AMERICAblog: The Choice to Defend DOMA, and Its Consequences
nicho
· 5 months ago
I tell you one thing -- all the apologists than Rahm has sent out over the weekend aren't making things any better.Their constant harping on discredited talking points is pissing me off more and more. It's telling me this was a calculated move and now they're trying to blow smoke up our asses. Fuckers.
No support FOR gays = No support FROM gays.
The crucial question at this point is that, with everything that's going one, is Obama really in charge of his own administration or is someone else giving the orders. It's seeming more and more like he's not really running things.
terrya
· 5 months ago
I've been reading these "Obama isn't responsible for this" thing (god help me, I even went to DU. UGH).
I guess I drew the wrong lessons when I was taught about the 3 branches of the United States Government in grade school.
Because I learned that the President of the United States is the head of the Executive Branch of the government. And, unless it has been changed in the past few days, the Department of Justice is a part of the Executive Branch.
And it isn't just "The Buck Stops Here" from Harry Truman....the lead attorney on that DoJ brief, Tony West, is an Obama appointee. As others far more educated and qualified to speak on this has said, Tony West was the DoJ official who approved of this disgusting brief...hideously insulting, homophobic language and all.
IF the White House didn't know about this, I dearly hope it is brought to Robert Gibbs' attention tomorrow at the White House briefing. I hope perhaps that Kerry Eleveld from The Advocate (who grilled Gibbs in the past about DADT repeal) will bring this to Gibbs' attention.
Õ¿Õ
· 5 months ago
You are correct, sir.
Riley
· 5 months ago
The excuse that the Obama Admin HAD to enforce the DOMA law as law is CRAP! Just in March, Obama instructed Attny General Holder to STOP enforcing the Federal Drug laws regarding medical marijuana in states where it is legal. This was 180 degree about face from the Bush Admin who WERE prosecuting dispensers of medical marijuana in those states. Did the legislation change? NO! Was Congress involved? NO! So this argument is NOT credible. We are just seeing the TRUE colors of Obama which was clearly augured when he materically changed his 1996 stance from unequivocable support of gay marriage AND his selection of Rev. Warren for his inauguration invocation. That combined with his glaring silence on the Prop 8 ruling and recent controversial DADT firings, and you have a president I will no longer defend or support. Fox news, Rush, Newt, Cheney, Senate and House Repugs - I don't care anymore what you say about Obama anymore! Have at him!
jasonut29
· 5 months ago
Although, I am furious with Obama because I do feel he has used us and will continue to use us BUT we should be just as angry with the Democrats in congress. Why aren't we demanding that they get a bill in front of the Presidet to overturn DOMA and DADT? Their sitting on their asses doing nothing that I can see to protect our rights. What about all of you who actually had the opportunity to vote for a Democrat that is now setting in Congress. They should be getting an email from you everyday until they have an answer that is acceptable. Politicians seem to be cowards by nature, fighting only for their next election survival. If they are not representing us we need to get them removed, I wish I could but I'm in the second reddest state in the union (Idaho).
HRC called the other day asking for another membership donation..I told them until I saw some action on their part that wasn't silent on all of the issues that are going on right now I didn't want to hear from them again. This is an organization that's fundamental function is suppose to be to help us gain our rights and they have done nothing. So folks I'm so there when someone has something to say that the President will hear, I'm so there if I can help get someone real elected and I am definetly there on the day we force HRC to pull they heads out and start representing us.
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
I am glad you addressed HRC.
It isn't just Congress. By the way, where are Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin?
Where are the groups that are supposed to be speaking up for us? Jason is absolutely right. Demand accountability from groups like HRC, or cut off the money.
Also, where is the rest of the media? Rachel Maddow? Keith Olbermann? Hello!
db78751
· 5 months ago
Barney Frank is losing his backbone on all this. Now he's defending the DOJ brief? It's either Stockholm syndrome or he's more comfortable just being another housefaggot. Step aside, Barney, let the lesbian get things done!
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
Of course, the Ds are doing nothing, and our groups need to start taking some prisoners.
Riley
· 5 months ago
Actually on Friday HRC, EQCA, and the ACLU all featured this story on their homepage with Joe Solomese posting his letter of outrage to Obama. They also emailed a petition to add your name to another letter to the president. http://www.hrc.org/12905.htm
timncguy
· 5 months ago
it's time for Joe Solmonese to break his silence and tell us what the Obama "secret plan" is that he was so enthused about when the white house explained it to him. He assured us they have a "plan".
Was it just that proclamation? Because I'm not real thrilled with the plan I see unfolding to date.
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
I think it's great that they all signed a strong statement (even though the letter failed to mention the incest atrocity). I do however think that we're now beyond the point of strong statements. We need answers, and we need action. We need to know how this brief came about, who signed off on it, and we need our groups and members of Congress to demand that Obama act on his promises now.
ScottLanter
· 5 months ago
Amazing stuff. Obama appears to have no qualms about throwing the glbt community under the bus. It's astounding to see him attack us so viciously behind the scenes and in the fine print of legal documents where he compares us to child rapists and people engaging in bestiality. He has lost my support completely. There are no more excuses when he spreads this type of pure bigotry.
mirth
· 5 months ago
Wonderful, clearly written post. Because of it, I understand this issue much better.
What I most understand is that, given Obama's many statements of support for Gay equal rights and his abhorrence of DOMA, the Brief wording is incomprehensible. And no matter what snafus may have occurred in crafting it, the responsibility for its language is Obama's.
mwdavis
· 5 months ago
Thank you. I really appreciate the perspective and the clear argument.
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
And no one to date who has spoken out, other than Obama's own DOJ, has the first-hand knowledge of how these things actually work inside an administration - or in Richard's case, quite literally inside the Oval Office.
shano
· 5 months ago
My question is: How do you go about "challenging" this document?
Gary SF
· 5 months ago
I too remain hopeful. But it is clear that we do NOT have a friend in the White House and as difficult as it is to face that reality, we must do so. (As an aside, those who insist upon saying 'I told you so' are NOT helping at all, so put a lid on it).
What is troubling about this DOMA issue is that there are many LGBTs and supporters who continue to defend Obama. They say things such as "Obama didn't know about this defense" or that "it is just procedure to defend the law."
We have to be clear in convincing them that this is not the case. Part of the problem is that there is a ton of good analysis, mixed with justifiable outrage, all over the Internet and it is difficult to synthesize the issue.
Back to what we do: Most paths will lead to equality. History has taught us that there is no ONE method to use. The DC 'cocktail-party' activists should continue with their efforts, but I am thinking that we need ACT UP 2.0, a kinder-gentler but equally effective activist group to start working on our issues.
Getting back to my synthesis: We need a group to develop concise messages that we all use. The purpose of the messages are to garner popular support and to counter the very effective messages of our enemies
Again, there is no ONE effort that will lead to equality.
Seansmith
· 5 months ago
Completely, wholeheartedly, agree with this.
gnomic
· 5 months ago
Dear Obama Administration
I'm a 45yo married guy that, on first glance, doesn't have a dog in this race. But I do. I don't want my son growing up in a country that has legally defined a second class citizen. It is poison to the republic. It is also against the ideas you have espoused, so why are you putting political convenience before basic rights? Do you really want the label of "Uncle Tom" on this issue?
Please quit trying to find common ground on the basic issues of rights and justice. Quit trying to pick the right place and time for a fight on these issues. They are doing you and your administration a disservice and you are giving up your credibility on issues that you don't want to be on the wrong side of.
You can lead on all the issues. It won't be easy. But it is necessary.
mamazboy
· 5 months ago
Beautifully said, gnomic. And very welcome. Thanks.
Gary SF
· 5 months ago
Oops, where are my manners: Welcome Richard and thanks for the great post! Any relation to Charles?
liberalart
· 5 months ago
I don't understand how you didn't see this coming? Well I assume that you saw it coming but I couldn't understand how you both, John and Joe, could go so hard for Obama over Hillary after he went on a homophobic gospel tour of the South to drum up black support, then put a homophobe on the dais at he inauguration.
Even if you had bigger issues with Hillary, I couldn't believe how quickly you guys forgot or set aside that ex-gay gospel tour. It was clear then that the gay community was the lowest constituency on his agenda. Time and time again since he's placed even Republicans and folks with assault weapons higher.
So while Hillary says State will fight for gay rights around the world, those same rights are, at best, on a back burner here. Denial of gay rights is a means to build support with conservatives for the administration's higher priorities and that's an exact parallel with what happened in SC during the Primaries.
I think what Obama's doing is reprehensible but expedient and typical. It's also exactly what he's always done... at least he'll probably get to gay rights after he's fixed the economy and brought peace to the Middle East.
cosanostradamus
· 5 months ago
. I'm sure big 0 will get around to it. On the last day of his last term. Right after the pardons. .
nicho
· 5 months ago
The way things are going, the last day of his last term could well be in January of 2013. And, the last two years of his one and only term could be with at least one house of the Congress in GOP hands -- although it's hard to see what the difference would be.
For that not to happen, he's going to have to convince all he's going to have to convince all the right wingers he's pandering to to donate, work for, and vote for Dem candidates in 2010.
cosanostradamus
· 5 months ago
. Yeah. DINO's & Repukes out in 2010 & 2012. Obama with them if he doesn't join the majority left of center. He's WAY right, now, and that's just WRONG. .
FNReedie
· 5 months ago
How do we get the media to pick up on this story? Even Rachel Maddow missed it on Friday ...
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
I was shocked that Rachel didn't cover this.
Gary SF
· 5 months ago
There was something up with the news cycles on Friday - this story didn't hit the 'front page' of SFGate (the San Francisco Chronicle's page) until Friday night, West Coast time.
I look forward to commentary by both Rachel and Keith on Monday. Actually what I really want is for the Obama administration to rescind its motion, if that is possible.
run_dmc
· 5 months ago
What makes you hopeful? Really. Obama invited openly anti-gay (actually worse - "reformed gay") preachers and gospel singers to campagin events and he counts as good friends and mentors homophobes like Rep. Meeks. He refused to march in the Chicago Pride parade during the campaign even though he was in Chicago, preferring instead to get his hair cut. He refused to get a picture taken with "gay-marriage friendly" Gavin Newsome. He has been adamant about his belief that marriage must be between a man and a woman and allowed his voice to be used in robocalls in CA in favor of Prop 8. He invited open homophobe and sexist Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. Yet, the LGBT community chose to believe his nice words that he would be their "fierce advocate," rather than his pretty clear actions.
In the face of all this and now his "fierce advocacy" for DADT and DOMA, you are still hopeful? Why? Hope is not what we need. We need to face facts that he is hostile to gay rights and we need real protest every day and in every way until he changes.
banshiii
· 5 months ago
Thanks John. And welcome Richard. Yea, the writing is kind of on the wall, no? Still baffleing. For sure we need to be communicating with our dem friends. Next, we need some action steps. I love the idea of sending back our campaign stuff we have around to the white house. Then pressure on everyone. e v e r y o n e. Then an organized effort, to move registrations, en mass, say around the last part of the year?
MikeAustinTX
· 5 months ago
At age 54-year old gay man I have lived through the "promises" of the Clinton Administration and the hostility of the Bush years. I supported President Obama & I looked forward to the day when his campaign's slogans about true equality for the GLBT communities would be enacted. As a law school graduate and former political science professor I understand the nuances of administrative rule making and the president's role in advancing policy that conflicts with the other co-equal branches of government. IMHO, the president had choices and he made the politically expedient choice to throw my community under the bus. I've read the DOJ's brief and I agree that parts of it were completely unnecessary to advance the DOJ's stated goals. I am disgusted with the president's policy choice and I am now honestly considering moving abroad. If this is what we get from our "fierce advocate," I'm not waiting around for more of his advocacy. I will move to a nation that respects me which is something I can no longer expect in my own country.
Spain officially recognizes same-sex marriage, but, like the US, is kind of homophobic outside the major cities. It's still a very "macho" culture. But, having said that, I'd consider moving there. Just don't have any illusions.
There was just a case in Spain where two gay men, partners, were brutally murdered by a guy who claimed the "gay panic" defense. He stabbed them something like 50 times, tied them up, and set their house on fire. The jury let him off.
nicho
· 5 months ago
Trolls parroting Rahm's talking point that Obama and DOJ "had no choice" in 3...2...1...
nicho
· 5 months ago
Right-wing Christians are absolutely giddy about Obama's "flip flop" on gay rights
Well put. And thank you for a cogent rebuttal to our fair weather friends who preach patience.
Now it's time to plaster the words 'FAIL', 'HYPE' or 'LIAR' over our 'HOPE' signs and bumper stickers.
And time to make it clear to the Democrats and the progressive community that Obama has lost a core constituency. They'll be mad at us at first, but when they see we're serious, and that a gaping chasm has opened up in the middle of his base, they'll start asking their infallible savior why he would do such a thing.
sgiffy
· 5 months ago
From my experience, in a case where, as here, there are important political and social issues at stake, the president’s relationship with the Justice Department should work like this: The president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.
This seems like a rather dangerous precedent to me. Lets say its 2013, Obama loses to a republican, who is hostile to the national health care plan Obama had enacted. Congress is still in support, but a lawsuit has been filed by disgruntled libertarians who think government health care is unconstitutional. Should the president be able to compel the justice department to not defend the law?
As much as I hate DOMA, I think that almost without exception the justice department should defend lawfully adopted laws against challenges.
mamazboy
· 5 months ago
Did the DOJ have the "duty" to call us incestuous pedophiles?
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
I tend to agree. It's not sufficient simply that the President's policy preferences conflict with a statute. The President has a constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." But I do think that when the Attorney General has a sincere and well supported view (fuzzy I know) that a law violates the Constitution, I see no reason why he must defend it. After all, as we saw in the recent Prop 8 case in California, courts are free to uphold a law even if every government official in the state argues that they should strike it down.
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
It's not a precedent. It's the way things work. Huge difference. He's not proposing something new. He's telling you literally how it works in the Oval Office when dealing with DOJ and legislation you don't like on an important social and political issue.
An_American_Karol
· 5 months ago
It's apparent if there is going to be equal rights for ALL Americans, it's going to come from the people not this administration.
DaveinNorthridge
· 5 months ago
Great post, Richard. I have only one question:
If you held the same position in the Obama administration that you held in the Clinton administration, would you have resigned based on this and held a press conference to explain why?
I'm convinced that something of that sort has to happen for this administration to understand it can't be business-as-usual with its glbtq base any more. If not now, when?
skeptic49
· 5 months ago
The gay community has for too long been in bed with the Democratic Party. This marriage of convienence has garnered us nothing but grief (DADT, DOMA, etc.) Those who voted for Obama did so knowing of his opposition to gay marriage at a time when such marriages were already legal in some states. I didn't vote for him and I'm angered but not surprised by Obama. When will we realize that we must wage a struggle for our rights that is independent of a reliance on any one political party in the manner of MLK and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s? Until we do this we can expect to be thrown under the nearest vehicle once our "fierce advocates" get elected.
chandler_in_lasvegas
· 5 months ago
Richard, aren't you the guy with the crazy discredited ex-gay therapy dad?
Well YOU are in the right place.
nicho
· 5 months ago
What a disgusting prick you are. Las Vegas is a good place for you -- lots of freaks there.
threadmonitor
· 5 months ago
I agree, nicho, and removed the comments. If he wants to keep his commenting privileges, he won't write more of them.
chandler_in_lasvegas
· 5 months ago
Dear Nico, I am so sorry you misunderstood me. I think that pointing out that Richard is the son of Charles, the ex-gay discredited psychotherapist was of note.
nicho
· 5 months ago
Nope -- you're still a prick.
offspring
· 5 months ago
we need a new act up
Joe
· 5 months ago
The basic argument seems to be "Obama wasn't required to defend DoMA, so he shouldn't have."
Has everyone forgotten George W. Bush, who was hated in part because he did exactly the same thing being demanded here?
Bush signed hundreds of signing statements reserving to himself the power to enforce or not enforce laws because he deemed them "unconstitutional"--usurping the courts of the right to say what's constitutional and not.
Did we on the Left think that was a good thing? If not, then why are we asking Obama to do exactly the same thing now?
Do we really want a president who decides for himself what to enforce and what not, what's constitutional and what's not?
It's for the CONGRESS to decide what laws to pass (and to repeal), and for COURTS to decide what's constitutional.
(sorry for repeat comment, posted in the wrong thread before.)
nicho
· 5 months ago
Keep those apples away from those oranges. The example you cite isn't even close to this.
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
I don't think anyone's suggesting that a President shouldn't ENFORCE the law or that he should unilaterally start disobeying a statute he doesn't like. But that doesn't mean he has to argue in court that a law is constitutional when he doesn't believe that it is constitutional. And even if he does decide to defend the law in court, that certainly doesn't mean he has to throw in the kitchen sink and advance every possible anti-gay argument to support that defense. You are quite right that the courts are the ultimate judges of whether a law is constitutional, and if they disagree with the president, they are free to uphold the law over his objections and force him to continue to follow it.
Gary SF
· 5 months ago
Bush signed executive orders to avoid the laws. The DOMA issue is about the Obama administration's choosing to defend DOMA when he said that he would work to repeal it. Choosing not to defend laws in court is very different than executive orders to avoid the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts agrees that not filing a defense is legal, valid and sometimes the appropriate thing to do.
Joe
· 5 months ago
See my comment to you above.
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
WRONG. If i hear one more person put forward this canard. We were not angry at Bush because he exercised his legal prerogatives. We were angry at him for breaking the law. Huge difference. Yes, we hated him for his policies, even the legal ones - but that's what happens when you lose an election, the bad guy does things you don't like. But Bush's signing statements, I do not believe, were legal. Electronic eavesdropping, illegal. Torture, illegal and a war crime.
We are asking Obama to exercise his right as president to oppose a piece of congressional legislation.
What is wrong with you? Seriously, I cannot believe any serious progressive is buying the administration's position that they had to bash the gays and compare us to incest, and undermine our future civil rights cases, in order to show what good human beings they are.
Good god.
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
John, I couldn't agree more. This is a manifestation of that peculiar sort of tunnel vision that Joe's post talked about yesterday. Law school seems to instill this bizarre view in some people (or maybe law school attracts this type of person, hard to say which). The idea that Obama and DOJ have some kind of legal, ethical or moral obligation to make these horrendous and offensive arguments in a lawsuit is absurd.
wister
· 5 months ago
I'm confused. Didn't this man advise the president who gave us DOMA? And now he's critical of Obama because...?
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Richard did not agree with Clinton's decision to sign DOMA.
nicho
· 5 months ago
Don't upset the new talking point. This one is already making the rounds. Obama Damage Control is working overtime on cranking out talking points.
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
LOL! There do seem to be a lot of trolls reading this thread, don't there?
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
So your point is... Clinton gave us DOMA so it's okay for Obama to screw us too. Lovely. I tend to hold my politicians, and human beings to higher standards.
Wisterley
· 5 months ago
No. My point is why is he a trusted advisor when he is at least as corrupt as anyone working for Obama. And I'll thank you not to get huffy with me.
Gib Wallis
· 5 months ago
Should Richard Socarides, Clinton's LGBT advisor for DADT & signing & campaigningon DOMA be respected for critiquing Obama's DOMA filing?!?
Absolutely not. Notice how he tries to credentialize himself by invoking his advisory role to Clinton first, and then saying that as an insider, he knows that it's possible -- although very, very hard -- for a President to submit a DOJ brief that does *not* support any specific law.
Socarides says it's only possible when there's an advocate in the administration who cares a lot.
So Obama should have a gay advisor?
Maybe. But did it work out well for the LGBT community with Socarides advising Clinton?
Not at all!
So the line of reasoning misses the facts that Socarides is at the center of.
Being the advisor to Bill Clinton when he signed DADT and DOMA -- and then CAMPAIGNED on DOMA for re-election is not a good credential for discussing Obama's shortcomings on filing a brief for a law that Clinton signed into law.
The gall here is breathtaking. As is the complete lack of taking responsibility on the part of Socarides.
There's no remorse, no "Whoops! Clinton messed up and I was hoping Obama would fix it."
What we need is for the LGBT communities to focus on the legislature -- who can repeal DADT and DOMA -- rather than focus on the executive branch and Obama -- which can't.
My suspicion is that Obama *might* get around to LGBT concerns later on, but it's not really on his agenda for the first year at all. I also suspect that the DOJ filing, with a retained Bush appointee Mormon homophobe writing the brief, is a major failing of Obama's for being an executive managing his own image. Obama's taking a lot of flack -- and rightfully so -- but I bet it's because he couldn't be bothered to know who was on board and filing the brief and doing damage than out of any animus.
Joe
· 5 months ago
Also, this point by sgiffy is outstanding and well worth repeating:
------ (Socarides)
From my experience, in a case where, as here, there are important political and social issues at stake, the president’s relationship with the Justice Department should work like this: The president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.
(Sgiffy)
This seems like a rather dangerous precedent to me. Lets say its 2013, Obama loses to a republican, who is hostile to the national health care plan Obama had enacted. Congress is still in support, but a lawsuit has been filed by disgruntled libertarians who think government health care is unconstitutional. Should the president be able to compel the justice department to not defend the law?
-----
Exactly. Do we really want some future president that kowtows to the radical right, to undo whatever progress for the environment, energy, LGBT rights, etc. the previous president made, simply because he doesn't agree with the policy? Should he simply be able to direct DOJ not to enforce or defend laws he doesn't like?
Seems like terrible precedent to me.
Gary SF
· 5 months ago
It isn't precedent. At least 4 presidents chose not to defend 'laws' or rulings and nobody worried about precedence. Follow this link:
You will find that this has been done by: * George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta) * Bill Clinton Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States) * George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. FCC) * Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha)
Given that Obama said that he was going to work to repeal DOMA, and given that Obama's own professors find parts of DOMA unconstitutional, we had a very reasonable expectation that the Obama adminsitraion would defend DOMA, or minimally, defend the US on technicalities.
Joe
· 5 months ago
I remember Chadha from law school con class ("legislative veto"). So you have an obscure INS case, a Miranda warnings case, a case protesting censorship of ads advocating marijuana, and a case involving certain preferences for minority-owned businesses in issuance of broadcast licenses.
These cases are all political yawners--issues over which the vast majority of the public didn't give a damn about.
That's unlike DoMA, where Obama will take political fall out no matter WHAT he does. It's not a political yawner, it's something that large swaths of this country have a serious problem with, whether we like it or not.
Whatever side of the issue you're on, you don't take a politically incendiary case and simply decide you'll apply your personal preference on it. You face political reality and let the valid legislative and judicial processes work themselves out.
Would I love Obama to take a pyrrhic stand against DoMA even if he ends up going down in flames on the issue and in the next election? Sure. But it's not going to happen, and anyone who expects that of a politician is living in la la land.
Regarding signing statements being different from defending a law in court, you're drawing too fine a point on it. In both cases, the Executive is making a decision to cross the will of Congress (either in failing to enforce, or failing to defend). Both situations set up a terrible precedent, and to demand what the OP wants of Obama is hypocritical after condemning Bush for the same.
Gary SF
· 5 months ago
It is my understanding that many of the Bush executive orders were specifically to provide 'cover' for illegal activities by people within the Bush administration.
Regarding the 'obligation' to defend laws, see this:
Back in 1990, an ambitious young acting Solicitor General maintained before the Supreme Court of the United States that the DOJ was not obligated to defend the constitutionality of what he deemed to be a discriminatory federal statute -- the type of discrimination that his President had campaigned against. He indeed argued that the statute his President had himself signed into law should be struck down as unconstitutional, urging the Court to employ a stricter level of scrutiny than what existing constitutional analysis actually required for laws of that sort.
That 'young Solicitor General' is now Chief Justice of the United States.
Sorry, if you say that you are going to work to repeal DOMA and then you become POTUS, it is reasonable to expect that you won't be defending it in SCOTUS. What's worse is the defense is so vigorous.
Joe
· 5 months ago
I agree there's a disconnect between Obama's words and his deeds. I'm just arguing that the right pressure to apply is to force Obama to push the legislative process he has said he wants, rather than him sitting around and doing nothing but filing embarrassing briefs.
Gary SF
· 5 months ago
Agreed. But we also have to gauge if Obama is a 'fierce advocate' for us (or not) so we employ the correct strategies.
It's now pretty clear that we are going to get change only by our own efforts.
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
Amen!
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
So Joe, do you think Obama was duty bound to argue that:(1) DOMA does not discriminate against married gay people even though they are denied all federal benefits given to married opposite-sex couples, (2) DOMA does not discriminate against gay people because they can always marry someone of the opposite sex, (3) DOMA represents the federal government staying "neutral" in the same-sex marriage debate even though it withholds federal benefits from all same-sex couples who are legally married in their home states while giving all of those benefits to opposite-sex married couples, (4) laws that classify based on sexual orientation are not entitled to any form of heightened constitutional scrutiny, (5) denial of marriage to same-sex couples does not deny them any fundamental rights under the constitution, and (6) DOMA has a rational basis under the Constitution because it saves the federal government money (even though it actually doesn't)? What is the source of the obligation to make all of those reprehensible arguments?
Joe
· 5 months ago
The canon of professional responsibility that requires you to argue your client's case zealously? You don't just go into court, present a lukewarm defense with a wink and a nod and hope everyone understands.
If you've made the choice and accept the price of defending the law, then these are the arguments you have.
The standard argument against equal protection is: strict scrutiny doesn't apply because it's not race/national origin/religious affiliation (there are hundreds of cases that hammer this point.) If you're going to argue rational basis, then you know fully well that anything and everything under the sun can be argued for rational basis in hopes of something sticking in a judge's mind. I suspect the scarce government resources argument is made all the time in all kinds of cases.
The standard argument against a fundamental right is, well, that it's not a fundamental right.
Do I like these arguments? Of course not. Do I think they're wrong? Well some of them (I don't think we'll ever get strict scrutiny under equal protection for gays--we're much better arguing Loving's "marriage is a fundamental right").
But if you're going to court to argue the con side of the issue, these arguments are pretty bread and butter.
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
I really don't buy that the duty to zealously represent your client requires you to make every argument under the sun, no matter how weak or morally reprehensible. In private practice, this is easy: it's the client's call whether or not to make an argument. Who is the client here? The United States of America. Who makes these decisions for the client? Ultimately, the president. This notion that zealous advocacy requires a scorched earth approach and the most aggressive possible position in every case is unsupportable, and actually pretty scary. At its worst, it lead to Nuremburg-style reasoning and abdication of any sense of personal responsibility and integrity in the arguments one makes. I expect that there's probably a fairly extensive body of scholarship on a government lawyer's duty in this situation, and I really doubt that it's very supportive of the argument you're making here. I would love to hear from an expert on it, though.
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
I have another question: one possible tactical approach DOJ could have taken here is to move to dismiss the complaint only for lack of jurisdiction and standing and not to address the substantive constitutional issues unless they did not succeed in getting it thrown out on those narrower grounds. In your opinion, would that more restrained and conservative approach violate a lawyer's duty to zealously represent his client?
Riley
· 5 months ago
But DOMA does discriminate on the basis of gender (sex) which IS protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And if you read the Loving vs. Virginia opinion, the court didn't just find on a "fundamental right to marry" but a "fundamantal right OF CHOICE to marry". The OF CHOICE is what is so conspicuously absent in the DOJ brief's argument when invoking Loving vs. Virginia. If OF CHOICE were not the issue, Loving vs. Virgina would have no merit since anti-miscegenation laws did not absolutely deny one's right to the institution of marriage.
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
So do you calls you compare your supporters to incest too? Is that part of the principled approach we should be lauding?
Seansmith
· 5 months ago
My problem with sgriffy's point is this, as important as it is, since when is a health care reform ever on the same level as civil rights? Of course I wouldn't want any president to have megalomaniacal DOJ usurping powers at his whim, but this is a rare and extraordinary case.
In cases such as this where its roots lay in the civil rights of the government's people, the president should (and could have) enacted the exception to the rule, and instructed arguments in the favor of it being unconstitutional. Or at least, and at the very least, not defend it.
I don't see how something like this - the civil rights of a less than equal class of people, could set precedent for something like health care, the environment or renewable energy, which doesn't infringe on civil rights and affects all of us, including glbt people.
ChrisSF
· 5 months ago
See my comments below. No one is suggesting that the president should ignore or not enforce laws he doesn't like. But that doesn't mean he has to defend a law in court if he has concluded that it is unconstitutional. And it certainly doesn't mean he has to defend it in the most aggressive, strident way possible. The courts can still uphold the law and force him to enforce it if they decide that it actually is constitutional.
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
Uh, you just described the way things work in Washington, and in politics generally. We already know quite well that when a Republican gets elected, they destroy the environment, civil rights, the constitution, federal drug oversight, food, and on and one and on. I'm sorry, but there is no precedent. There is the way government works. The way politics. You win the elections, and your issues rule the day. You lose, and the other guy screws you. And I don't think the solution is to have the republicans win and screw us, and then have our guys win and screw us to show that they're more principled.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
If they read America Blog, it will be interesting to see how they respond to this entry, especially from someone who has been there and in the inner circle. Hard to deny what this entry says.
Welcome, Richard!
Indigo
· 5 months ago
If. I used to think along those lines but current developments have persuaded me that, honest-to-god, Obama hasn't got a clue what gays are, let alone what we think.
He probably knows a few Aunt Marys over white wine and cheese from HRC who donate generously. They assure him that" all's well. It's just a few malcontents, silly! Don't even think about them."
And he's into that shit, he likes being misled and I bet he knows it's off base and just doesn't care enough to do read AmBlog, for example, and get in touch with what's being said.
Hello? Mr. B-ball President? You fouled the wrong guys, dummy!
There! See? No response. He doesn't just not know, he doesn't care.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
I understand he has gay friends that have advised him when he was running. He even met them at a gay bar in Chicago and talked strategy with them. He isn't a newbe around gays and for him to just let this happen tells me more about what I can expect from his tenure. We are obviously, expendable and the tepid response coming from anyone in the administration isn't a good sign. Isn't it interesting that we aren't important enough for Obama to make a statement or offer his own explanation why he stabbed us in the backs. He is hiding behind dumping this mess on a Friday and hoping we will have forgotten about it by Monday. I really think he is in for a surprise.
Yesterday I received a questionaire from the Democratic Party asking my opinion on many issues save, one, and that one was equal rights for gays. It didn't make it on the questioniare. We are already history as far as this administration is concerned. They next asked for money or other slave work for them. I am still working on what I want to say. I will make it short and sweet and very much to the point when I respond.
Indigo
· 5 months ago
It's difficult for me to believe you. I don't doubt your integrity or your information, but how in the world can he have any acquaintance with the gay community and not recognize the extent of his trespass against us? As the theologians say, "Anathema!"
Butch1
· 5 months ago
I understand your feelings. I read about this somewhere along his campaign trail most likely, in one of the more progressive papers. He always draws information from people and then makes his decision. Evidently, it is a gay couple he and Michelle have known for a long time. This is what bothers me, that he could still make a decision like this regardless ( or inspite of ) his gay friends.
mamazboy
· 5 months ago
The timing of this defense of DOMA is especially disgusting -- Gay Pride Month -- and sends a particularly venal message about how the Obama admin intends to deal with gay issues. I'm over him and won't give another dime to the Dems till I see some leadershp, some pushback on this stuff. So far the silence is deafening.
Seansmith
· 5 months ago
The timing isn't just bad because of gay pride month.
It's Gay Pride, the anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia, and the upcoming anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.
Way to compete the trifecta.
mamazboy
· 5 months ago
Good point, Seansmith. This thing gets worse by the minute.
Seansmith
· 5 months ago
Also remember, this is the same administration that strategizes everything, and carefully blueprints every move it makes.
Please don't think coinciding with these historic dates is pure coincidence. Obama wants to woo moderates and he wants to woo them big time.
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
Interesting...some outside blogs have accused AmericaBlog of deliberately distorting this issue and allegedly being over-emotional about it.
I wonder how those same folks plan on bashing Mr. Socaride's credible response.
By the way, the next time an organization like HRC asks for money, ask them what their response to this was. The silence of the glbt groups at the table is appalling.
Joe
· 5 months ago
See my responses below, since I write one of those "outside blogs." :)
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
Sorry Joe, but I do not think invoking religious right arguments, with the vigor this brief did, was something that Obama's DOJ needed to do. It was completely inflammatory and unnecessary, as has been stated on this blog many times before. Hey, why not just compare gay marriage to bestiality? Why stop at incest?
Additionally, this is not a stand-alone case. Considering the public support for ending DADT (even Conservatives favor its demise), President Obama has not even issued an order ending the discharges, while the policy gets reviewed.
Please tell me something, anything, that Obama has done for the glbt community, outside of providing empty rhetoric, to this point?
Truthfully, considering the impotence of glbt organizations, I am not surprised that he has felt no need to address glbt issues.
Busboy
· 5 months ago
This is an incredible "told you so" moment. Nobody believed that BO was more homophobic than McCain. I took an incredible amount of internet waterboarding for even suggesting that fact.
Now you know the truth, with one caveat: Maybe the BO administration purposefully loaded their brief with every scare factor in the book so as to make their presentation before the SCOTUS a charade....
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
As angry as I am at the Dems and Obama, at the moment, a McCain presidency would have been an utter disaster.
For proof of that, I need only utter 2 words: Supreme Court
Let me add 2 more: Sarah Palin
John Aravosis
· 5 months ago
Exactly. Obama is acting like an idiot. But that hardly elevates McCain and Palin, or any other Republican for that matter.
Gary SF
· 5 months ago
Uh...nobody thinks that Obama is more homophobic than McCain.
Homophobic, yes. More than McCain? Nope.
BoulderBitch
· 5 months ago
So, can we all finally stop voting for the Dems already??? What the hell have they done for us except kick us to the curb??
bowser
· 5 months ago
Who are we going to vote for?
BoulderBitch
· 5 months ago
Well, it's too damned late now, but perhaps in the future we vote for the candidates who have the courage and strength of character to proclaim their support for us and our right to marry. In the last election, that would have been Nader or McKinney. The gay vote is a powerful one, and there are many of us. Time to put it to use, and not just throw it away on a Dem that will eventually betray us--again and again and again.
db78751
· 5 months ago
Oh how soon we all forget. I voted for Obama because he DID proclaim his support for us more than any other viable candidate. Regrettably, we all now see that it was just to get our votes. As much as I HATE to say it, I'm feeling a lot now like I did right after Bush got elected to his second term... it's going to be a long four years for the gays.
timncguy
· 5 months ago
No the President is not legally required to defend DOMA
"A President has the authority to not defend a Congressional law that is unconstitutional on its face. Past Presidents have exercised this right ranging from Ronald Reagan in the case of INS v. Chadha (1983) to George Bush Sr. in Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (1990) and Bill Clinton in Dickerson v. United States (2000). There is no clearer example of a blatantly unconstitutional law than DOMA which President Obama himself has called an "abhorrent law" and that its repeal is "essential".
Obama's Law Professor says DOMA is unconstitutional
Professor Tribe told Paul Sousa, founder of Equal Rep:
“I certainly agree (a) that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, at least as applied to couples like those who are currently challenging it in federal court here in Massachusetts…. I’m not at all reluctant to have it known that I think the equality component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause forbids the federal government to deny same-sex spouses benefits identical to those that it would grant to opposite-sex spouses when the spouses are “married” under the law of their state - that is, when the spouses were married and reside in states where the law forbids a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage and rejects the DOMA definition of ‘marriage.’”
I can see the DOJ defending the portion of the suit related to other states recognizing a gay marriage from a state where it is legal. But, I can't understand defending the portion of the suit asking for the feds to provide marriage benefits to a legally married couple in a state where same-sex marriage is legal and EQUAL to hetero marriage.
Õ¿Õ
· 5 months ago
Thanks Richard. Just read that.
ScottLanter
· 5 months ago
For those of us who supported and volunteered for Obama, his despicable attack on our dignity is shocking. It's bad enough to be called a pedophile and compared to bestiality. But coming from a so-called 'friend' is the ultimate in betrayal.
Õ¿Õ
· 5 months ago
And you can take it further like I have. What about those in the so-called hetero "progressive" community who see no problem. An absolute dismissal of our concerns and the "wait"? They also have to be taken into account. Can't leave that out.
YAY! GO TEAM!
Yeah, right.
Õ¿Õ
· 5 months ago
There's betrayal there, even worse.
Jeffrey Wood
· 5 months ago
If the White house can get the DOJ to sign off on torture, then WTF about DOMA?
NO2WAR
· 5 months ago
Of course they don't have to defend all laws. No one has been held to account for violating laws that prohibit torture. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama gave the George Bush a get out of jail card, just as Clinton gave the first Bush a pass on Iran Contra.
If those of us in the real world got loud enough they wouldn't be able to ignore us between election cycles.
Sarah
· 5 months ago
The following stood out to me: "Someone has to be aggressive and make persuasive arguments to the president. Someone on a staff level has to believe strongly that it is the right thing to, not defending DOMA, and be willing to push hard."
Based on this, it seems that no one high enough up in the Obama Administration believes strongly enough in LGBT equality. I am disappointed, and quite frankly very hurt. Indeed the arguments invoked in the brief are incredibly offensive. That people aren't able to see the stark disconnect, that incest and same-sex marriage are completely unrelated issues, and that, therefore, it is a nonsensical comparison, is absolutely stunning. I just don't get it.
Angela
· 5 months ago
No matter if some law is on the books; if it's seen as unjust by Obama and his administration, they should not defend it at all! Defeningding an unjust law using all the slander put out by the hate mongerers and the previous administration is something any right thinking person and administration should not be able to do without losing your honour.
John
· 5 months ago
First, this is all very nice but can we have something more than hearsay? Socarides wrote, “I’m not suggesting that it is easy to get the DOJ to agree not to defend a law on the merits, because it is not. ... But it is doable. It does happen.” This is hearsay. What is his authority for that statement?
Can you please show us a case in which the president influenced of instructed the DOJ to not defend a federal law?
Second, he wrote “we must make it loud and clear that we will not be sacrificed to the altar of political expediency, that there will be a steep price to pay if our constitutional rights are ignored or put off indefinitely, and that a deeply offensive brief like the one filed last week will not be allowed to go unchallenged.”
‘I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down.’ Really? My, my, how the hyperbole doth fly! What will we do? Vote for a Republican? Cut off his money? Too late. He’s in. He is now doing just what Bill Clinton did with DADT and DOMA when Socarides was on his staff. He just blew you off. Betrayal! So WHAT are you going to do when you were all kicked to the curb last time? Come on folks these complaints and threats are a bit pathetic. Just exactly what are you going to do?
This kind of treachery is what you can expect when a politician and so-called ‘civil rights layer’ tells you repeatedly an unequivocally that his only reason for denying a ‘fundamental civil right” to one ‘suspect class’ of ‘persons’ who labor under an ‘immutable characteristic’ is because of his “church history” and the “religious connotation” to marriage. With all due respect give us a break and get real. Not once has this civil rights lawyer every given even one legal reason besides RELIGION. Not one LEGAL reason. Not even one! As any second year law student should be able to tell you Obama’s official platform is nothing more than a promise to violate the 1st amendment for the purpose of denying a rights guaranteed under the 14th amendment. That’s two constitutional violations AND a promise to violate his oath of office. But nary a bubble of protest from out insider advocates and activists.
Then you all let him get away with his preposterous Dixiecrat ‘state’s rights’ rubbish to boot. Pulease! If marriage is a ‘fundamental’ right then no state gets to trump the U.S. Constitution and we all know THAT is where the real argument is; but none of you are not even making the arguments. Nary a bubble of protest. Afraid of backlash you have been running from the real fight and THIS is what you get.
When you let him get away with all that intellectual and legal rubbish what do you expect? I am rather tired of gay activists crying foul against Obama. You all marched backwards lockstep on two left feet and even participated in spoon feeding this Jim Crow propaganda to your own community.
Frankly, I am delighted that Obama has made this mis-step for hopefully it has finally called-out the jaded insiders who participated feeding this legal ignorance to the public. You all bought into his deceptions. You fed them. You collaborated and you capitulated His preposterous position on marriage equality is a legal no-brainer and you have dug us into a hole. Instead of crying foul perhaps our LGBT ‘leadership’ ought to ask how we invited this insult so casually tossed over. Stop laying the blame and start taking responsibility.
John
· 5 months ago
“Where’s Our 'Fierce Advocate'?”
WHAT “fierce advocate”? Since when does a fierce advocate promise to deny a ‘fundamental’ civil right solely for reasons of religion, “deep faith,” and his “church history”? Since when does a fierce advocate argue that “separate but equal” gay Jim Crow laws are a matter of ‘state’s rights.’ You know as well as I do sit that this is not more a ‘state’s rights’ issue than a Negro water fountain. And since when does an activist allow a politician to get away with the insults of pettifoggers?
eduqueerchick
· 5 months ago
As a queer woman, a public educator, and a Democrat who pounded the pavement for Obama this past fall, I am as humiliated as anyone else to see him move from (somewhat) outspokenly in favor of gay rights, to quiet altogether, to now finally outing himself as a protector of the status quo. For a lawyer so thoroughly lauded for his rhetorical skills, he should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that he "has no choice" but to respect DOMA at face value--especially when such an interpretation includes comparing homosexuality to incest and claiming it is somehow different from any other civil rights issue. Before I get too angry, though, I must ask: is marriage really what we want to be fighting for right now?
Equal marriage is not a mere matter of equality but of preserving dignity: the same dignity heterosexuals have to focus not on the genitalia of their partner but on all the other, more complicated components that go into relationships and their corresponding institutions. We just want to be seen as human.
I would argue, however, that such dignity will not be obtained by legalizing gay marriage. It will be obtained by decreasing the homophobia and misinformation that are still rampant in our society. According to a recent survey by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (www.GLSEN.org), 86.2% of LGBT students report being verbally--if not physically--harassed in school. Nearly as many report being harassed for being transgender. I don't have to tell you that such harassment leads to increased risk of mental and emotional stress, but it also leads to poorer academic performance. There is a widening achievement gap between students who face this (and other) harassment and those who do not. Before we tackle institutionalized dignity, perhaps we need to make our pre-existing institutions--the schools where tomorrow's citizens learn how to treat each other--better equipped to protect the dignity of their students. Organizations like GLSEN and the MN Safe Schools for All Coalition are working steadily toward creating these environments, and the best on-the-ground, visible work we can do is to support these efforts.
I'm not saying we shouldn't divvy our efforts between this and marriage equality. But blaming the president's refusal to budge from a classic right wing stance on marriage while failing to address the culture that produced that stance in the first place is like going downstream and then crying when the water is dirty. Teach our children to respect diversity, and maybe the next generation will see fewer reasons to bother infringing upon human dignity of any kind.
Angela
· 5 months ago
Marriage equality is definitely a must, just as equality in all is a must. Something that is not only important to the LGBT community, but also other minorities.
What is just as important is anti-discrimination laws, like now the ENDA re-introduced. Anti-discrimination laws should tacle hate speech. Also important is education and with education is it also important to get some real action taken against bullying of kids for not acting gender conforming. But, to get that going it starts with getting discrimination dealt with for a start. In the end it will need a full mentality switch in sosiety, that with all the haters out there is definitely not going to really change in my lifetime.... I hope it will, but I'm not going to hold my breath...
Name
· 5 months ago
DOMA was signed into law during the Clinton administration. Where were you then?
michaeladam
· 4 months ago
@ Anonymous Naysayer who asked: "DOMA was signed into law during the Clinton administration. Where were you then?"
Socarides happened to be working dilligently for the LGBTQ community, side-by-side with Pres. Clinton. That was, I hope you will remember, a very different decade, with a very different atmosphere around these issues. And Clinton's attempts to allow members of our community to serve in the military backfired on his administration very early on- setting back most of their efforts, despite the best of intentions.
Now is no time to be casting stones at people who are speaking out for us.
Why don't you first ask yourself: what have I done to push forward the cause recently?
All Comments
No support FOR gays = No support FROM gays.
The crucial question at this point is that, with everything that's going one, is Obama really in charge of his own administration or is someone else giving the orders. It's seeming more and more like he's not really running things.
I guess I drew the wrong lessons when I was taught about the 3 branches of the United States Government in grade school.
Because I learned that the President of the United States is the head of the Executive Branch of the government. And, unless it has been changed in the past few days, the Department of Justice is a part of the Executive Branch.
And it isn't just "The Buck Stops Here" from Harry Truman....the lead attorney on that DoJ brief, Tony West, is an Obama appointee. As others far more educated and qualified to speak on this has said, Tony West was the DoJ official who approved of this disgusting brief...hideously insulting, homophobic language and all.
IF the White House didn't know about this, I dearly hope it is brought to Robert Gibbs' attention tomorrow at the White House briefing. I hope perhaps that Kerry Eleveld from The Advocate (who grilled Gibbs in the past about DADT repeal) will bring this to Gibbs' attention.
HRC called the other day asking for another membership donation..I told them until I saw some action on their part that wasn't silent on all of the issues that are going on right now I didn't want to hear from them again. This is an organization that's fundamental function is suppose to be to help us gain our rights and they have done nothing. So folks I'm so there when someone has something to say that the President will hear, I'm so there if I can help get someone real elected and I am definetly there on the day we force HRC to pull they heads out and start representing us.
It isn't just Congress. By the way, where are Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin?
Where are the groups that are supposed to be speaking up for us? Jason is absolutely right. Demand accountability from groups like HRC, or cut off the money.
Also, where is the rest of the media? Rachel Maddow? Keith Olbermann? Hello!
http://www.hrc.org/12905.htm
Was it just that proclamation? Because I'm not real thrilled with the plan I see unfolding to date.
What I most understand is that, given Obama's many statements of support for Gay equal rights and his abhorrence of DOMA, the Brief wording is incomprehensible. And no matter what snafus may have occurred in crafting it, the responsibility for its language is Obama's.
I really appreciate the perspective and the clear argument.
What is troubling about this DOMA issue is that there are many LGBTs and supporters who continue to defend Obama. They say things such as "Obama didn't know about this defense" or that "it is just procedure to defend the law."
We have to be clear in convincing them that this is not the case. Part of the problem is that there is a ton of good analysis, mixed with justifiable outrage, all over the Internet and it is difficult to synthesize the issue.
I have attempted to provide a somewhat concise synopsis on my blog. (http://www.notonenickel.blogspot.com)
Back to what we do: Most paths will lead to equality. History has taught us that there is no ONE method to use. The DC 'cocktail-party' activists should continue with their efforts, but I am thinking that we need ACT UP 2.0, a kinder-gentler but equally effective activist group to start working on our issues.
Getting back to my synthesis: We need a group to develop concise messages that we all use. The purpose of the messages are to garner popular support and to counter the very effective messages of our enemies
Again, there is no ONE effort that will lead to equality.
I'm a 45yo married guy that, on first glance, doesn't have a dog in this race. But I do. I don't want my son growing up in a country that has legally defined a second class citizen. It is poison to the republic. It is also against the ideas you have espoused, so why are you putting political convenience before basic rights? Do you really want the label of "Uncle Tom" on this issue?
Please quit trying to find common ground on the basic issues of rights and justice. Quit trying to pick the right place and time for a fight on these issues. They are doing you and your administration a disservice and you are giving up your credibility on issues that you don't want to be on the wrong side of.
You can lead on all the issues. It won't be easy. But it is necessary.
Even if you had bigger issues with Hillary, I couldn't believe how quickly you guys forgot or set aside that ex-gay gospel tour. It was clear then that the gay community was the lowest constituency on his agenda. Time and time again since he's placed even Republicans and folks with assault weapons higher.
So while Hillary says State will fight for gay rights around the world, those same rights are, at best, on a back burner here. Denial of gay rights is a means to build support with conservatives for the administration's higher priorities and that's an exact parallel with what happened in SC during the Primaries.
I think what Obama's doing is reprehensible but expedient and typical. It's also exactly what he's always done... at least he'll probably get to gay rights after he's fixed the economy and brought peace to the Middle East.
I'm sure big 0 will get around to it. On the last day of his last term. Right after the pardons.
.
For that not to happen, he's going to have to convince all he's going to have to convince all the right wingers he's pandering to to donate, work for, and vote for Dem candidates in 2010.
Yeah. DINO's & Repukes out in 2010 & 2012. Obama with them if he doesn't join the majority left of center. He's WAY right, now, and that's just WRONG.
.
I look forward to commentary by both Rachel and Keith on Monday. Actually what I really want is for the Obama administration to rescind its motion, if that is possible.
In the face of all this and now his "fierce advocacy" for DADT and DOMA, you are still hopeful? Why? Hope is not what we need. We need to face facts that he is hostile to gay rights and we need real protest every day and in every way until he changes.
Then pressure on everyone. e v e r y o n e.
Then an organized effort, to move registrations, en mass, say around the last part of the year?
As a law school graduate and former political science professor I understand the nuances of administrative rule making and the president's role in advancing policy that conflicts with the other co-equal branches of government.
IMHO, the president had choices and he made the politically expedient choice to throw my community under the bus. I've read the DOJ's brief and I agree that parts of it were completely unnecessary to advance the DOJ's stated goals.
I am disgusted with the president's policy choice and I am now honestly considering moving abroad.
If this is what we get from our "fierce advocate," I'm not waiting around for more of his advocacy. I will move to a nation that respects me which is something I can no longer expect in my own country.
Thinking abut Spain myself.
There was just a case in Spain where two gay men, partners, were brutally murdered by a guy who claimed the "gay panic" defense. He stabbed them something like 50 times, tied them up, and set their house on fire. The jury let him off.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/du...
Now it's time to plaster the words 'FAIL', 'HYPE' or 'LIAR' over our 'HOPE' signs and bumper stickers.
And time to make it clear to the Democrats and the progressive community that Obama has lost a core constituency. They'll be mad at us at first, but when they see we're serious, and that a gaping chasm has opened up in the middle of his base, they'll start asking their infallible savior why he would do such a thing.
This seems like a rather dangerous precedent to me. Lets say its 2013, Obama loses to a republican, who is hostile to the national health care plan Obama had enacted. Congress is still in support, but a lawsuit has been filed by disgruntled libertarians who think government health care is unconstitutional. Should the president be able to compel the justice department to not defend the law?
As much as I hate DOMA, I think that almost without exception the justice department should defend lawfully adopted laws against challenges.
If you held the same position in the Obama administration that you held in the Clinton administration, would you have resigned based on this and held a press conference to explain why?
I'm convinced that something of that sort has to happen for this administration to understand it can't be business-as-usual with its glbtq base any more. If not now, when?
Well YOU are in the right place.
Has everyone forgotten George W. Bush, who was hated in part because he did exactly the same thing being demanded here?
Bush signed hundreds of signing statements reserving to himself the power to enforce or not enforce laws because he deemed them "unconstitutional"--usurping the courts of the right to say what's constitutional and not.
Did we on the Left think that was a good thing? If not, then why are we asking Obama to do exactly the same thing now?
Do we really want a president who decides for himself what to enforce and what not, what's constitutional and what's not?
It's for the CONGRESS to decide what laws to pass (and to repeal), and for COURTS to decide what's constitutional.
(sorry for repeat comment, posted in the wrong thread before.)
Chief Justice John Roberts agrees that not filing a defense is legal, valid and sometimes the appropriate thing to do.
We are asking Obama to exercise his right as president to oppose a piece of congressional legislation.
What is wrong with you? Seriously, I cannot believe any serious progressive is buying the administration's position that they had to bash the gays and compare us to incest, and undermine our future civil rights cases, in order to show what good human beings they are.
Good god.
Absolutely not. Notice how he tries to credentialize himself by invoking his advisory role to Clinton first, and then saying that as an insider, he knows that it's possible -- although very, very hard -- for a President to submit a DOJ brief that does *not* support any specific law.
Socarides says it's only possible when there's an advocate in the administration who cares a lot.
So Obama should have a gay advisor?
Maybe. But did it work out well for the LGBT community with Socarides advising Clinton?
Not at all!
So the line of reasoning misses the facts that Socarides is at the center of.
Being the advisor to Bill Clinton when he signed DADT and DOMA -- and then CAMPAIGNED on DOMA for re-election is not a good credential for discussing Obama's shortcomings on filing a brief for a law that Clinton signed into law.
The gall here is breathtaking. As is the complete lack of taking responsibility on the part of Socarides.
There's no remorse, no "Whoops! Clinton messed up and I was hoping Obama would fix it."
What we need is for the LGBT communities to focus on the legislature -- who can repeal DADT and DOMA -- rather than focus on the executive branch and Obama -- which can't.
My suspicion is that Obama *might* get around to LGBT concerns later on, but it's not really on his agenda for the first year at all. I also suspect that the DOJ filing, with a retained Bush appointee Mormon homophobe writing the brief, is a major failing of Obama's for being an executive managing his own image. Obama's taking a lot of flack -- and rightfully so -- but I bet it's because he couldn't be bothered to know who was on board and filing the brief and doing damage than out of any animus.
------
(Socarides)
From my experience, in a case where, as here, there are important political and social issues at stake, the president’s relationship with the Justice Department should work like this: The president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.
(Sgiffy)
This seems like a rather dangerous precedent to me. Lets say its 2013, Obama loses to a republican, who is hostile to the national health care plan Obama had enacted. Congress is still in support, but a lawsuit has been filed by disgruntled libertarians who think government health care is unconstitutional. Should the president be able to compel the justice department to not defend the law?
-----
Exactly. Do we really want some future president that kowtows to the radical right, to undo whatever progress for the environment, energy, LGBT rights, etc. the previous president made, simply because he doesn't agree with the policy? Should he simply be able to direct DOJ not to enforce or defend laws he doesn't like?
Seems like terrible precedent to me.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-li...
You will find that this has been done by:
* George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta)
* Bill Clinton Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States)
* George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. FCC)
* Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha)
And by the Obama administration:
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/10903prs2005...
Given that Obama said that he was going to work to repeal DOMA, and given that Obama's own professors find parts of DOMA unconstitutional, we had a very reasonable expectation that the Obama adminsitraion would defend DOMA, or minimally, defend the US on technicalities.
These cases are all political yawners--issues over which the vast majority of the public didn't give a damn about.
That's unlike DoMA, where Obama will take political fall out no matter WHAT he does. It's not a political yawner, it's something that large swaths of this country have a serious problem with, whether we like it or not.
Whatever side of the issue you're on, you don't take a politically incendiary case and simply decide you'll apply your personal preference on it. You face political reality and let the valid legislative and judicial processes work themselves out.
Would I love Obama to take a pyrrhic stand against DoMA even if he ends up going down in flames on the issue and in the next election? Sure. But it's not going to happen, and anyone who expects that of a politician is living in la la land.
Regarding signing statements being different from defending a law in court, you're drawing too fine a point on it. In both cases, the Executive is making a decision to cross the will of Congress (either in failing to enforce, or failing to defend). Both situations set up a terrible precedent, and to demand what the OP wants of Obama is hypocritical after condemning Bush for the same.
Regarding the 'obligation' to defend laws, see this:
Back in 1990, an ambitious young acting Solicitor General maintained before the Supreme Court of the United States that the DOJ was not obligated to defend the constitutionality of what he deemed to be a discriminatory federal statute -- the type of discrimination that his President had campaigned against. He indeed argued that the statute his President had himself signed into law should be struck down as unconstitutional, urging the Court to employ a stricter level of scrutiny than what existing constitutional analysis actually required for laws of that sort.
That 'young Solicitor General' is now Chief Justice of the United States.
Sorry, if you say that you are going to work to repeal DOMA and then you become POTUS, it is reasonable to expect that you won't be defending it in SCOTUS. What's worse is the defense is so vigorous.
It's now pretty clear that we are going to get change only by our own efforts.
If you've made the choice and accept the price of defending the law, then these are the arguments you have.
The standard argument against equal protection is: strict scrutiny doesn't apply because it's not race/national origin/religious affiliation (there are hundreds of cases that hammer this point.) If you're going to argue rational basis, then you know fully well that anything and everything under the sun can be argued for rational basis in hopes of something sticking in a judge's mind. I suspect the scarce government resources argument is made all the time in all kinds of cases.
The standard argument against a fundamental right is, well, that it's not a fundamental right.
Do I like these arguments? Of course not. Do I think they're wrong? Well some of them (I don't think we'll ever get strict scrutiny under equal protection for gays--we're much better arguing Loving's "marriage is a fundamental right").
But if you're going to court to argue the con side of the issue, these arguments are pretty bread and butter.
In cases such as this where its roots lay in the civil rights of the government's people, the president should (and could have) enacted the exception to the rule, and instructed arguments in the favor of it being unconstitutional. Or at least, and at the very least, not defend it.
I don't see how something like this - the civil rights of a less than equal class of people, could set precedent for something like health care, the environment or renewable energy, which doesn't infringe on civil rights and affects all of us, including glbt people.
Welcome, Richard!
He probably knows a few Aunt Marys over white wine and cheese from HRC who donate generously. They assure him that" all's well. It's just a few malcontents, silly! Don't even think about them."
And he's into that shit, he likes being misled and I bet he knows it's off base and just doesn't care enough to do read AmBlog, for example, and get in touch with what's being said.
Hello? Mr. B-ball President? You fouled the wrong guys, dummy!
There! See? No response. He doesn't just not know, he doesn't care.
Yesterday I received a questionaire from the Democratic Party asking my opinion on many issues save, one, and that one was equal rights for gays. It didn't make it on the questioniare. We are already history as far as this administration is concerned. They next asked for money or other slave work for them. I am still working on what I want to say. I will make it short and sweet and very much to the point when I respond.
It's Gay Pride, the anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia, and the upcoming anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.
Way to compete the trifecta.
Please don't think coinciding with these historic dates is pure coincidence. Obama wants to woo moderates and he wants to woo them big time.
I wonder how those same folks plan on bashing Mr. Socaride's credible response.
By the way, the next time an organization like HRC asks for money, ask them what their response to this was. The silence of the glbt groups at the table is appalling.
Additionally, this is not a stand-alone case. Considering the public support for ending DADT (even Conservatives favor its demise), President Obama has not even issued an order ending the discharges, while the policy gets reviewed.
Please tell me something, anything, that Obama has done for the glbt community, outside of providing empty rhetoric, to this point?
Truthfully, considering the impotence of glbt organizations, I am not surprised that he has felt no need to address glbt issues.
Now you know the truth, with one caveat: Maybe the BO administration purposefully loaded their brief with every scare factor in the book so as to make their presentation before the SCOTUS a charade....
For proof of that, I need only utter 2 words:
Supreme Court
Let me add 2 more:
Sarah Palin
Homophobic, yes. More than McCain? Nope.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/.....941?ref=ts
"A President has the authority to not defend a Congressional law that is unconstitutional on its face. Past Presidents have exercised this right ranging from Ronald Reagan in the case of INS v. Chadha (1983) to George Bush Sr. in Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (1990) and Bill Clinton in Dickerson v. United States (2000). There is no clearer example of a blatantly unconstitutional law than DOMA which President Obama himself has called an "abhorrent law" and that its repeal is "essential".
Obama's Law Professor says DOMA is unconstitutional
http://www.imnotamonster.com/2.....itutional/
Professor Tribe told Paul Sousa, founder of Equal Rep:
“I certainly agree (a) that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, at least as applied to couples like those who are currently challenging it in federal court here in Massachusetts…. I’m not at all reluctant to have it known that I think the equality component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause forbids the federal government to deny same-sex spouses benefits identical to those that it would grant to opposite-sex spouses when the spouses are “married” under the law of their state - that is, when the spouses were married and reside in states where the law forbids a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage and rejects the DOMA definition of ‘marriage.’”
I can see the DOJ defending the portion of the suit related to other states recognizing a gay marriage from a state where it is legal. But, I can't understand defending the portion of the suit asking for the feds to provide marriage benefits to a legally married couple in a state where same-sex marriage is legal and EQUAL to hetero marriage.
YAY! GO TEAM!
Yeah, right.
If those of us in the real world got loud enough they wouldn't be able to ignore us between election cycles.
Based on this, it seems that no one high enough up in the Obama Administration believes strongly enough in LGBT equality. I am disappointed, and quite frankly very hurt. Indeed the arguments invoked in the brief are incredibly offensive. That people aren't able to see the stark disconnect, that incest and same-sex marriage are completely unrelated issues, and that, therefore, it is a nonsensical comparison, is absolutely stunning. I just don't get it.
Defeningding an unjust law using all the slander put out by the hate mongerers and the previous administration is something any right thinking person and administration should not be able to do without losing your honour.
Can you please show us a case in which the president influenced of instructed the DOJ to not defend a federal law?
Second, he wrote “we must make it loud and clear that we will not be sacrificed to the altar of political expediency, that there will be a steep price to pay if our constitutional rights are ignored or put off indefinitely, and that a deeply offensive brief like the one filed last week will not be allowed to go unchallenged.”
‘I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down.’ Really? My, my, how the hyperbole doth fly! What will we do? Vote for a Republican? Cut off his money? Too late. He’s in. He is now doing just what Bill Clinton did with DADT and DOMA when Socarides was on his staff. He just blew you off. Betrayal! So WHAT are you going to do when you were all kicked to the curb last time? Come on folks these complaints and threats are a bit pathetic. Just exactly what are you going to do?
This kind of treachery is what you can expect when a politician and so-called ‘civil rights layer’ tells you repeatedly an unequivocally that his only reason for denying a ‘fundamental civil right” to one ‘suspect class’ of ‘persons’ who labor under an ‘immutable characteristic’ is because of his “church history” and the “religious connotation” to marriage. With all due respect give us a break and get real. Not once has this civil rights lawyer every given even one legal reason besides RELIGION. Not one LEGAL reason. Not even one! As any second year law student should be able to tell you Obama’s official platform is nothing more than a promise to violate the 1st amendment for the purpose of denying a rights guaranteed under the 14th amendment. That’s two constitutional violations AND a promise to violate his oath of office. But nary a bubble of protest from out insider advocates and activists.
Then you all let him get away with his preposterous Dixiecrat ‘state’s rights’ rubbish to boot. Pulease! If marriage is a ‘fundamental’ right then no state gets to trump the U.S. Constitution and we all know THAT is where the real argument is; but none of you are not even making the arguments. Nary a bubble of protest. Afraid of backlash you have been running from the real fight and THIS is what you get.
When you let him get away with all that intellectual and legal rubbish what do you expect? I am rather tired of gay activists crying foul against Obama. You all marched backwards lockstep on two left feet and even participated in spoon feeding this Jim Crow propaganda to your own community.
Frankly, I am delighted that Obama has made this mis-step for hopefully it has finally called-out the jaded insiders who participated feeding this legal ignorance to the public. You all bought into his deceptions. You fed them. You collaborated and you capitulated His preposterous position on marriage equality is a legal no-brainer and you have dug us into a hole. Instead of crying foul perhaps our LGBT ‘leadership’ ought to ask how we invited this insult so casually tossed over. Stop laying the blame and start taking responsibility.
WHAT “fierce advocate”? Since when does a fierce advocate promise to deny a ‘fundamental’ civil right solely for reasons of religion, “deep faith,” and his “church history”? Since when does a fierce advocate argue that “separate but equal” gay Jim Crow laws are a matter of ‘state’s rights.’ You know as well as I do sit that this is not more a ‘state’s rights’ issue than a Negro water fountain. And since when does an activist allow a politician to get away with the insults of pettifoggers?
Equal marriage is not a mere matter of equality but of preserving dignity: the same dignity heterosexuals have to focus not on the genitalia of their partner but on all the other, more complicated components that go into relationships and their corresponding institutions. We just want to be seen as human.
I would argue, however, that such dignity will not be obtained by legalizing gay marriage. It will be obtained by decreasing the homophobia and misinformation that are still rampant in our society. According to a recent survey by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (www.GLSEN.org), 86.2% of LGBT students report being verbally--if not physically--harassed in school. Nearly as many report being harassed for being transgender. I don't have to tell you that such harassment leads to increased risk of mental and emotional stress, but it also leads to poorer academic performance. There is a widening achievement gap between students who face this (and other) harassment and those who do not. Before we tackle institutionalized dignity, perhaps we need to make our pre-existing institutions--the schools where tomorrow's citizens learn how to treat each other--better equipped to protect the dignity of their students. Organizations like GLSEN and the MN Safe Schools for All Coalition are working steadily toward creating these environments, and the best on-the-ground, visible work we can do is to support these efforts.
I'm not saying we shouldn't divvy our efforts between this and marriage equality. But blaming the president's refusal to budge from a classic right wing stance on marriage while failing to address the culture that produced that stance in the first place is like going downstream and then crying when the water is dirty. Teach our children to respect diversity, and maybe the next generation will see fewer reasons to bother infringing upon human dignity of any kind.
What is just as important is anti-discrimination laws, like now the ENDA re-introduced. Anti-discrimination laws should tacle hate speech.
Also important is education and with education is it also important to get some real action taken against bullying of kids for not acting gender conforming.
But, to get that going it starts with getting discrimination dealt with for a start. In the end it will need a full mentality switch in sosiety, that with all the haters out there is definitely not going to really change in my lifetime.... I hope it will, but I'm not going to hold my breath...
Socarides happened to be working dilligently for the LGBTQ community, side-by-side with Pres. Clinton. That was, I hope you will remember, a very different decade, with a very different atmosphere around these issues. And Clinton's attempts to allow members of our community to serve in the military backfired on his administration very early on- setting back most of their efforts, despite the best of intentions.
Now is no time to be casting stones at people who are speaking out for us.
Why don't you first ask yourself: what have I done to push forward the cause recently?