols.org for gays who are decidedly pro-gun. There's nothing wrong with exercising your Second Amendment rights along with your right to marry.

LiberalIncarnate · 5 months ago

Dozer is a closet case gay.

slammer · 5 months ago

What an uneducated hick. You know nothing of what you speak. I don't insult your way of life so please, you shut up.

cjspark · 5 months ago

Meet me in my dojo and make me, coward. go ahead, hide behind your keyboard, in your mamma's cellar...

Left Coast Iowan · 5 months ago

"At the same time, because Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States."

Why then were community property states able to get preferential tax treatment not allowed to non-community property states? There are probably other examples.

Ming the Merciless Siamese Cat · 5 months ago

Hopey, Changey, blah, blah, blah.

Look at the bright side, you're gay, so getting it up the arse isn't an entirely new experience for you.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Yeah, but it's rape if you don't like it :/

Anon · 5 months ago

Wait, it's OK to rape someone as long as they like it?

Samael · 5 months ago

nit-picking of course, but there is a valid point there, it is still rape if there is no consent regardless of how pleasurable or not it is, and if i remember correctly, anal sex is not really the base-default of male homoerotic activities.

Jordan · 5 months ago

Ha! Also, insensitive.

Jay · 5 months ago

Obama has in one fell swoop demonstrated that he is just as irrelevant to the gay community as any republican. He obviously felt that he need not worry himself about lying to our community because as his filed brief so eloquently states no rights can be revoked which have not been previously recognized or granted. Clearly he is the president of Animal Farm--all people are created equal but some people are more equal than others. Like every other politician he is a pathological liar who will say and promise anything to anyone in order to be elected. He is the first politician I ever believed in and he is also the last. May he roast in perpetuity. He is not even worthy of my contempt. I dare say I would not even bother to spit on him--it would be such a waste of good spittle!

afticker · 5 months ago

So the Hope and Change isn't working for you. Well, you got what you asked for and remember the words of your might saviour, or so you thought, "some will be disappointed". Guess you realize now that you were an idiot to vote for an empty suit being controlled by George Soros and the Chicago Machine.

John Micheal Clark · 5 months ago

In needlessly quoting Metallica (From a song called Leper Messiah fittingly)

"Spineless from the start, sucked into the part
circus comes to town, you play the lead clown
Please, please
spreading his disease, living by his story
Knees, knees
falling to your knees, suffer for his glory
You will"

And Slipknot (Wherein Lies Continue fittingly too)

"The endings the same, the world will not change, the answer is clear..."

cleek · 5 months ago

"Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable"

wait, Obama's still a practicing lawyer?

wow.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

I'm sorry, you must still think this is the Bush or Reagan administration, where we have a president so clueless that he has no idea what his subordinates are doing. In this case, the White House was well aware that DOMA cases were coming, and that they had a choice either to side with us or betray us. I personally told the White House this was coming, as did the gay groups, and we wrote about it repeatedly on the blog. I can state 100% for a fact that they knew it was coming, and they knew when the decision was released. So spare me the "obama didn't know" crap. This isn't the Palin presidency. We were supposed to be better than that. They approved of everything.

cleek · 5 months ago

"So spare me the "obama didn't know" crap"

who are you quoting? clearly it can't be me, since i didn't say that.

humpty · 5 months ago

I could tolerate if Obama's administration merely spouts something like "for the sake of unit cohesion", "for the best interest of the army" or any other haughty and vague moral arguments. But how dare this administration compares homosexuality with pedophilia and incest! What is this, some most fundamental right-wing propaganda? From a supposed liberal administration?
That say, I didn't trust Obama from the start. His campaign parlance reminded me too much of a young, handsome, used-to-have-a-hard-life priest in a rostrum.

humpty · 5 months ago

Ugh. Worse reading comprehension ever! It’s about DOMA, not DADT. I am buried in shame.

Arthur Frederick Ide · 5 months ago

The title and the article are misleading. No where in the court document does the name Barrack Obama appear. The president who signed DOMA in 1996 was Bill Clinton as the GOP congress had enough votes to override any veto and the bill was popular.

To libel Obama (I am not one of his supporters, but I do know the law) is absurd, for the authors are the trial attorneys--not the current sitting President. Nor could Obama, by law, interfere with this nefariously pathetic document. The quotes attributed to Obama come from the trial lawyers, not the president and to misconstrue and misconstruct them constitutes slander which is a crime.

This article reads as if it were posted on some hate site. It has not one argument correctly assigned, which by default make the entire article a lie.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

The buck stops where? The DOJ works the the executive branch. Obama is responsible for the people under him.

gordon_geise · 5 months ago

Nor could Obama, by law, interfere with this nefariously pathetic document.
That is absolutely 100 percent false. Stop telling lies. Obama could have argued against DOMA, just like—as Americablog reported here—ALL FOUR of the last presidents did in certain cases where they believed the law to be unconstitutional.

Bobbi · 5 months ago

I think that what a lot of people don't realize or remember is that our democracy was created from the Greeks. If you look back in history, a lot of people during that time were gay.

I'm not gay and I didn't vote for Obama and I am completely for gay rights. Gay people aren't another species; we're all people who have the same feelings about the ones we love. It's just not right to put limitations on people.

Allie · 5 months ago

Um, unless I've totally forgotten ALL my history and law classes, our system of government and laws sprung from the English court and law system (except Louisiana which came from the French)

Anna · 5 months ago

The US IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Its a Federalist Republic. You can look that up. Though we borrowed some democratic influences from the Greeks, our government is more based on the ancient Roman system of government. There IS a difference between the two. AND, Greeks in ancient history also practiced incest. Thats not a wholly sound, logical argument.

I'm not anti gay rights. In fact, I very pro gay rights.

It's just that this whole debate shouldn't be happening. It breeches the divide between church and state. It's as simple as that. Many, many people see marriage as a function of the church - why is it being regulated by the government?

LiberalIncarnate · 5 months ago

Ironic that you want to remove marriage as a state regulated affair when marriage is NEVER mentioned in the Bible. In fact, when people get divorced where to they go? Their priest? Their rabbi? No, they go to court. Hence it is a legal contract.

America is a small "d" democracy. Look it up.

Faded · 5 months ago

FYI, as far as divorce goes, some churches - specifically the Roman Catholic church and perhaps others as well - require your marriage to be annulled by the church before they consider you divorced in a religious sense.

annoyed · 5 months ago

If tax dollars and federal benefits weren't being awarded based on marital status then your "divide between church and state" would hold up. Where that divide SHOULD have been was at the poll or defended by our political leaders. Instead of making policy and decisions based on fairness and protecting peoples rights, "our" president is opposed to same sex marriage based on his religious beliefs. He is not representing me. He is not being unbiased. That is his job as president. He is failing. He is supposed to support fairness and equality and instead, after getting the support of the gay community, has turned around and let his religious beliefs dictate his policy views.

Strega · 5 months ago

This is outstanding news.... God Bless Obama!!

SFNative · 5 months ago

Hateful homophobe.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Enjoy the cancer I'm giving you with my mind.

Lol · 5 months ago

XD that comment made me burst out laughing. Most hilarious thing I've read all day.

evan_la · 5 months ago

Somebody pass that can of 'Troll-Away' here for a second. Psssssst. There.

Gregory · 5 months ago

I think I'm going to throw up!
I learned long ago, Politicians... Even the good ones are bad...
I'm disgusted by all of this.
Lets change it! Join Marriage Equality in your county, get involved and get the people around you involved. We can change this!

gorio · 5 months ago

W T F

Ramon Reynoso · 5 months ago

Fuck this stupid lie. This is a ridiculous statement of yours, you should feel ashamed, if this was close to be true do you think Obama wouldn't be facing a lot of trouble with the media already? How dare you? Imbecile!

Allie · 5 months ago

Um, the mainstream media drank the Kool-Aid too - they bow and scrape to The Messiah.

Jeff · 5 months ago

Race and being Gay are two completly differant things.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Both are unchangeable, immutable parts of a person and that's how they're the same.

evan_la · 5 months ago

Come back after you've finished your second-grade spelling homework.

jo · 5 months ago

As a right-wing dittohead wackjob, I am appalled by this. Screw "separate but equal". Hell, after reading this, SbE would be a step up.

I'm sickened. When Cheney is more liberal (he's come out for gay marriage FFS!) than a democrat, we have a problem.

SocraticGadfly · 5 months ago

Vote GREEN. C'mon, folks, stop enabling this bullshit every four years.

Jeff · 5 months ago

The next thing they will want is to marry children!

evan_la · 5 months ago

That's completely absurd.

Gridlock · 5 months ago

Yeah, cuz that's what the goal is. To marry children. Bravo. Retard.

RainbowPhoenix · 5 months ago

What part of "INFORMED CONSENT" do you people find confusing?

Diogenes · 5 months ago

I'm guessing that Jeff was being sarcastic. No?

Leslie · 5 months ago

re: "Sounds like a Bush appointee": Actually, Bush was the first (I think) President to appoint an openly gay man to a government office -- "Bush appoints gay man to head AIDS office". That was back in April, 2001. Of course, he was a gay *Republican* man, but still.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Nope that would be Clinton and out lesbian Roberta Achtenburg. She took major amounts of hell from Republicans when being confirmed and Clinton spent a lot of political capital in getting her appointed.

Narfy · 5 months ago

Not to split hairs, but "lesbian" and "gay man" are mutually exclusive.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

You think they are mutually exclusive if they both belong to the LGBT community? Just curious what you mean by "mutually exclusive" in this case?

Jeff · 5 months ago

Or underage gay sex will be forced on the world!

Kaila · 5 months ago

Churches will be turned into Abercrombie and Fitch stores.

dancob · 5 months ago

Well John, Obama is your guy.... You fought VALIANTLY for him and you roundly mocked and criticized anyone who stood in his way! Karma is a byotch!

LiberalIncarnate · 5 months ago

Actually, I voted for Obama not for same-sex marriage, but because McCain was a loser. In that respect, we made a good choice. So, dancob, get educated and find out why most Americans voted for him.

George DeCarlo · 5 months ago

Harry Truman said it best as president The Buck Stops Here. Yes, it is Obama's. If this were Bush, no liberal or Democratic apologist would ever argue against blaming him for every word. Barry mirrors the warning I tell everyone, Words are Bullshit, Actions Count. Surprise, we elected a dupe for the elite. – George

Another thought · 5 months ago

What about pharmacists who are forced to fill prescriptions for the "day after" pill even if their religious beliefs prohibit it? Their fundamental rights to religious freedom are being ignored b/c a segment of the population will not recognize their validity. A referral to another pharamacist is not good enough. The same path IS being followed here. The minority wants a certain thing to happen and they want to force everyone else to their way of thinking, regardless of the rights that of those individuals that become null and void as a result. I guarantee that it is only a matter of time before the exact scenario is played out and churches and pastors will be sued for practicing their religious beliefs. The gay community wants to make it a competition of rights, which is the wrong tactic. The better approach is to work toward a reasonable and equitable compromise -- not simply demand that their "rights" should be a greater need than those who would have to forfeit current rights to accommodate it. The current path only creates one winner and one loser by definition. Compromise, by definition, will not necessarily be fully satisfying to either side of the debate, but will create a situation that both sides can live with. If you insist on all or nothing, don't you run a serious risk of ending up with the latter? Besides, don't tell me that the agenda is not to push gay marriage into being universally accepted -- it is! You aren't satisfied with getting gay marriage approved in your own state -- you want to be able to go to the state next door and force them to recognize your marriage too, even if the majority of people there don't want to extend their definition to encompass that. Whether you want to hear it or not, you are being as small minded and bigoted as those you accuse. You want your way or nothing. Look at the names you're calling and the hatred that you're spewing, casting your net to encompass an entire population when many of those you are so derisive to may in fact support your quest for equality under the law, if not your lifestyle. Perhaps one should check out their own biases before worrying so much about others'?

Carolyn · 5 months ago

Would you care to comment on how recognition of gay marriages in any way results in "the rights that of those individuals that become null and void as a result."?

jbrantow · 5 months ago

Those "religious" pharmacists are serving the public. Just like you cannot discriminate in renting an apartment if you're a landlord, if a pharmacist wants to work at a job that serves the public they have to fill the script. They can always quit if they don't like it. Now please stick to the original subject. Keep the your bible out of my civil rights!

Rochelle · 5 months ago

I had alot to say ...however when I reads your words they hit the nail on the head........KEEP YOUR BIBLE OUT OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS!

Rochelle · 5 months ago

READ.......OOPS......heated subject!

Dale · 5 months ago

Unfortunately many people, heterosexual and homosexual alike, are forced to move because of their jobs. The US Armed Forces are the best example I can give. If homosexual couple is married in California (or another state allowing such marriages) while one or both are in the military, it is very likely that they will be shipped out to another state (if not another country). Moving to another state should not nullify their federal benefits which were given to them in another state just because they had the misfortune to be relocated to a more close-minded state.

I am not homosexual, but I completely believe that none should have their rights or benefits removed because of physical location. I also may be misinterpreting the situation, but couldn't the states refuse to give state-sourced benefits while the federal government continue to give benefits as they did in the originating state?

Afrazprince · 5 months ago

You're flat out wrong. That is unless you want to return to three years ago when it was common for the Whitehouse to interfer with court processings. Unlike Nixon Obama realizes that he's not above the law and to take on DOMA he'll need to change the law not use political means to corrupt the courts. I don't knwo about you, but after eight years the I think the Department of Justices needs some independence (even if I do not agree with their actions). The last thing we need is a return to the Bush brand of the Wild West, anything that the adminstration wants goes meddling (or complete disregard) of the legal system. Secondly, this is an issue for congress, not the courts -- first hold members of congress (the democrat majority that could overturn the law) responsible and only if your elected representives refuse to do their jobs and ensure that the rights of all are protected should we address the courts. In essence stop letting member of congress get around doing their jobs by directing everything to the courts when they don't want risk political backlash. We've hired them, we pay member, they even have better health insurance than more Americans, so why are we letting them escape their responsiblities?

jon · 5 months ago

the obama regime certainly has NO PROBLEM disregarding the law when it suits the Messiah. Did anyone notice the GM bankruptcy? He turned bankruptcy law upside down in a successful effort to reward his political allies. this is a VERY corrupt administration. the GM case is just the most obvious example.
fact: obama will only defend the civil rights of gay CITIZENS if he feels there is a political benefit (i.e. during a campaign). Otherwise, forget it.

votedforobama · 5 months ago

slap in the face for us in CA that devoted more time to Obama than prop 8 in '08

Mark Reed · 5 months ago

I have had it....mad as hell and I can't wait to March on Washington. It's time to recruit and get as many as we can to DC.!

DuttyBarb · 5 months ago

Ok...I got to say this kind of makes sense. I know its not wat u want to hear but its the truth y'all

There are no benefits or rights being taken away from gays that they did not have before they got married. The rights protected by DOMA are for straight couples so this lawsuit has properly destroyed that argument for the gay side.#

My advice fight for the same rights to apply to civil unions for gays.

Morales · 5 months ago

Loving cannot be used as a defense due to the fact that it was "criminalized" not banned. Race, sex, handicaps, and other protected status are such because they are inherently static. Sexual preference, and/or fetishisms are most certainly dynamic. Any group of individuals that simply proclaim a "difference," from societal norms can not sufficiently be considered for special protections, apart from what the society as a whole receives.

See
Baker v. Nelson, Hernandez v. Robles

Narfy · 5 months ago

"Sexual preference, and/or fetishisms are most certainly dynamic."

Are you saying that you can turn yourself from straight to gay, and back again, should you so choose?

This bears repeating · 5 months ago

FIGHT,or cower in the darkness 26 minutes ago
I have to say,I am a little shocked at this report. I am,however not surprised at the Obama Administration. I am,however surprised at the gay community at their naive disbelief. I remember during the whole campaign,there were three candidates,two on the Democratic side,who believed in only civil unions. As shown here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU9yZcpyvW8

Now,im also perplexed at everyone here who thought that voting for a black man would mean everyones rights granted after 6 mos in office. I also wonder why so many o you hate lip service,and yet,wanted President Obama to say something about rulings and California,Iowa etc. Did you all think you all voted for Gavin Newsome or something?

Did the President ever say when he would repeal DADT,DOMA etc? Did any groups representing you ask that question? No. Then why are you surprised that this is not going forward now?

Why do you think that people don't see this as an equivalent of the Civil Rights Movement? Since many died,were put in jail,marched everywhere to ensure our voices were heard. I mean,we just didn't organize marches and protests in California and New York.What about Alabama,Georgia,South Carolina,North Dakota? Why aren't any jail cells filled with proud people fighting for the right to marry.

Where are the protests in Washington? Where are they?
Washington sees the gay community as lazy and selfish. Im just tellin it like it is. Where are ya'll on the healthcare issue,and how some who are uninsured have AIDS and HIV,something that effects your community? Where were ya'll on the education reforms,that could help educate people about you? Where are you?

Where will you go,to a third party? HA!!!! Ok,he garners what 25% of the vote? Ralph Nader will be a powerplayer in the halls of congress like he is now.HEHE!! Stay home,Ok,let the Republicans get in or the conservative Democrats. To you,at least their honest about hating you and know as long as there in power,they won't give a FLYING SHIT ABOUT YOU!!!! Ok,shoot yourself in the foot because your angry,although I understand your anger,I do not understand your blatant stupidity.

Listen,Im not here defending the President,hell he is wrong here as he is on his gay marriage stances. The problem is,HE IS NOT GAY. Just like whites in the 1960s who supported integration,but still didn't know the plight of the blacks,President Barack Obama doesn't understand your plight. He doesn't. He is a politician. I knew that when I voted for him. Have we ever,not counting Washington and Eisenhower,not voted for a politician? Think about that?


I have always said to the gay community that they have to fight. Why,because,it shows that you want your rights. Sitting at home,expressing outrage is not going to help your cause. Getting mad and refusing to vote won't help your cause. You have nowhere to go,you need to make a way.

DAROGR · 5 months ago

Amen Brother.

lem · 5 months ago

let's just outlaw hetero marriage, too--

it would make everybody much happier to just eliminate marriage altogether

Steve Zink · 5 months ago

My partner and I are gay and legally married in California. We were married Oct 10, 2008. My partner works for UCSF which is run by the State of California. Other heterosexual married couples get virtually free insurance for their spouses, however the Federal government taxes us over $4000 per year for medical and dental benefits as an imputed tax because we don't qualify as 'married'. Since UCSF is wholly within California, shouldn't we stop paying this imputed tax as a discriminatory tax?

Paul Stone · 5 months ago

The level of contempt the administration shows for the tax-paying GLBT citizens that voted for, and donated to, the Obama campaign is absolutely breathtaking.

Fuck you, Mr. President.

Happy Camper · 5 months ago

Cool

Oppenheimer Photography · 5 months ago

Preface this with the fact that I'm not a lawyer. That said, is there a possible legal response to this based on its claims being SO outlandish as to be beyond legal merit?

Can each outrageous statement be addressed and argued legally somehow, stratregically? Is there not a Thurgood Marshall-caliber strategist who is up to the task of facing off with the genius of Obama? (Whom I voted for, btw.)

Just asking.

Skye is Freezing in Sydney · 5 months ago

There is a legal response that can be undertaken against the statements.

Not too mention that Obama has left himself open to be sued by the GBLTQ COmmunity as a whole for discrimination.

It is not Obama we need to fight but his administration as a whole and that is where his political and constitutional weaknesses are.

JCC · 5 months ago

Well, right now you should try to consider whether the brief itself is "SO outlandish as to be beyond legal merit"... I'm not a lawyer either, but nothing there strikes me as outrageous as people seem to be claiming.

If your reply on the merits is that "we're not going to dignify it with a reply on the merits", that's usually a signal that there's something wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that the brief is basically correct.

If something is going to be changed, it needs to happen with the court of public opinion... because this is a fairly solid response.

People here need to get their heads out of their butts... and stop presuming that "outrage" is some sort of valid response to a lawsuit.

texasbob (straight) · 5 months ago

I am outraged and disgusted by this attack on basic human rights by the Obama regime. It is not merely the nutjob Republicans who are catering to their fundy, bigoted base, it is Obama. He is a disgrace.

TeeGee · 5 months ago

Romer. R-O-M-E-R.

MediaGhost · 5 months ago

Well, yeah, Obama was against equal right for lgbt people from the start. So what? What do you think you're going to do about it? Vote republican?

Bwa....hahahahahaha! Now SHUT UP and send your checks in to the HRC or the PDA or the democratic party front group of your choice.

pbblt4 · 5 months ago

This surprises you?
He is Muslim and has defended the use of Islamic law in our country!
I am sure the IRS will treat everyone fairly??? Yea right.
Get your passport ready.
He just told the Saudi Crown prince to enforce the "Law" with Israel?
What does that mean?
I think we have been duped. Big time!

TexasWanderer · 5 months ago

He's not Muslim. He attends a Christian church.

MJB · 5 months ago

You didn't type anything that was factual. Big fail.

Bob · 5 months ago

Obama failed in every gay or lesbian issue so far that he has dealt with. His choices are particularly insulting.

Clearly he does not want a single gay dollar or vote in the future. I will not donate another cent for the bastard.

Obama does not care about gay and lesbians. He offers NO HOPE. What a moral failure.

Rich · 5 months ago

For those of you still in the Matrix aka (anyone who voted either Republican or Democrat in the last Presidential election). We are presented with presidential candidates that are are carefully vetted and presented to us as if we chose them. So there is no choice. Then the populace votes in Obama and believes in him like a kid believes in Pro-Wrestling. Hopium Addicts! much like the Neo-con-tin addicts. Please everyone vote out every incumbent in the next election with anyone other than the 2-parties. Are you done with the Snake Oil Salesman Obama? We may never recover from this man and what he will do to the country.

Samael · 5 months ago

Sir, I like how you properly point out the fallacious nature of the system, but then suggest choosing one of the less obvious puppets as if it were some sort of radical or different action.

I mean no disrespect by this comment, but the equation remains the same no matter which variables you plug into it.

or rather: No U! all votes in our system are wasted!

sincerely,
-S

Richard McRae · 5 months ago

Give it up Dude. Homosexuality is NOT the equivalent of the racial minority.

Stroud · 5 months ago

So you're just finding out that Father Obama is not the savior you expected. His campaign was a pretty sharp act, but I have a feeling you're not last special interest group the campaign promises are dust in the wind if the polling doesn't look good to our glorious leader. It's interesting that you use "Bush political appointee" as a perjoritve when you got more support from them than you our from the current bunch. Maybe you'll think more carefully before you knee jerks Democratic the next time.

william · 5 months ago

Don't worry, come re-election time Obama will be out courting gays and lesbians - he may even throw us a bone or two. The majority of us will always fall for the grandiose speeches and token gestures by politicians like him and we always get screwed in the end. Could it be time to turn off MSNBC, think for ourselves, and vote accordingly?

Dave · 5 months ago

Right. I would bet there will be another shirtless photo hitting the AP wires before Summer is over as well.

He really, really believes he can work us that easily, oh wait, he can and did.

steven · 5 months ago

seriously, he never said he supported gay marriage during election? Not sure why you are all offended

Quincy · 5 months ago

Boo-f'ing-hoo. Don't act like almost 1/2 the Dem party wasn't trying to warn you guys during the primaries (oh, sorry, I'm looking back!) that this guy was a fraud. Instead of maybe wondering why so many of us were opposed to him, you decided we must all be racists and Republicans. Well, guess what clueless ones? We f'ing told you so.

chizzle · 5 months ago

"Gay" rights are NOT basic human rights. They are "special" rights sought by a special interest group in order to give some air of legitimacy to what is arguably abnormal and unnatural sexual preferences. Gays seek more protection for their "lifestyle" choices than afforded others under the Constitution.

Additionally, it should be understood that gays are NOT "minorities" as the term is defined for purposes of constitutional analysis. Minorities are those who have been historically disadvantaged and discriminated against on the basis of inherent natural and immutable characteristics. "Immutable" means "unable to be changed." So, characteristics such and skin color, race, gender and other genetic traits are the basic for categorizing a group as a "minority."

Homosexuality is not an "immutable" human trait. There is NO LEGITIMATE MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT for arguments to the contrary. You will find arguments in purported medical research articles to the contrary, but they were written by either gays themselves or gay sympathizers.

Homosexuality is a learned characteristic. In the nature vs. nurture debate, it definitely falls on the nurture side of the equation.

The Constitution does not afford special rights to pseudo-minority groups who choose the course of conduct and the "lifestyle" that is the basic for their claim of minority status.

dfa · 5 months ago

Hey dick-head, this is coming from a scientist when I tell you that we do not know if homosexuality is due to nature or nurture. No one know which side it falls on so quit acting like you're knowledgeable about a topic that is still not understood.

Samael · 5 months ago

you are joking right? there IS LEGITIMATE MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT showing that homosexuality occurs in nearly all species under certain conditions. however, since you did not see the need to source your opinions neither will I. let the almighty power of CAPS LOCK prove our statements correct.

mjs · 5 months ago

I am moved by the almighty power of CAPS LOCK.

It's just a bit funny for people to claim that homosexuality is unnatural. The Old Testament God was unnatural and we still have millions of people supplicating every day to that theological abstraction, while treating 3D human beings like an indentured servant. Perhaps The Fire Island Next Time?

++++

MJB · 5 months ago

"Homosexuality is a learned characteristic. In the nature vs. nurture debate, it definitely falls on the nurture side of the equation."

So where do people brought up by straight parents learn it from?

Dave · 5 months ago

You don't learn to be gay, you just learn to be very good at it.

Nick · 5 months ago

A. I wonder if it is out of ignorance or spite (although I guess they are not mutually exclusive) that you ignore the immutability of one's sexuality while not recognizing the complete mutability of gender.

B. GENDER IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO SEX, SO DO NOT USE THE TWO INTERCHANGEABLY.

C. Your gratuitous use of AllCaps and incorrect usage of quotation marks does not help legitimate your already weak argument (or however one would refer to such drivel).

G · 5 months ago

Chizzle, if I 'chose' to be gay, then you 'chose' to be straight.

Jenny · 5 months ago

Can you force yourself to be attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex? If you cannot, then it's not reasonable to expect someone to be attracted to the opposite sex instead of the same sex. And if you say it's natural to be attracted to the opposite sex, then you need to do some research on a few wild animals.

2-D Man · 5 months ago

If homosexuality falls distinctly on the nurture side of the equation, and you are not gay by some form of virtue, then you, sir, are a remarkably talented person. Yes, you are the first person I've ever met who could pick his own parents(!).

P.S. I am assuming that you are male because I am a chauvinistic pig; don't bother correcting me if I am wrong.

Ttwin · 5 months ago

Explain this one then, he who knows all about nature vs. nurture. I have an IDENTICAL TWIN BROTHER, DNA tests to prove it. We grew in the same womb, slept in the same crib, shared a room until we were six and lived in the same house until college. Now we are both married, I am gay and married to a man for 9 years, he is straight and married to a wonderful woman, for...you guessed it, 9 years. Clearly, you have some reading to do about nature vs. nurture.

Guest · 5 months ago

A) All things being equal, in the same scenario, if one twin was a law abiding citizen, and the other a serial bank robber, than serial bank robber was predisposed to do so?

Aiden · 5 months ago

And really, u cant expect everything from one candidate. No one can have it all from a candidate. And if something is vitally important only to you well than that conflicts with american-democratic politics which are based on broad scales of interests. If you feel an elected official isnt good just because he doesnt agree with you on one issue then really isnt that ignorance and blindness in itself? Obviously its hurtful but you cant judge someone based on one thing which is what for example anti gays etc would do to homosexuals etc.

Jon H.. · 5 months ago

Has any credible, leading news source confirmed the accuracy of this story and report? I've checked several sites and have not seen a whisper about it. Even FOX, who one would think would make this banner news.

Francisco D'Anconia · 5 months ago

I think this might be a publicity stunt.
Why resort to these methods?

Carly · 5 months ago

w w w . zeitgeistmovie.com
All who take the time to watch this/these;addendum to be watched secondly(doesn't have to be watched same time ) hopefully will have their eyes opened.PLEASE share this everyone.hopefully we can make a difference!!

whitfield muse jr. · 5 months ago

The next thing parents will want to marry their child and the way you love animals it will be them.

Jijij · 5 months ago

See..this is what I'm talking about. WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH BEING GAY??? It's not a perversion. It doesn't cause inbred children. It's not inter-species sex. What on earth could lead to this conclusion. I guess because women wear pants they will all want to become men...and then they will start getting dog penises surgically attached...and then they'll clone little puppy hybrids of themselves and start living underwater? Is that how it works?

KeepItReal · 5 months ago

You people elected him, believing he was your new messiah. Now that he's pushing his Socialistic agenda, I don't see what the problem is.

colorful squid · 5 months ago

UP it's "change we can believe in". Change people wanted and change they will get. But it will be the kind of change that destroys this country and enslaves those who voted for it.

Carly · 5 months ago

After watching the zeitgeistmovie,think about this for a moment;I was gonna share my opinion but I don't want to leak anything.Well if you wanna know my opinion email me after you have watched both movies.....w w w . noquip@gmail.com

AND ASSIDE FROM THE MOVIE,if any of you don't believe that there is homosexualaity;I don't care what you say,at some point there has been a time that you wondered sexually about it.
(IF JUST FOR A SECOND)Now some may not be hons't for fear of being thought gay or lesbian.BE HON'EST OR SOME MAY BE JUST TOOOOO HOMOPHOBIC...
What am I DOING.....

Undeterred · 5 months ago

Interesting. Dick Cheney is essentially for gay marriage and Obama is essentially opposed. Confusing.

MattinChicago · 5 months ago

Actually, if I am not mistaken both Obama and Cheney have essentially the same view on gay marriage (at least at a State level). In other words they believe that the States should be free to decide individually whether or not to allow gay marriage.

The idea of Cheney and Obama both agreeing on something should scare the cr*p out of us all.

Dave · 5 months ago

All GLBT ask yourselves this question.

Have gays ever had any role whatsoever in ANY socialist government? Ever?

There is no place for us in Obama's new world. We are just a waste of time and space, and this court document says as much. We "take" from social programs that he wants to use for other minorities - any other minority, including Muslims. They have preferred status but we don't?

Axltx71 · 5 months ago

You are not a minority! You cannot cry racism in this regard. You have made a lifestyle choice and you have a sexual preference. Try a different approach. Obviously it didn't work in California!

DAROGR · 5 months ago

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Did you make the choice? Do you make the choice every day? If you would just think about it you would know you are wrong.

Seriously, did you make the choice to be heterosexual?

Gays can make the choice to play heterosexual, as many did for decades, centuries, but playing straight does not make you straight.

Believe me when I tell you again, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Nikki · 5 months ago

You're right in a sense, we did make a choice. We are BORN gay, however, we CHOOSE to be open about it. There are hundreds of people who go through life miserable because they choose to stay in the closet.

And, as for California, it was a slim margin loss. However, the 18,000 marriages that were held up will prove to the rest of the closed-minded population of California that same-sex marriage is not harmful. What we do in the bedroom does not affect your life at all. And people will soon realize that.

Diogenes · 5 months ago

Wake up! Marches are less than worthless. They waste time and money better spent organizing.

As long as the Democratic candidate knows you'll hold your nose and vote for him when it counts, your demands just don't matter. Until the LGBT community votes for a 3rd party candidate, or boycotts the election, en mass, you will remain powerless and ignored. They think you have no other choice. So ask yourself, do you?

Jimmy · 5 months ago

Faggot Bastard. Go suck a dick.

Diogenes · 5 months ago

You seem upset, Jimmy. Sort of panicky. Is there something behind this nervousness you exhibit?

BTW, are you over 18? If so, I wonder why you still call yourself Jimmy. By that age, most guys have changed to Jim or James. Is there some reason you're clinging to your childhood nickname? It's okay to open up about it here; we're listening, and we won't judge you, or punish you for your desires. You've probably had enough of that already, right? You're safe here. We understand you, and why you're lashing out.

Greatwav · 5 months ago

Are you asking if he was molested as a child? Why do you want to know about that?

Diogenes · 5 months ago

Why would you assume that? Do you think that children desire molestation? That's a novel theory.

Greatwav · 5 months ago

why would you assume he was gay? why would you assume he was above or below a certain age and gay? why would you want to know all the weird details of his child hood? why would you assume that he was a gay child or a man who was a gay child?

Diogenes · 5 months ago

Why do you assume I'm trying to label him? Why do you assume I think he was a gay child, or a man who was a gay child? You seem to be conjuring up a lot of ideas from thin air. Why is that?

Greatwav · 5 months ago

you seemed bent on slapping a label on him on the basis of his name, and I thought it was unusual that you would take someone's name and turn it into a story.

BFl · 5 months ago

I feel robbed of my vote. From the beginning, I felt reluctant about Obama. I Personally was pushing for Clinton. However after Obama won the primary, and after much research on Obama and his stances on issues that are important to me, including this very issue (gay rights), I gave Obama my vote. Now I feel like an idiot. I shouldn't have even voted. He shouldn't have made the promises he made to the gay community if he wasn't going to follow through. Period. He lied to get the Gay vote....

On another note, I am so sick of you Homophobes saying "The next thing people are gonna ask for is to marry their dog, child, or sibling". You people really don't get it. Do some research, do some digging into the FACTS before opening your mouth and saying things that aren't even relevant to the issue, much less Fact. The majority of people who identify as "Homosexual" knew already at a very young age. Before they knew what sex was much less the word "Gay". I can verify this! The APA (American Psychological Association) can verify this, as they have a entire SECTION on their homepage dedicated to educating ignorant people, such as yourself, who make assumptions on an issue because they simply don't understand it. Some people don't understand quantum physics, but that doesn't that the concepts aren't FACT. You should educate yourselves and check out the professional opinions based on several studies, research and FACTS collected by people who specialize in the psychology of ALL people, including Gay people. . . It's beyond ignorance at this point. I can't imagine anyone CHOOSING to be scrutinized, judged, condemned, attacked and compared to pedophiles, called incestous or put in the same category as sickos that find sexual encounters with animals enticing. Its sick to even compare gay people to that. Why anyone would choose to be insulted to the very worse degree like that? You can try and justify it, but it simply doesn't add up. Its not a choice. It's not some "lifestyle". Heterosexual people don't just wake up one day and decide they must live some alternative lifestyle. I mean seriously. Everytime you people open your mouth with that nonsense, I promise that you look like an ignorant, nonsensible IDIOT and a bigot. No matter what race, religion, ethnicity or any walk of life you come from or been through. Your a bigot.

Diogenes · 5 months ago

Why are you wasting your time arguing with the man/dog morons? You won't change what passes for their minds, and you don't further the cause.

You're right about the vote. Stay home or vote for a committed 3rd party candidate. If there was a single-issue anti-DOMA candidate, and he or she got the overwhelming majority of the LGBT vote, the Dems would never dare to ignore the issue again. If you are a reliable Dem vote, you just don't matter. No more bluffing. Vote anti-DOMA, or stay home. Anything else means you're in the pocket.

Axltx71 · 5 months ago

Bigotry can really only be hurled at someone who is a racist. The problem with gays (besides being gay) is that you want to force your lifestyle choice, your sexual preference down the throat of Society. If Society rejects you, it's bigotry. How does that work? And you are wrong. Being gay is a choice you were not born gay. Now leave God out of the matter. Why is it that every higher mammal reproduces with a male and female? Accident? I think not. The time is now for a real honest to goodness realization that the pro-gay stance is really an attack on the core values of America. I didn't vote for Obama but I think this is the one smart thing he has done so far!

Straight mother of gay son · 5 months ago

Lets see, why do us hetero's force our lifestyles down the throat of society? Everyday I leave my house and I see straight couples holding hands, kissing each other, and no one says anything. Yet if a gay couple does this, they are shoving it down someone's throat? Tell me, what age did you "decide" you were straight? How many people of the same sex did you have to look at to decide, oops I think I'll decide to the opposite sex? Probably none right, because you were born that way? Hmmm, amazing how that works isn't it?
I think the most humerous thing about this entire blog is the gay bashers don't realize that this could hit close to home one day. What will you do when your child or grandchild comes home and tells you they are gay? Are you going to bash them or love them? Oh wait, that will never happen to you right because you'll raise your kids better than that? I wish you the best of luck and congrats on making the "choice" to be a "normal" person that isn't insulted for loving the people you want to love.......

Skeptic · 5 months ago

If sexual orientation is as definitive as you claim, then why have some people changed their sexual orientations from straight to gay to straight? Explain that please.

Furthermore, research studies confirm truths we've known for some time now; that nurture is just as important in the development of a child as nature is. In other words, sexual orientation can most certainly be influenced. Some new statistical revelations:

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_pr...

Children of homosexual couples are 4 to 10 times more likely to identify as non-heterosexual. But is this really surprising? Think about it. Hasn't our culture had a profound impact on how we define beauty in men and women? Don't women's advocacy groups routinely decry the depiction of unnaturally skinny girls in the media because it shapes societies views on attractiveness? This is an implicit admission that sexual attitudes CAN in fact be changed, at least in some cases, and not as "set in stone" as gay activists purport.

So long as the mind controls the body, anything is technically possible.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

"So long as the mind controls the body, anything is technically possible."

Yea, thats what your husband said until we found him handing out blowjobs in a public airport bathroom.

Nikki · 5 months ago

If sexual orientation is as definitive as you claim, then why have some people changed their sexual orientations from straight to gay to straight? Explain that please.

Ok, let me explain. It's gender normative to identify as "straight." So younger children and teens try to "fit in" and force themselves to be "straight." Even when they know, inside, they are not. As they become more comfortable with who they are, and realize that it is more painful to live a lie than to be "out," they start to identify as "gay" around some close trusted people, and eventually, come out to everyone.

"Children of homosexual couples..." - 1.) How does media portrayal of beauty change someone's sexuality? 2.) Maybe that is because they know their parents are more likely to accept them for who they are. Children of hetereo-couples always have that fear that they will be rejected by their parents. A fear, which, in my case, was true.

Nikki · 5 months ago

"gay bashers don't realize that this could hit close to home one day."

Thank you so much! I knew when I was 7 that I liked women. I didn't even know what sex was, but I knew that I would rather date women. I am now 21, and grew up in a house where I had to sneak around to see my girlfriend, and where every time Rosie O'donnel or Ellen Degeneres or any other LGBT celebrity came one television, my father would say hurtful bigotted comments. At the dinner table, if marriage equality was brought up, my dad always argued fervently against it.

I came out two months ago. He hasn't spoken to me since. I am not allowed to live at home over school breaks or holidays. My mother has dealt better with it, but refuses to talk to me about my love life.

I am just one of thousands of LGBT children who no longer have both parents loving support. I could be your child.

Diogenes · 5 months ago

Axltx71, didn't you realize that God is gay? C'mon, he's a single guy, not widowed or divorced, yet he's raising a son. He has a companion, the Holy Spirit, but it's not a wife, right? Add it up, Axltx, he's gay, and heaven is gonna be kind of a surprise for you, ya know?

Wild_Kingdom · 5 months ago

You are misinformed. Some of our closest relatives engage in rampant male-male, and female-female sexual behaviors, see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_soci...). Neither God nor humans' higher mammalian relatives are really relevant to discussions about civil rights - after all, our state is supposedly separated from the churches of its citzens... but let's at least be accurate if we choose to make religious and/or biological arguments.

McLovin · 5 months ago

I feel sorry for these homophobes and bigots who have gay children. Those kids are going to be scarred for life. As long as the religious right continues to invoke the bible into everything they do we will have to fight against it. I'm not against the bible or religion, but to each his own--that's the way our founding fathers wanted it. Religion is oppressive and they understood it had no place in a healthy democracy. These religious fanatics will never understand where they are wrong because they believe they are righteous and they are doing "gods" work. They are truly lost souls.

Happy And Straight · 5 months ago

wow ... Obama has done something else right! How can you even think and consider that being gay makes you "a minority" ... you are born a minority ... you are not born gay ... it is a choice just as much as a Christian chooses to be a Christian or a vegetarian chooses to abstain from meat ... God created Adam to be with Eve not Adam to be with Steve ... to me it is common sense seeing as two men cannot reproduce ....

Celeste · 5 months ago

Get your religious propaganda out of this site please. As to defend that we are a minority, we have marriage rights in 6 states, civil unions in others, legal protections ( even federally ) against hate crime based on sexual orientation. Sounds like we ARE a minority, since we have protections to validate it.

Straight mother of gay son · 5 months ago

Wow, so you had to make a decision as to whether you were hetero or homo? It didn't just come natural to you?
No one CHOOSES to be made fun of, discriminated against, hated, threatened or anything else that gays have to tolerate on a daily basis. They are born that way, just as you were born hetero.
As for the God sentence, doesn't your God love everyone? Doesn't he tell you not to judge? If you want to practice his laws, practice them all and learn tolerance-not ignorance. Otherwise, leave God out of it you hypocrite!

Happy and Straight · 5 months ago

thank you "straight mother" ... my point exactly I was born a hetero like you were (or else you would not have a son, right?) ... for me to go gay would be my choice which I have not made .... of course God loves everybody "God is love!" - as far as His law you and I both know it is obviously NATURAL for a man to have sexual relations with a woman, right .... as far as emotional relations I have those with both sexes .... but not sexual ... on another note ... why everyday do I read "This actor or that actress" has come out of the closet ... is that news worthy? what do you think? I really do not care who is gay or who is straight ... why are gay journalist trying to make it look like "everybody" is gay when you and I both know it is not natural and simply based on sexual preference!

Clicky Mic · 5 months ago

So, lemme get this straight.
You're saying it's ok for Christians and the like to be provided protections from hate crimes (Religion is included), even tho' they CHOSE, as you said, to be a Christian?
They don't HAVE to be, now do they? They can be Muslim or Atheist or Jewish, and that's about the same, right? No need to protect christians too, correct? There's already other religions you can choose to be protected under!

Except for the fact that you are not Muslim, Atheist, or Jewish. And you wouldn't want to change, for fear of not getting into heaven, correct?

People don't choose to be gay. Why would they WANT to be teased, hurt, beaten, even killed for who they are?

Do you seriously even THINK about what you say? Have you ever even ENTERTAINED the thought that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong? Do a little research? Maybe meet a gay person or two? See how their supposed 'choice' has affected them?

No, you didn't.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

How do you know G-d is a He if HE birthed the universe? Are you saying G-d birthed the universe out of HIS ass? You've got some explaining to do.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Don't you DARE try to lecture one of our supportive mother's on LGBT issues, you jerk. I'll repeat what she said, since you obviously are too busy JUDGING to listen:

"Doesn't he tell you not to judge? If you want to practice his laws, practice them all and learn tolerance-not ignorance. Otherwise, leave God out of it you hypocrite!"

Jason · 5 months ago

lol..."Happy and Straight" must be a troll. Her/his thought process is way too haphazard to be coming from a real person.

I mean, first s/he compares the alleged choice of sexual attraction to choosing to be Christian (which is a ludicrous acknowledgment since the latter choice is actually legally protected in this country). Then s/he goes on a tangent about gay celebrities and the "gay journalists" (LOL!) who write about them. wtf?

This person can't be real...

john mason · 5 months ago

Bullsh**t a choice my a** it is an orientation which modern science is proving is genetic. I suppose you CHOSE to be straight? Your ignorance is amazing.

Happy and Straight · 5 months ago

nice language .... you are not very accepting of me are you? does that hate crime bill apply to me as well? God loves you John, you stud!

Kaila · 5 months ago

I fucking hate that "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" bullshit.

Find a more original line, for Christ's sake.

Happily Gay · 5 months ago

How ironic your argument is! You see....it's totally ILLEGAL to discriminate against someone based on religious CHOICE but you think that it's OK to discriminate against gays for "choosing" to be gay...even though every gay person and any str8 person with common sense knows there's no choice in the matter. OK, so try this test, choose to be gay for 10 minutes, look at a man (or a woman if you are a woman) and you will be wildly sexually attracted. Oh, that doesn't work?? Well, it doesn't work for us either. You're born that way, idiot. Use your brain for a minute.
And two men *can* reproduce, just not with each other (though they will be able to in the next decade with genetic manipulation). Again, going by your screwy logic, two str8 people who are not able to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry, nor should post-menopause women.
Maybe you should get an education and know what you're talking about before you post on a public forum and show your incredible ignorance.

McLovin · 5 months ago

Exactly! I find it beyond perplexing that they have a position that since gays can't reproduce they can't get married. People need to stop listening to their flawed arguments. Marriage is a right that should be afforded to everyone. We have protections for equality in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We need a new form of government because ours is dysfunctional. It's been taken over by the religious zealots.

Cheezus · 5 months ago

Thinking isn't your first language, is it? If you were a bit smarter (or maybe read a bit more or even got out and met more people), you'd know that many gay people try very hard to change their sexual orientation for years on end. Those who are religious often pray for help changing. Of course, there's never been any evidence that prayer actually does anything at all, so you can guess the results.

The so-called "ex-gay" movement is a joke. They don't check up on their successful "converts" for very long, because when they've done so it's always been an embarrassment. Even two of the founders of the largest such group, Exodus International now admit that the whole thing was a pipe dream.

You might as well argue that left-handers or people on the autistic spectrum are just making a choice.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Well, obviously, the fact you exist proves jackasses can reproduce.

Nikki · 5 months ago

I'm not Christian. So the Adam/Eve argument has no meaning to me. Please do not force your religion on me. My religion has nothing in it, NOTHING, against mature love between two individuals, no matter what sex they are. And, actually, if you go to a website called "Soulforce" you will find that Christianity doesn't have anything against homosexuality either.

But, if you choose to ignore that, fine. Just don't push your bible and it's "laws" on me. There is a freedom of, and freedom from religion. I invoke my right of freedom FROM your flavor of Christianity, the kind filled with hate and judgement.

McLovin · 5 months ago

All your post says to me is that you are a self loathing homophobe because you are a closeted homosexual. If we choose to be gay then you mush "choose" to be straight, which tells me that you are sexually attracted to the same sex (gay) but you choose to be straight instead. (society pressure). Good luck untangling your rather dysfunctional life.

Jason · 5 months ago

Obama has done something *else* right? In addition to what; all of his anti-libertarian fiscal/economic policies? So you must be one of those populists, who support highly intrusive government regulation of EVERYTHING, while you probably have complete contempt for any individual freedom that doesn't benefit YOU. Selfish.

It disgusts me how much contempt the average, uneducated American has for individual liberty. There are way too many of these smug, jealous, worthless voters who want the government to take away our personal freedom to marry which gender we choose, for example, and then also take away our freedom to spend our money how we wish. Talk about adding insult to injury.

"No, you can't marry that adult human being because I arbitrarily want him to have different genitalia than you. But I also want your tax dollars for a bunch of overly paternalistic welfare policies that you wont have access to!" What a fair-minded political philosophy.

You can proudly wear your populist politics on your sleeve all you want, but just know that they're no different than the Soviet communist politics of the Cold War era. That's pretty embarrassing for you.

Jason · 5 months ago

Also, what the hell does a gay person's "choice" to marry have to do with the validity of same-sex marriage in itself (which, to be sure, is precisely what this discussion is all about)?

Just because same-sex couples *choose* to marry doesn't make same-sex marriage wrong. Mixed-sex couples also marry willingly. Does that make heterosexual marriage wrong too? How is the "choice" of it even relevant here?

As far as "minority status" goes, a more accurate analogy here would be between those who wish to marry someone of their same sex and those who wish to marry someone of a different race. BOTH groups are making a choice in this regard, as there is no evidence proving a biologically based same-sex attraction or different-race attraction. But, following your logic, neither group deserves minority protection *because* these people are making a conscious choice to do something that they weren't born doing.

And Adam and Eve, huh? MoAr mythology pls!

Celeste · 5 months ago

Well as I suspected the snake in the grass has finally struck. I am not at all surprised, I wanted Hillary for president... But once she was struck down, I nulled my own vote. Not that it would of mattered, although I know I definitely didn't want to see that anti environmentalist McCain as president.

moran · 5 months ago

because Clinton would have worked to repeal DOMA on day 1 of her presidency? don't think so. give me a break

exodus · 5 months ago

well, if you really want to leave this lifestyle I just came across this website which might help .... http://www.exodus-international.org/ ... I remember I used to have a buddy who was real involved with Exodus....good luck to all who see this!

Celeste · 5 months ago

Here come the religious wackos, bing bang bong bong.

Celeste · 5 months ago

WARNING: One of the people who signed this document happens to be a mormon drone... Scott Simpson ( I think ) I wonder what the others believe in?

Cause quite frankly it explains the absolute carelessness in this document, it has so much hate and homophobia in it, I don't even know where it begins and where it ends.

MediaGhost · 5 months ago

Roy Cohn: AIDS. Homosexual. Gay. Lesbian. You think these are names that tell you who a person sleeps with, but they don't tell you that.

Henry: No?

Roy Cohn: No. Like all labels they tell you one thing, and one thing only: Where does an individual so identified fit into the food chain? In the pecking order? Not ideology or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout. Not who I fu(k or who fu(ks me, but who will come to the phone when I call, who owes me favors. This is what a label refers to. Now to someone who does not understand this, a homosexual is what I am because I have sex with men, but really this is wrong. A homosexual is somebody who, in 15 years of trying, cannot get a piss-ant anti-discrimination bill through the city council. A homosexual is somebody who knows nobody and who nobody knows. Who has zero clout.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Said the gay man who died of AIDS while fighting against gay rights and everyone remembers as a self loathing bigoted jerk versus HARVEY MILK who DID win the anti-discrimination fight in California.

So, what is your point here? That Roy Cohn was right? If so, I give you HARVEY MILK as my example of why you are wrong.

facebook-752995531 · 5 months ago

Ummm, pardon? Sigh*

The Pilgrim · 5 months ago

Well I for one am shocked. Are you saying that people gave their money and their votes to a politician who, once he achieved the office, turned around and screwed them by doing the exact opposite of his campaign promises???

Like that has never happened before.

thomaswii4life · 2 weeks ago

Politics and money go hand and hand, you can buy votes bro, and you don't need any schooling to be a politician.
Two Voices Blog Crazy

No Bulllroar · 5 months ago

As a straight man, I find this disgusting beyond words. Yet another broken promise, like so many others on so many fronts, including several just today.
A presidency not even 6 months old, and we see he is as despicable as Bush, except the rhetoric is better.
So it will evidently take much longer than we thought for equality to be the law of the land, but know this: There has never been a civil rights movement that didn't win in the end.
There IS a war going on, however. The opponents are love vs. fear (hate is derived from fear). It is not a war of violence, it is a war of justice.
We know The Lord could not create a straight person and a gay person and not love them equally, not want them to have equal rights.
So let love be our sword and our shield, because love will always defeat hate in the end.

Skeptic · 5 months ago

Try preaching tolerance for homosexuality in Saudi Arabia with nothing but "love as your sword and shield", and let us know how that works out for you.

You're an idealist, that much is clear, but idealism simply doesn't work in a dirty, ugly, pragmatic world. This kind of idealism is dangerous - mostly for you. It's entirely out of touch with the realities of world we live in. In other words, utter naivete.

Jason · 5 months ago

Your logic is retarded because it suggests we should discourage people from taking virtually ANY stand that they do, as most Saudis would disagree with the majority of American viewpoints. This includes everything from our popular culture to our religious freedom. Try preaching that women shouldn't be owned by their husbands in Saudi Arabia, and let us know how that works out for you. Try preaching for freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia, and let us know how that works out for you. Try being Christian in Saudi Arabia, and let us know that works out for you.

Besides, since when do we align our own morality in accorance with Saudi morals?

-When it doubt, ask yourself, "what would Suadi Arabia do?" WWSAD(tm)!

Shane · 5 months ago

Wow. I didn't think I would ever agree on anything Obama actually said. I stand corrected.

Jason · 5 months ago

"wow, Obama is a bigot just like me, and he also cares a lot about random adults with the same private parts trying to marry? Wow i'm so pleasantly surprised I'm not the only one! ^_^"

You're a fucking moron because Obama clearly didn't even write this; the DoJ did. Though both are equally worthless.

Ed Wiete · 5 months ago

I think your arguements for insistance on linking gay rights to those of minorities, fails to take in the real meaning of a "suspect class". Yes race and sex are included, but the rights of homosexuals have not been included is this definition. That is why all this discusion and attempt to cloud the issue with case dealing with race is so ludicrous. The race case you highlighted in the governments breif seem to be self explanotory; the Constitution does not allow the discrimination on the basis of race. I can be trite and say gay are not in this discussion, but the truth is the government nas no business telling anyone who the can marry. The problem is the governt can and has said you can get married but we aren't goin to support your situation with fedral benifits. Is it different treament; yes, but different treatment isdoes not always give rise to a constitutional violation.

TDC · 5 months ago

Oh yes brother, preach it to us, America is overspending, we need more financial responsiblilty, right?

Well, let’s have a brief re-cap, shall we?

Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus strong-armed through congress!

Obama signed a $410 Billion Omnibus Spending Bill With Bipartisan Pork

Obama signed a $3.4 TRILLION budget, with NO Republican support!

But hey, lets focus on what's really important, the gay community.

God help us!

Jeff · 5 months ago

It's not like we dont like what Obama is doing for our country. What is important to us is that we have the ability to be with the person we love, visit them in the hospital and have the same rights as everyone else. btw, how painful is it to have a political icon like Sam Nunn who is liberal in every area and whom you respect, get up on the senate floor and tell President Clinton that he will not allow gays into the military. or president Clinton signing DOMA or president Obama, who is himself from an oppressed minority, seeming to not care that I cannot marry who the hell i want?

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

Ahem, Jeff... TDC is making note of the fact Obama is trying to save a few pennies on the backs of the LGBT community while spending TRILLIONS elsewhere.

If I were a machiavellian politician, I might think it was done deliberately to get the right wingers to shut up about the TRILLIONS spent elsewhere with a, "See!!! Obama is saving money by keeping the gays down! Hooray for Obama!"

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

It may take an entirely different legal approach, but the hospital visitation thing itself is so... well, for lack of a better word 'odd', don't you think?
In a hypothetical time-line of reformation, it seems to me like this would be the first and easiest one to tackle and get positive results from. Maybe something similar or extending from the whole 'power of attorney' thing people exercise for others in similar situations?

boytokyo · 5 months ago

so it's better that we as a country continue to not do what it knows is right and violate its principles than to actually right the wrong?

Skeptic · 5 months ago

If sexual orientation is as definitive as you claim, then why have some people changed their sexual orientations from straight to gay to straight? Explain that please.

Furthermore, research studies confirm truths we've known for some time now; that nurture is just as important in the development of a child as nature is. In other words, sexual orientation can most certainly be influenced. Some new statistical revelations:

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_pr...

Children of homosexual couples are 4 to 10 times more likely to identify as non-heterosexual. But is this really surprising? Think about it. Hasn't our culture had a profound impact on how we define beauty in men and women? Don't women's advocacy groups routinely decry the depiction of unnaturally skinny girls in the media because it shapes societies views on attractiveness? This is an implicit admission that sexual attitudes CAN in fact be changed, at least in some cases, and not as "set in stone" as gay activists purport.

So long as the mind controls the body, anything is technically possible.

cowboyneok · 5 months ago

"So long as the mind controls the body, anything is technically possible."

Yea, thats what your husband said until we found him handing out blowjobs in a public airport bathroom.

Diogenes · 5 months ago

"If sexual orientation is as definitive as you claim, then why have some people changed their sexual orientations from straight to gay to straight? Explain that please."

Did you notice the B in LGBT? Besides, peoples claims of changing their sexual orientation might be as reliable as Newt's claim to be Catholic after two divorces, maybe, maybe not.

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

Your response stirs a question:

What ever happened to the idea that people could just simply be amorous by nature? That people may actually use sex not for 'special reservations', but for the sake of really connecting to another in the deepest form offered to us as human beings?
...
Oh, well. I have pipe dreams, anyway.

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

Lemme see if I understand all of this correctly:

Our State and Federal Governments are separate, yet agreeable. Mostly. (See also: Medical Marijuana)

The Federal Government decides at some point what their definition of marriage is, mostly based on the historical integrity of the most popular definition to date. (This makes the Fed.G. the 'Black and White' factor.)

Based on public opinion, State Governments can legalize things that the Federal Government doesn't actually consider 'lawful'. (The 'Gray Area' factor...)

In the instance of the Federal Government and Marriage, they took it upon themselves some time ago to give certain 'perks' to those who legally bind themselves under their definition of marriage.

Unfortunately, when the State Government 'legalizes' something, it doesn't mean that the Federal Government has to recognize it for all it is if it conflicts with any laws/etc.. that are already in place within their borders. This especially means that if the State recognizes something that the Feds don't, the Feds also don't have to offer anything to anyone involved in said recognition.

This also means that the Federal Gov. can't completely intervene in certain State laws that have been put into place by the public.

(Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to go, I think~ XD)

Anyway, though I understand the unequivocal frustration gained by reading Obama's statements, you can't forget that at his core he's a Law-Man; and everything he said was crafted carefully to reflect his knowledge of the system and not necessarily his personal opinion on the matter.

It sucks that he was able to put all of this information so easily and eloquently so as to make you feel as though you're being victimized, because I don't think that was the point of it. All I see is a clear definition of a small part of the giant swamp we call a legal system. Unfortunately, the old usually trumps the new, and as we all know there are at least two fistfuls of doctrines within U.S. law so Old-School they should only be laughed at and thrown away at this point.

What NEEDS to change is the Federal law, because so long as the State can legalize Federally 'illegal' things, this kind of back-and-forth injustice will continue into the infinite.

What HAS TO CHANGE FIRST is public opinion as a whole before anything will happen at the top levels of our Liberty. We need more Homosexual people in public office, in the public Forum. We need to ensure that at the base of our individual states the basic rights and freedoms of all homosexuals are being preserved AND exercised just as freely as they should be.

President Obama hasn't necessarily put anyone back on this issue; he's just successfully withdrawn himself from the debate. I beg to guess that it's because he, himself, may be neutral and unwilling to stir feathers at this point in his administration.
Homeland Security > National Security > Restructuring a Dead Economy > Fixing a totally fucked Public Health System > ...Re-Defining an out-dated Federal definition of 'marriage'?

Your time will come, I know it will. Please don't give up hope.

Mark · 5 months ago

On issues of civil rights a president cannot be neutral.

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

And I agree, but unfortunately he's yet to actually put his thumb into the REAL issue.

What this particular statement by him proves is that he can define current law and explain how it effects the case and why. What it isn't is any definitive answer for whether or not he actually agrees with the unfair back-lash it has dealt.
He's not yet mentioned proposals about possible ways to unravel this steadily growing public issue, and considering the state of this country as of right now, I wouldn't count on any particularly stirring resolutions in the near future. (Well, that is unless some genius up on The Hill suddenly has an epiphany and writes up a binding resolution so aggressively appeasing to the Public that the entire country climaxes at the same time. =X {Heh; and perhaps that would, in turn, make everyone Bisexual in the process?})

Otherwise, until the Supreme Court gets its hands on a particularly new, juicy version of this issue (with lots of good backing and public out-cry in favor of-), I somehow don't envision him jogging so pointedly back to the podium to answer this one just yet.

SDW · 5 months ago

Actually, I would argue for going back to the constitution itself. Remember, the federal government is only supposed to be involved in a limited number of things, all listed in Section 8 of the constitution. All other rights are given to the states under the 10th Amemdment.

That's it. Let's go back to.

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

Edited by a moderator? >.>??

To minimize blank space, one line break was removed from your previous comment.

SDW · 5 months ago

Well, you you voted for change! Now reap what you have sown.

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

Did you even read any of this article, or are you just all-too-glad to get a jab in on Obama at the expense of intelligence and actual humor?

SDW · 5 months ago

I guess the real question is did those who voted in Obama understand his view and character before their vote? If they did, then they an accomplice. If they didn't research his views and voted for him for other reasons, then they did so in ignorance. But, like the saying, ignorance is no excuse.

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

Better of Two Evils Defense? >.>;

SDW · 5 months ago

Sorry, not familiar with that emoticon!

There was the write in option... The Lessor of Two Evils defense is not really a good defense. Not choosing ANY of the candidates was a viable choice, although it was the most unpopular!

As to the better of two evils, how would we know? For that we need to examine the character of the individual. Remember, other very charismatic leaders have been chosen without a true examination of their character and WWII ensued. Or actually, people did examine their leaders character and found that they agreed that electing those leaders was better then allowing their countries deteriorate further. The lessor of two evils.

Remember, there are always consequences. Even if you choose the lessor of two evils, you still need to face the consequences.

KitsapPatriot · 5 months ago

The lesser of two evils is still evil. There were other choices you could have voted for.

b. h. · 5 months ago

this is despicable! Obama ran on one platform
and now he's turning his back on his voters.

i say, let him try to get his votes from the
Log Cabin Republicans next time around.

McLovin · 5 months ago

It looks like that's what he's doing. He is courting the right to garner their support at our expense. He knows we are a big voting block but I'm guessing with his hateful about face decisions he will garner more support from them at our expense. We were used to help get him elected and then thrown under the bus. Politics as usual. What makes this more damaging is he ran his campaign about change but I guess that change doesn't include us.

It's a sad day.

John Micheal Clark · 5 months ago

Dern faggots tryin get married, aint nun of you fags gunna get married as long as mah gun sas so.

Seriously, I am for gay marriage. I am a republican and I think that government regulating marriage is stupid. It's discriminative and promotes a religious zealot influence in the government.

Jason · 5 months ago

Agreed. I'm also a Republican in favor of same-sex marriage; or more accurately, I'm against explicit government attempts to *prohibit* it, which is what DOMA is.

But leave it to Obama to support more laws attempting to tell people how to make personal decisions and how to live their own lives on matters that have no tangible affect on anyone else. And of course the populist masses will eat this up with a spoon. Hopefully this new face of the Democratic Party will soak up some of those bat-shit Christian Right voters that we haven't been able to get rid of...

Ery Dark · 5 months ago

See, I never trusted the peck to begin with. Certainly McCain wouldn't have done anything for equality either, but at least he didn't lead anyone to believe he would have.

Pissed Off · 5 months ago

This shit is why I voted for Nader once, and why I'm doing so again in 2012.

Sharol · 5 months ago

Does anybody see that the argument being laid down is that the federal government can do whatever saves scarce government funds? This will be a spring board for denying other rights as well. Everyone needs to be worried about this. Perhaps this could be a common ground that unites those with opposing views.

equal rights under the law · 5 months ago

absolutely, and since my partner is not entitled to my Social Security when I die- then I am going to stop paying into it. frankly ,this is taxation without representation. If all LGBT stop paying taxes- then we will have some political clout- since the only way to get the attention of any politician is through the purse. This is just another attack on our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties. Obama - just another shifty politician.

RON PAUL 2012!!!!! · 5 months ago

RON PAUL REVOLUTION...CHECK HIM OUT 2012-- ACTUAL SOLUTIONS FOR TODAY'S PROBLEMS!!!!!!!!

John · 5 months ago

Mr. Aravosis"

Thanks. Very much appreciated. Frankly I'm only surprised that everyone it surprised. You may appreciate the essays at this cite http://open.salon.com/blog/john_mortimer_esq

John · 5 months ago

See Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo
http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?se...

Mark Vega · 5 months ago

This is a solid motion to dismiss. These guys were valiant in 2004 when they first filed the action but the court does not have jurisidiction now and the plaintiffs have no standing. Still no injuries, no imminent harm. They need to drop the case and put their time and energies behind a better situated legal battle. We have many out there. Don't stop fighting, just stop fighting a losing battle. Keep supporting the war.

Walter · 5 months ago

"Dubya" was A$$ Hat Number 1; sadly, it looks like politics as usual and "O" is A$$ Hat Number 2.

munna · 5 months ago

very very niceeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Jijij · 5 months ago

I would also like to note here that he did say that congress may change this decision in the future. I am not sure that everyone grasps the kind of turmoil this country is in right now due to the crazy right wingers. I was just reading something about how they are now the biggest threat to national security. There have been threats, shootings, and bombings, and perhaps that has something to do with this decision.
The fact is that this is just not the right time for gay marriage. The majority is not ready for it. Most of them are still too tied up in homophobia and religious dogma to even consider opening their minds to the idea. I live in the South, and unfortunately, it is still extremely homophobic around here. If there was a federal decree for gay marriage, there would seriously be riots! I am not exaggerating. In the larger cities, it is acceptable to be openly gay, but in the more rural backwoods areas, it is still something that can evoke hate crimes at the very least (and no backwoods sheriff is going to report it that way if you know what I mean). I come from one of these rural areas, so I know this to be true. I moved to the city when I was a teenager and ended up making a lot of gay and lesbian friends. However, I still have family back home that would ridicule me just for associating with these people and bringing them around my kids. Seriously! If you live in California or New York or anywhere with a good sized gay population, you have no idea what's really going on in the world and how much hate is out there. I know people who want to overthrow the government because Barack Obama was elected. They would seriously do something stupid if he made Gay marriage federally legal. I seriously wish this were untrue! I wish my friends could get married. I wish it were easier for them to adopt children. I wish they could visit each other in the hospital. That breaks my heart because I know how much they love one another and I know how it would feel if I couldn't visit the most important person in my life while they were sick or dying.

However, most people (the rednecks and the religious...which makes up most people in the USA) don't see it that way. I think that generation x and beyond will change this, but until the old rednecks die, feel lucky if you live in a state where minds are open and people are allowed to have these rights. I'm sorry. I am not saying that it should be this way, but it is what it is. I really hate it, but it really is just that way. I'm sorry if my comment angers or hurts anyone, but seriously...I am just telling it like I see it and have it shoved down my throat every frigging time I visit my family! They get pissed off if Will and Grace is on the TV when they are flipping channels! I gave up trying to argue with them because they have a black and white authoritarian view. The authority is the unquestionable God. But I am working on them a little bit at a time...pointing things out when they make sense. Asking them what Jesus would do. What Jesus would say about their hatred.

That's what we all have to do. Work and whittle them down. We can't demand things and expect them to understand why they should just give them to us. They are too willfully ignorant for that. We have to show them the truth. Let them see that the reality is that there is no threat to them if gays get married. I don't know wtf they think the threat is, but it is very real to them...just as real as your right to get married is to you. I have heard people say things like that God is going to damn our country like he did Sodom and Gomorrah. They really believe that God will take his supposed blessing away from this country if gay people are allowed to get married. Try to understand and work with that and you might get somewhere.

James Nance · 5 months ago

What would Jesus do? What would Jesus say? He would probably say what He said before: "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." -- Matthew 19:4-6

DTS · 5 months ago

If you're going to be the bible thumper, it also says

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 So is rape game according to your God? Only 50 pieces of silver?

Deuteronomy 13:13-19 for example says that "god" commands you to burn down a town of non-believers and kill everyone inside as it is his will... right. .....

Ooo, more good stuff: When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21) Killing your slaves is OK according to God...

Here is Jesus APPROVING! of the beating of slaves: The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48)

The following should be killed without question according to the bible: someone who doesn't listen to a priest (Deuteronomy 17:12), witches (Exodus 22:17), gay people (Leviticus 20:13), fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27), whom ever strikes one of their parents (Exodus 21:15), cursing your parents (Proverbs 20:20)(Leviticus 20:9), adultery (any bible thumpers here ever do this one???) (Leviticus 20:10), the nonbelievers (ie, 75% of the world's population.. DEATH!) (2 Chronicles 15:12-13), this one is good - Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), working on sunday's (cops, firefighters, hospital staff, just about every these days...) you too should die according to our benevolent god (Exodus 31:12-15), killing the children!!! of sinners (all must die) (Isaiah 14:21), and so on. See a picture here about this kind and just god.

Also, for those who say the coming of Christ made the old laws irrelevant, remember “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17). "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17). Also, in Jesus' eyes, looking at another woman with lust and doing nothing is also means for death.

So I think there about 10,000,000 people on the earth at best who are not going to hell or killed on the spot. Not bad out of over 6 billion. So to all the god lovers out there, don't use your faith as justification to be anti-gay, don't pick one thing you don't like and run with it. There is a lot in there that if you did you would be locked up for a long time. Please take your dogma and go away since you are going to cherry pick just one iota of the hate in the "good book."

lawyerjim · 5 months ago

You forgot Lev 11:10-12
Just as homosexuality is an abomination, so is eating shellfish.
DEATH TO SHELLFISH EATERS!!!!!

DTS · 5 months ago

lol, DEATH TO YOU LOBSTER EATERS!!! the bible commands death to so many good people, I left out so much! My fault!

Thesolidrock · 5 months ago

First of all I am a Christian who believes in the bible. Second I don't think that being homosexual is a reason for damnation no more than being heterosexual is a reason for going to heaven.

I would like to point out that most of the rantings against the bible above are way out of context. Many uneducated Christians do the same thing take a few verses and make some inane argument that has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the chapter.

I will take Luke 12: 47-48 cited above since it is a teaching from Jesus. If you read further up it in verse 41 Peter asks if the parable is for everyone or just for those he was speaking to. So it is obvious this is a parable not to be interpreted literally. If you read throughout the new testament you will learn that the Master is God and the servant are his followers... or Christians. So these verses actually condemn hypocritical Christians and forgive those who are not! Jesus was using, as he often did, a parable to illustrate a principle.

Another example from above of a verse twisted and mangled....

John 7:19 when Jesus said Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?

Jesus is not saying that you need to obide by the old law. If you read down further it illustrates that he is pointing out the hypocrisy of the pharisees (i.e the religious Jews of that time). He points out that they were accusing him of healing a whole man on the sabbath. Guess what? This was against the old law! And he then rebukes the people for being judging him for breaking the old law when in fact the old law was impossible to keep and no one could follow it.

Incidentally that is the primary teaching of Jesus. That we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that it is by grace alone that we are saved. Read Romans and you will see the message crystal clear.

The primary point is that you shouldn't read a verse and then try to make a point without truly reading and understanding the entire passage.

And by the way, I am a Christian who loves gay people. Gay people are some of the nicest and most compassionate people. I believe this is so because of how you have been treated by our society and because of this many of you know true pain and understand compassion and have a great need for grace! God Bless!

Bill · 5 months ago

Thank you for this comment. It amazes me that pseudo-Christians think it perfectly sane to isolate one single sentence from any number of verses and take a literal meaning to the words without taking into account any context in which the sentence applies. Many haters love to run to Leviticus and numerous other passages to point out our "sin" which is an "abomination." But fail to take into account the situation surrounding these passages. As you referenced the "old" laws, the Leviticus passages are these exact laws which were void in the New Testament. If not, then children would be stoned among other atrocities. Another point I would like to make, is that if this is about any type of "moral" behavior, surely murder, rape or any number of horrific crimes against man would be considered far more vile that one person loving another person of the same sex. Yet, these heinous criminals have the right to get married. While I personally do not believe the events in the Bible actually happened, at least not in the sense as written, I do believe some guidance can be obtained from it's message. That message would be of Love, Compassion, Forgiveness and above all to not Judge. But these traits are lost to zealot Christians when it comes to homosexuals. To be perfectly honest, it really hurts me deep inside and affects me personally when I see such hatred spewed forth against our fellow brothers and sisters. And while I believe in Freedom of Speech, I certainly do not condone any call to violence which recently has come to light from various persons across the country. That to me is a huge transgression against these people's so called All Loving, All Forgiving God. While I certainly do not begrudge any one who chooses to believe in any religion's doctrine, I will not tolerate that person pushing their twisted viewpoints on me or anyone else. Likewise, I would think any sane Christians, if there are any besides you, to feel it necessary to speak out against these zealots and squash them. They are seriously chasing away anyone who would ever even consider joining your faith. Not to mention the gross distorted image of a hateful, spiteful and vengeful lot of crazies. Again, thanks for your comment. I just wish more and more "Christians" could understand what you are saying.

Zooterpust · 5 months ago

Hey, you forgot to mention spilling one's seed on the ground. Isn't that also an abomination that calls for punishment by man or god? Or do you suppose jijij never did that and so he can speak unhypocritcally about these things?

sponge · 5 months ago

Jesus doesn't make one peep about homosexuality specifically. So says my brother, who is a priest who has actually studied theology, Latin, Greek, ancient Hebrew, etc. Jesus talks a whole lot more about simply caring about your fellow man than anything else. Denying someone who loves another hospital visitation rights doesn't sound like Him, eh?

darkmoonman · 5 months ago

I suspect he'd say "Stop using my name to justify your personal hatred and persecution of others!"

Scott · 5 months ago

Who gives a rats ass what a fictitious character in a fictitious book would do? The bible is just a bunch of hateful garbage.

Patric · 5 months ago

He'd say "Pffft! I never said that. It was that jerk Matthew. He was such a hater."

Bill · 5 months ago

Just curious, is this the part that you reference in regards to Congress being able to make changes later:

Indeed, under rational basis scrutiny, Congress is entitled to respond to new social phenomena one step at a time, and to adjust national policy incrementally. DOMA reflects just such a response.

I do believe the landscape is extremely fragile and violatile, however, such a strong stance FOR it should not have been made. To say it was the lawyers, is BS and we all know it. I have made it a point to stick with him but my decision is starting to look foolish. I understand the nature of the job and the balancing act he must have to perform everyday but again, to come out so strongly pro on this issue is a blow to his sincerity and campaign. Unless, he is gearing up to do away with Marriage alltogether and promote Civil Unions for ALL. But I doubt it. Funny how when the Religious POV starts to lose steam, they are now turning to an issue of $$. And in the economy, I am afraid that angle will surely score some points. Sad!! Because the local economies will surely profit only bolstering the states economies and taxes which will float to the national level as well.

Bobi · 5 months ago

This is UNACCEPTABLE and I'm not fucking TAKING IT ANYMORE. What do we have to do to stop this shit? We have the right side ethically, legally, and the public agrees with US. March on Washington? Shut down the country? I'm in! It's WAY, WAY past time and he's not going to get away with denying us our rights anymore.

Charlie · 5 months ago

My suggestion is before the Obama administration makes it illegal to own a firearm, to get trained and get armed. Not suggesting you take firearms to a march. But you need a back up plan so the government can't just come into your home and do worse. I am not gay, but I support equal rights for everyone. In my opinion if gay people can't marry then neither should straight people. No class of people should be denied the same rights as another class. As a group gay people need to stop voting for democrats and start voting 3rd parties. There's a lot of other Bush Jr policies that Obama isn't reversing either.

raindrop · 5 months ago

Tell me one promise, pledge or commitment Obama has kept.

Some of us tried to warn you during the campaign and took a lot of grief because we said Obama was a liar and a phony.

I'm sorry to say it, but we told you so.

Maybe now would be a good time for some of the Obama supporters to say you were wrong to attack us for pointing out the truth about Obama, and maybe it's time to apologize to us.

Hillary would never have let her lawyers write such an obnoxious legal brief.

And you know it.

AoT · 5 months ago

This is a promise he made. He has consistently been against gay marriage since the primaries.

John Aravosis · 5 months ago

Candidate Hillary canceled an interview with Joe and me because her staff found out that we were going to ask her about DOMA. None of them are lily white. So spare me the effort to reignite last year's mini civil war over the campaign. We've all gotten over it. So please join us.

raindrop · 5 months ago

-- from: http://tinyurl.com/lzh3g7:

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a directive to her 30+ thousand employees stating that Domestic Partners of State Department diplomats would immediately begin receiving the same benefits as spouses. Since she is not the President, Madam Secretary can do very little to affect the despicable Defense of Marriage Act. However the Homophobe in Chief CAN do something about it. And today he did. He filed a motion to dismiss the case against the Defense of Marriage Act. In other words, Obama thinks DOMA, a federal law stipulating that no state needs to recognize same sex marriages from other states AND that the federal government does NOT recognize same sex marriages, is just FINE and DANDY!

-----------------------------------

Look, I am FOR gay rights, equal gay rights.

Your argument is not with me; it's with the Lightbringer you supported.

TheBigotBasher · 5 months ago

Her husband passed it when he had the ability to veto it.

raindrop · 5 months ago

What are you going to do about the FACT that Obama promised "he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act"?

-- from: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues....

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Barack Obama

Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Says he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. As stated on the Obama campaign Web site, he supports full civil unions that "give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights."

Says the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Advocated legislation that sought to expand federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Says the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy needs to be repealed.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

threadmonitor · 5 months ago

raindrop,

Please, no more duplicate comments.

malcolm Y · 5 months ago

muslim sharia law will not allow homosexuality. hussein obama is a national socialist muslim fanatic with a hidden agenda as per rev wright's comments. obama is not to be trusted. that is obvious. that egotistical sumnabitch thinks he's the fuhrer

Deusabscondidum · 5 months ago

Wow, Muslim Obama taking cues from a Christian preacher? We're one fucked up fascist state, then, aren't we?

J.A.S. · 5 months ago

Ms. Coulter, is that you?!

Brandon · 5 months ago

Hahahahaha, wonderful.

Heather Mac · 5 months ago

...and once again I feel like a stranger in my own country.

I volunteered for Obama. I canvassed in -10F weather (Alaska in November). I wrote almost 500 postcards. My husband in Iraq is fighting for our freedoms... doesn't that include the freedom of consenting adults to marry, regardless of gender?

Karen Page · 5 months ago

I voted for Hillary.

Jay Floyd · 5 months ago

Yep, Karen -- I did too.

killfile · 5 months ago

I voted for Nader.

Brandon · 5 months ago

Word.

TK · 5 months ago

WTF! Did Obama read this at all?

LifeTrek · 5 months ago

Battered wife syndrome is always sad and tragic -- that so many gays and lesbians keep going back to one party thinking, "this time will be different, he's changed" after 20 years of this exact same type of abuse is a sad indictment on our gay 'leaders'.

What ever happened to getting government out of our lives and our bedrooms?

(What, no one noticed Obama's anti gay lifetime friends?)

Brandon · 5 months ago

You are exactly right. I agree with everything you said here. Luckily I think the mood is finally changing and is getting more combative. I have high hopes for the October march.

As Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the Prop 8 suit, said, "If the National Democratic party does not, after 35 years of promises to our community, make sure we have full equal rights in this country, the gay divorce you are going to see is the gay communities' divorce from the Democratic party. We are a civil rights movement. It’s time we acted like one."

Elián Maricón · 5 months ago

I cannot understand why so many people are surprised about this. Have you been asleep since the primaries?

When I called Obama an anti-queer bigot on my blog Queers Against Obama, I was virtually mauled to death by a mob of gay Obamaniacs. I have been calling him out on his homophobia since his inauguration.

I was told I was "too negative" when I attacked him for the Rick Warren incident. LGBT people said I was an idiot for not recognizing the brilliance behind his strategy. "You gotta be the change you want to see", they told me.

To all you Stonewall Democrats for Obama:

Bite me.

NOW you think he might be homophobic? Hmmmm...the litany of examples I provided didn't convince you, Rick Warren didn't convince you...

Lemmings, the whole lot of you.

JeepTreats · 5 months ago

LOL. The same thing happened to me on a Black Lesbian group I belong to. I was blasted and told it was too early and not to be so negative. I calmly put them in their place with the facts and no one uttered another word in his defense.

Rick Warren's invitation to his inauguration was my wake up call.

raindrop · 5 months ago

Obama doesn't give a damn about gays; they are just one more group he suckered into voting for him by promising the moon and then delivering rotten meat.

The only thing Obama cares about is getting re-elected in 2012; once you get that through your head, the less you'll be disappointed by him.

Dave · 5 months ago

Disgusting, thats what it is, DISGUSTING!

TheBigotBasher · 5 months ago

Very nice for the Clinton aide to have said the DOJ did not need to file a defense, President Clinton did not need to pass the legislation either. We would not be having this problem then.

Where was his veto?

raindrop · 5 months ago

Yoo-hoo, Obama is the president now -- the ball is in HIS court.

Obama trolled for votes by saying, more than once, that he opposed DOMA and would work to repeal it. It is Obama's lawyers who wrote this disgusting brief.

TheBigotBasher · 5 months ago

You must have been one of the Hillary Clinton "low information voters" as you have no ability to read anything unless you agree with it.

From the very top of this page "UPDATE: Mormon Bush holdover helped write and file anti-gay DOMA brief."

Does not sound like an Obama appointed Lawyer to me.

It is not for the President to make laws, it is for Congress. Where has Congress been on this?

raindrop · 5 months ago

Well, there are other lawyers whose names appear on this brief.

One is Tony West, who -- guess what? -- was appointed by OBAMA.

"President Barack Obama yesterday announced his nomination of Morrison & Foerster partner Tony West to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice." http://tinyurl.com/llrwdx

Since Tony West is the Assistant Attorney general, he is the senior official in control of this case and this legal brief.

If you know anything about politics at the presidential level, you would know there is no way Obama's own appointee as Assistant Attorney General would file a disgusting brief like this unless he knew it would have the approval of the president who appointed him.

They could have chosen to make no defense in this matter or they could have written an entirely different sort of brief. U.S. Supreme Court Justices look at the same legal reasoning and yet come up with very different views of the legal merits of any argument.

No one required these lawyers to write this sort of brief; they knew it would please the man who sits in the Oval Office.

Zooterpust · 5 months ago

I just visited whitehouse.gov. His formerly absolutist position on doing away with Don't Ask Don't tell seems to have taken on a new inflection. It now reads: "He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security . . ." "In a sensible way"? What is that? Gays will be allowed in the kitchen only?

raindrop · 5 months ago

That joins a long list of Obama's broken promises, pledges and commitments:

-- FISA & telecom immunity
-- ending the Cuban embargo
-- NAFTA
-- DADT
-- DOMA
-- state secrets (expanded)
-- extraordinary rendition (continued)
-- accountability
-- transparency
-- allow five days of public comment before signing bills
-- accepting public funding if the Republican did (McCain did)
-- single-payer once we took back the White House, the senate and the House (we did)
-- end income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
-- recognize the Armenian genocide

Maybe you'd like to add you own "favorites" among Obama's broken promises, pledges and commitments.

fundunn · 5 months ago

it's been six months, and he's been a little busy dealing with two wars and an economic crisis. he's not a superhero

Kuyper · 5 months ago

It's clear that we can no longer rely on anyone except ourselves to defend our rights. So, do any of the gay rights advocacy organizations plan to file amicus briefs rebutting DOJ's arguments?

bsaunders · 5 months ago

So when do we start the intensive legal arguments? The irony here, to me, is that gay rights opponents are playing hardball with the law, while gay right advocates are voicing moral outrage. Moral outrage isn't going to win the fight.

Ruth Robertson · 5 months ago

The job of the president is to carry out the law. Obama has no choice unless he wants to be impeached.

I repeat: His job is to ENFORCE the law. PERIOD. That is his JOB -- nothing else.

If he starts not defending the United States in court when its laws are challenged, he will be IMPEACHED.

I never cease to be amazed at how stupid his supporters are. They don't know the basic concepts of our system of government.

It is really hard to believe that they are this stupid.

Ruth Robertson · 5 months ago

Also, most of you are surprised that Obama's a whore. How could you be so stupid?

Sophia · 5 months ago

This here is why the two party system is flawed beyond belief. It was either this or McCain. Hmm....

Laura Ariel Hoffman · 5 months ago

I guess "separate but equal" is alive and well, but we haven't even achieved "equal" in most jurisdictions. Wake up, Mr. President. This week I have been slammed as a Jew by your former minister/mentor. Now you. Count me VERY disappointed.

TomSE · 5 months ago

Un..believable. Some further thoughts on it
http://mtmbloglife.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/que...

robert · 5 months ago

Obama understands the "will of a people"......against our collective better judgment, there will have to be a "no justice, no peace" moment to take/be allowed our rightful place at the table......the march on Washington must be it!

DTS · 5 months ago

Count me in.

Ther Catholic · 5 months ago

Just another typical, full of $-hit, politician !

Disillusioned · 5 months ago

Voter's Remorse, anyone?

TheBigotBasher · 5 months ago

No as we have a President who will sign and not VETO a bill to repeal DOMA and DADT. You can not say that of the wife of a Politician who passed the thing in the first place or McLame Palin.

America has still made the best choice. If he vetoes any such bill, then maybe GLBT have a right to riot.

Do not let stupid bigots try and con you into supporting their agenda, especially the idiot "PUMA" Hillary supporters infecting this post on instruction from a fraudulent PAC.

SeaTea · 5 months ago

If you think that McCain would have been friendlier, you're living in a dream world.

JS · 5 months ago

I voted for Hillary...

Coonbasher · 5 months ago

"He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level."

What else did you expect? This is TNB: Typical N1663r Behaviour. Those jaboons got theirs, and to hell with everyone else.

Bill · 5 months ago

This is where a line has to be drawn. For years, whenever I would even remotely compare the Gay Civil Rights Movement with the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, blacks have come crashing down on me. They have a point to an extent. Their argument comes from the fact that while we as homosexuals can basically blend into mainstream society and function on a somewhat normal level, they of course could not. Why? Obviously because of the their skin color. They were judge solely on their skin color. We as the LGBT community are not judged on skin color which is something obviously genetic and a person is born with. Instead we are judged solely on the fact that we are deemed unnatural and defy the natural law of nature - that being male with female. It is still highly questionable to mainstream America about whether or not this is genetic, environmental or both. Honestly, with all the research I have been doing, I have begun to question this as well. As a gay man, I KNEW from as early as the age of 5 that I was "different." Didn't really know how to define "different" but I KNEW. I grew into my homosexuality but unfortunately I fit all the stereotypical characteristics, so I can not be a subject of study. By this I mean, an absent father, an abusive step father, same sex sexual abuse coupled with low self esteem. Now, I do believe deep down, that there is something to the born this way theory but I also believe environmental issues contribute as well. How else to explain those who realize later in life they are gay with no memory whatsoever of feeling different as a child? I don't know the answers to these questions, I just know that if I had a conscious decision in this matter, I WOULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN this lifestyle. While my sexuality is not changeable, we can certainly "choose" to live a hetero lifestyle. This is where I think the argument of choice gets muddled. But then I ask those people how would they like to be held prisoner inside their bodies and not ever be able to truly love the person you love and be able to show the world? They probably wouldn't know how to answer that or they would change the subject like always. Getting back to the black issue, I think in this fight, we need to keep it separate. To use such language as expressed in you comment is vile and certainly flammable. The only thing comments like these will net will be a more defensive mind set. We are not and should not be looking to incite the opposition any further but rather seeking to open their minds to see our Point of View. Therefore, while I certainly do see similarities and parallels, I think it extremely important to leave the name calling to the ignorant and concentrate on the love and compassion we all feel about this issue. I know I have gotten pretty pissed off in dealing with a lot of ignorant, closed minded bigots, but I have taken several deep breaths and refrained from stooping to their level. Remember the debates between Obama and McCain. McCain face would turn so red it looked like it would explode at any second while Obama remained calm cool and collected. That is the way to win this fight. As far as Obama, I am teetering on turning against him. But I still have a grain of faith left in me that this isn't over and that there is some angle he is aiming for. We just don't know what it is yet. Previous comments have posted about the current climate, especially in the South. I live in Texas and I can tell you for sure the feelings here are mixed. Imagine in rural states and in backwater towns. We just have to wait patiently and strike when the iron is hot. Several states are already turning to our way of thinking. We need to let more and more states adopt equal rights for gay and lesbian couples then re submit our argument. Also, we need to wait until the SC has turned from conservative to liberal which I believe will happen soon. All in due time.

William Shannonhouse · 5 months ago

Oh, sweet. A gay racist bigot. Nice.

MK · 5 months ago

This is disgraceful. Write to the White House and complain. Repeatedly.

Anonymous Coward · 5 months ago

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
---
This is what will happen if 2nd amendment rights supporters don't stick up for gay marriage supporters and vice versa.

Anonymous Coward's Critiquer · 5 months ago

Way to rip off Pastor Martin Niemöller without giving credit.

Somebody who is actually smart · 5 months ago

Shut up and stop complaining. If you have a problem, you go FIX IT. You don't complain and march around with signs, such things are useless. Show the public that the gay community is to be feared

William Shannonhouse · 5 months ago

A gay terrorist. Yeah, that's just what we need. That'll fix things, as terrorizing always has! Yew betcha!
I'd like to see your program, self proclaimed Smart Guy.

Civil rights for black people was won by nonviolent displays of courage, steadiness and integrity. Our main strategy was nonviolent protest, and as with Gandhi vs. the British in India, it proved mightily effective.

A minority trying to instill fear in a majority will not lead to effective goal achievement, but rather backlash and violence.
Yer not only not very smart, you are also rather ignorant!

Mike in DC · 5 months ago

Wow - you really said that? What about the 1955 bus boycott in Montgomery or the 1963 children's marches in Birmingham or the 1963 March on Washington where King gave his "I have a dream" speech? These marches effectively brought the African American struggle for civil rights to the forefront of the World's public consciousness. They propelled court cases and legislation that struck down Jim Crow laws and gave disenfranchised blacks in the South full voting rights. I THINK PEACEFUL PROTEST IS A MAGNIFICENT WAY TO EFFECT CHANGE!

Brandon Jones · 5 months ago

"He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level."

Please tell me that you know there are black gay people. Because this statement makes it sound like you think the two are mutually exclusive... along with most of the gay media outlets. Instead of drawing a line between the civil rights movements of the past and the ones ongoing today, why haven't gay leaders sought to align themselves with those still alive who marched back then?

Justin · 5 months ago

There are some who have. However, the African-American community is generally very homophobic compared to whites, which is saying something considering how homophobic white can be.

Karrie in DC · 5 months ago

This makes me sick.

Paul · 5 months ago

When are people going to wake up and realize that every campaign promise is nothing more than a lie to get your vote. Obama will have a damned difficult time garnering the same voter base if he doesn't get his shit together. His brief has to be one of two things: A. It was intentionally written to be blatantly contrary to the fundamental principals of the Constitution and legal rights of American citizens, thereby allowing the courts to rule in favor of its overturning and preserving Obama's political clout, OR B. He is the antithesis of everything he represented himself to be during the campaign.

If the latter is proven to be true, he is worse than George Bush because with Bush, you knew what you were getting!

AK Writter · 5 months ago

Though I am not fluent on which specific legislation Gay's are striving for in the short term, I am sure that the Gay community is looking for full equal rights - as every American should enjoy - for the long term. Rapper 'Nas' said it best: "To civilize those around us is a slow process" as history has proven. There is no question that the issue for Gay rights is an urgent one and has become even more urgent under this President. The hopes and aspirations of everyone, from every community, lies on his shoulders. Like Obama, I feel the struggle and pain from the Gay community though we may not fully comprehend it. And like Obama I do know this; striving for an America in which everyone is fully equal, even if you are gay, is a long, arduous endeavor which takes more than some executive order, or some expedient legislation passed through congress. To be a true advocate for Gay rights, you have to be a fighter in today's social climate. And to be a fighter, you have to dedicate time and effort of a great magnitude. Perhaps as much time as solving Health Care, ending Two Wars, or even fixing the economy. As a person who supports equal rights for all, I believe the process has to be undertaken with as much care and diligence as trying to solve any of the forementioned issues. And if it is to be done in that way, a quick - fix solution should not be concocted just to satisfy a certain people. Lets allow this president to make progress in Health Care, and the Economy, - and as those issues become more manageable, I'm willing to bet the required amount of attention needed for Gay Rights will get its due.
I'm not saying this issue should be put off, nor am I saying there will be ever be a convenient time to take this on - its far to important. But what I am saying is keep your faith and let time - not your expectations - be the judging barometer of this President. And hopefully for the people as well.

Sam · 5 months ago

While I agree that the case did not show due cause, I have to object with the language Obama's assistant attorney general uses in his motion. To mention status quos and scarce resources - especially from the administration of a President who stresses the importance of change, and believes that throwing America's resources, including money we don't have, can solve any problem - when speaking about the fed's stance on gay marriage gives me indigestion

lolzz · 5 months ago

TL;DR

Kris Martinez · 5 months ago

I want to marry my girlfriend. Not my niece. What sick krap is this? did obama say gay marriage = incest??! ugh!

Samia · 5 months ago

"He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level."

You write as if these are two mutually exclusive groups.

DragonMama · 5 months ago

So if the state shouldn't be made to recognize one another's legal marriages, should they have to recognize one another's legal divorces? As the adult (heterosexually married) child of a (heterosexually married) couple who divoced when I was 2 so that my "father" could go marry someone 10 years his junior and start a whole new family, I don't really feel like DOMA defends MY marriage. Want to defend marriage? Make it harder to get out of than "I just don't feel like being married to you anymore, even tho we have kids". THAT would defend my marriage. Don't base it on the gender of the people involved at all. Want a divorce? Prove that you've done the work to try to SAVE your precious marriage first (unless there's a real reason - such as abuse - that necessitates a quicker process). Stiffen domestic violence laws and penalties, and ENFORCE them. Gay marriage isn't a drain on resources, serial heterosexual marriage is. If it's really a financial issue and a "but what about the children" thing, then do something that actually has an effect on THAT instead of this stupid bigotted BS (so sayth the physically challenged white mother in an interracial marriage)

jrodr · 4 months ago

The government can and does have the power to legislate marriage. To deny this is to deny almost 223 years of government regulation of marriage law and jurisprudence in the United States (and far more around the world in other cultures more ancient than ours).

In a democratic society, it is inevitable that various individuals and groups will have their own conceived notions of what it means to be happy, or how this happiness must be obtained, or pursued. While the Declaration of Independence (not the US Constitution as some believe) enumerates that the "pursuit of happiness" is one of the unalienable rights, it does not specify what this means. Just what the pursuit of happiness means is something the people ultimately determine, as the Mormon's found out in the late Nineteenth century when polygamy was banned, first by legislative action (The Edmunds-Tucker Act) and later upheld by the US Supreme Court (Reynolds v. United States). Clearly, the voice of the people was against legalizing polygamy.

Why?

Because the voice of the people, upheld by the decision of the highest court in the land, determined that polygamy was not in the best interest of society and could not be justified as a legitimate "pursuit of happiness" because of the supposed threat this practice posed to society.

Using the current reasoning of same sex marriage advocates:

One could argue that polygamists were actively "pursuing happiness" and expressing their right to form sexually intimate relationships among consenting adults, in the privacy or their homes, and ultimately to solemnize these intimate relationships within the bonds of holy matrimony. So what if they weren’t born polygamists? What possible relevance could this have from a “secular” point of view?

One could argue that the "people" had no business imposing their moral judgments upon them or making them conform to what the "majority" determines is good and proper. When gay and lesbian advocates for same sex marriage express abhorrence at the practice of polygamy, aren’t they making a moral judgment? Would they on the one hand take the moral high ground and justify their right to pursue their happiness, and on the other, dismiss polygamist’s desire to pursue their happiness based on some irrational and invidious abhorrence to the practice of polygamy?

One could argue," what business does the government have in intruding upon the lives of ordinary citizens who are merely trying to form loving relationships and solemnizing them in marriage in accordance with their “civil and religious rights? "

Please understand, I am not comparing gays and lesbians to polygamists, nor advocating in their favor: but even if I was, from a purely "secular" perspective, so what? The analogy speaks for itself.

And that is the point exactly.

Since Massachusetts became the first state in the union to allow same sex marriage (and this by judicial fiat) only five other states allow same sex marriages while a whopping 38 states have moved to prohibit same sex marriage through legislative acts. Like the Mormons and polygamy, the voice of the people is against legalizing same sex marriage. And just like the Mormons and polygamy, the courts on the federal level opined that same sex marriage VIOLATES our understanding of how marriage has come to be defined within the cultural, political and social context of the United States, and that limiting marriages to opposite sex couples does not offend neither our collective understanding of marriage, nor the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (see Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 Minn 1971; US Supreme Court 409 U.S. 810 1972.).

Can the voice of the people overrule the rights of others? Yes. Can the government intrude upon the rights of others? It has done so in the past. Can the courts uphold the voice of the people? If history has taught us anything, they most assuredly can.

PeteWa · 3 months ago

TL;DR:
blah blah blah concern troll, blah blah blah gays are bad, but don't be mad at me for saying so blah blah blah.

my response: foad.

derp · 1 month ago

Dur dur dur, I'm too dumb to acknowledge an intelligent argument.

Amidoinitrite?

PeteWa · 1 month ago

No, dumbass, you are not.
Like an idiot, you are responding to a post that is over a month old.
Go back to playing your video game.

Name · 1 month ago

And you responded to one 2 months prior.
Your own logic is quite hypocritical.

PeteWa · 1 month ago

no, dipshit, I responded to your post the same day you made it - however, you were responding to something a month old.
like a true idiot, you think you 'won' something here, but since you are such a moron, once again you are wrong*.

in other words:
urnotdoinitrite

now go back to your video game, loser.

*since I know you didn't figure it out while you were busy drooling on your shoes how I commented on a post that John originally posted in June - look at the "update" at the top of the post, which, since you are still stuck with your finger up your nose trying to understand, means this post was REPOSTED by the blog owner when I originally posted.

Name · 1 month ago

Congratulations failing to read properly "Dipshit".
This isn't even the same person.

And I was talking about the comment you made before your reply.
You responded to an argument that had been posted 2 months before your own post.

So you can go back to being a hypocrite while I find something better to do than fuel your self-righteous crusade to prove yourself right.

PeteWa · 1 month ago

So you're just another random drooling idiot who doesn't understand how blogs work?
And you just randomly decided to defend some other moron who you don't even know?
Yeah, right.
And even after I explained it to you, you still can't figure out that I posted that response when the actual entire blog post had been reposted, rather than just randomly trolling through old blog posts, fishing for a "gotcha" moment in the comments and failing, like you have chosen to do?

Your idiocy is really impressive.

Josef · 3 days ago

dur dur dur, I'm self righteous and angry for no reason.

printer · 4 months ago

I vote for you .... printer

ShamanOfHedon · 2 months ago

*head explodes*

jdershel · 1 month ago

*Sigh*

Marriage is not a civil right. The government may choose to subsidize or tax behavior as they see appropriate.

Why are people still bitching about this?

cowboyneok · 1 month ago

Because marriage is beyond "behavior." Marriage is a civil right.

Klad InVermont · 1 month ago

My partner and I were just married this past weekend, here in Vermont, and I can testify that YES there is a difference between being married and having a civil union. It feels different, more real, more part of society in general and not a substitute for what str8 people already enjoy.

harmony rose · 14 hours ago

I only read the title and this has to be a joke.