![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
An active and powerful enemy who looked us in the eyes and lied, lied, lied.
This post is about the current United States Department of Justice anti-Gay Civil Rights motion to dismiss filed about the anti-Defense of Marriage Act case currently working its way through the courts. (By orders of the President we helped elect, the Constitutional Law professor.) He is an anti-gay bigot, and a liar, an oathbreaker. He promised us to get rid of DADT, and he just defended it in a Supreme Court hearing. He promised us to get rid of DOMA, and now he's arguing that it's good law, and that Gay people don't deserve civil rights protections. I'm so angry that I can't see straight.
And if anyone wants to try to play apologist for him after this? Please defriend me, because this is active, explicit and intentional work against the LGBT community, and is completely indefensible, and if you try, I don't want to be associated with you in any context. You're either in favor of Gay Civil Rights OR you're in favor of the President of the United States, because he has just made it impossible to be both. And those of you who attacked me for being a Gay man supporting Hillary in the Democratic primaries because "Obama is so much better on our issues"? You were lied to by your candidate, willfully and evilly. The only reason he would risk this attack is if he believes in it strongly, if it MATTERS to him. He is an enemy, and WANTS this fight. I am afraid of what the President will try to do to us.
From Towleroad:
"DOJ Defends DOMA, Says Good for Budget, Invokes Incest
Americablog has been busy at work parsing the briefs from the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the federal same-sex marriage case brought by Smelt and Hammer. There's plenty more to read.
Of the DOJ's rationalization, they write:
"Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).
"He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.
"And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit."
EDITED TO ADD: here's the link to the document: http://www.towleroad.com/2009/06/doj-defends-doma-says-good-for-budget-invokes-incest.html
This post is about the current United States Department of Justice anti-Gay Civil Rights motion to dismiss filed about the anti-Defense of Marriage Act case currently working its way through the courts. (By orders of the President we helped elect, the Constitutional Law professor.) He is an anti-gay bigot, and a liar, an oathbreaker. He promised us to get rid of DADT, and he just defended it in a Supreme Court hearing. He promised us to get rid of DOMA, and now he's arguing that it's good law, and that Gay people don't deserve civil rights protections. I'm so angry that I can't see straight.
And if anyone wants to try to play apologist for him after this? Please defriend me, because this is active, explicit and intentional work against the LGBT community, and is completely indefensible, and if you try, I don't want to be associated with you in any context. You're either in favor of Gay Civil Rights OR you're in favor of the President of the United States, because he has just made it impossible to be both. And those of you who attacked me for being a Gay man supporting Hillary in the Democratic primaries because "Obama is so much better on our issues"? You were lied to by your candidate, willfully and evilly. The only reason he would risk this attack is if he believes in it strongly, if it MATTERS to him. He is an enemy, and WANTS this fight. I am afraid of what the President will try to do to us.
From Towleroad:
"DOJ Defends DOMA, Says Good for Budget, Invokes Incest
Americablog has been busy at work parsing the briefs from the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the federal same-sex marriage case brought by Smelt and Hammer. There's plenty more to read.
Of the DOJ's rationalization, they write:
"Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).
"He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.
"And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit."
EDITED TO ADD: here's the link to the document: http://www.towleroad.com/2009/06/doj-defends-doma-says-good-for-budget-invokes-incest.html
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:21 pm (UTC)"Fuck you faggots, where are you going to go, the GOP?"
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:21 pm (UTC)It's so sad.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:30 pm (UTC)Obama talks soaringly of Kennedy, not realizing he is emulating the most ironic aspect of his presidency, Kennedy's inaction on Civil Rights and shitty moves. Kennedy refused to act when compelled, not wanting to anger southern whites. He even ordered MLK wiretapped. It was not until forced that he acted and had a Senator draft the Civil Rights Act, which he took to Congress. Basically, death and civil strife forced his hand.
Obama is similarly leadfooted.
The Supreme Court protects the Constitution, The Congress protects its home district, but the President protects his votes. Same ole.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:22 pm (UTC)And he's not getting mine.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:22 pm (UTC)*hug*
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:20 pm (UTC)The GOP is honest about hating us.
This guy looked us in the eyes, told us he was with us, promised us equality.
And now we find out he felt the same way as the GOP, but was a liar.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:40 pm (UTC)Obama has *always* been conspicuously silent, refused to publicly associate with pro-gay civil rights leaders, or tendered lukewarm support for the repeal of DOMA, etc. etc.
Having looked at the briefing excerpts the "invoke incest" comments don't actually hold an real merit, imho. As an attorney, you have to summarize, at least in a parenthetical, the holding of the case law you cite. Comity issues regarding marriage invariably come down to public policy issues involving those summarized in the briefings; accordingly no lawyer or judge is going to relate gay marriage to incest based on the string cite, rather they stand for the proposition its the state's right to address publicly policy considerations.
That being said, this is still bullshit. Obama got the gay vote, and he's punting on this issue. On this CIVIL RIGHTS issue. As a former constitutional law profession, he should be ashamed.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:19 pm (UTC)Shame on him.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:43 pm (UTC)http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case
Opinions in my blog.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:18 pm (UTC)That's not about your being stupid, that's about someone being a liar.
Believing a liar isn't stupidity unless you CONTINUE to do so after they've been proven to be lying.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:10 pm (UTC)Well, I am still trying to process this one.
I remember during the campaign I agreed with another journaler that said he supported Obama but was a realist and thought that Obama would throw the gays under the bus in the first year (and that Obama contrary to making sweeping promises on DOMA--more like qualified suggestions imo-had all but promised he would toss the gays under the bus)... and then I remember being pretty mucht attacked by another gay who said he was convinced (despite evidence to the contrary) that Obama was the gays biggest friend AND ANYONE WHO DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS A BIG OLD DOODY-HEAD. (I'm paraphrasing...)
Having said all that, I don't trust AmericaBlog screed on almost anything. I un-friended them a long time ago (they were on my lj feed reader). IMO, t are sensationalist drama queens with their panties eternally in a wad (they lost me originally on their "insane" rants-imo again-against trans issues on ENDA).
I'm not ready to give up on Obama yet. But I am perplexed and not happy about the latest--though I had few illusions just a lot of hope.
Does this mean I have to de-friend you?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:17 pm (UTC)Hell no!
You haven't tried to convince me that this action on his part is in any way good, or just, or part of some secret plan that will all work out over the rainbow!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:21 pm (UTC)I supported Hillary until she lost, but who knows if she would have been any better.
This is the biggest clusterfuck since Prop 8 and it looks like we're going to have to get louder and more visible before things improve. Obama is a HUGE dissapointment.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:23 pm (UTC)That one action is MORE than Obama has done as President.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:may I play devil's advocate here?
From:Re: may I play devil's advocate here?
From:Re: may I play devil's advocate here?
From:Re: may I play devil's advocate here?
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 09:58 pm (UTC)[EDIT]: Actually, my admittedly cynical suspicion is that Obama will go end up making some token gestures to homosexual rights to help court the gay vote before the next general election. By that point, he can say that he was wrong before and was moved by the heartfelt reaction of those in the gay community after his earlier policies, thereby gaining a stronger sympathy vote. If that is the case, it is a well played Machiavellian act.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 10:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 10:25 pm (UTC)Yes... I'm disappointed in Obama's actions. Yes, this probably means that Obama will probably not willingly support us until the next election cycle when he will have "a change of heart" and lay out the red carpet for us.
Still... I don't know exactly how to respond.
Up until now, I've always said that I'd rather see him do improvements in our economy and the Iraq war, as I felt they were more "pressing" issues--I want to be an adult in a reasonably peaceful and stable economically country than to be an adult who can marry adults in a country teeter-tottering on the brink of depression and overwhelmed with war.
However, I can't ignore this: "He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level." I can't ignore this.
It's gonna take A LOT of things to make things right: the economy, DOMA, DADT, etc etc.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 10:34 pm (UTC)At this point, I don't see that happening.
This is an attempt to actively take away our Civil Rights gains.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 10:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:56 pm (UTC)"Where are they going to go, the GOP?"
Sigh.
Why can't Obama have been BETTER, you know?
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 10:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:57 pm (UTC)I just want him to be BETTER.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 11:02 pm (UTC)Logically, based on what you say, perhaps you should defriend me. I leave that in your hands.
I worked hard for Obama, and I don't regret that in the slightest - before we all forget, I offer this delightful, danceable reminder of what we all banished last November 4:
I didn't pick Obama, when the Democratic race came down to the two finalists, because of LGBT issues. I might well have chosen Clinton were that my #1 issue. But I thought ending the Iraq War and restoring the U.S.'s credibility around the world were two areas where he stood out (in fact, I'm delighted that he & Clinton have partnered so well in this regard). I also liked what he did to build a broader political movement and not only win a single election. On most other issues, I thought they were a wash, one marginally ahead of the other depending on the issue in question. (I offer this for context of where I'm coming; others' mileage will vary, of course)
Early last fall, David Brooks (a columnist who usually grates on me but who now & then nails it) warned the GOP that they were running a campaign against Adlai Stevenson... when in fact they were up against the second coming of Richard Daley. Bingo. I'm reminded, again & again & again, as I watch this administration, juggle a ludicrous number of priorities, of the quote attributed in various forms to FDR, when pressed by labor and civil rights leaders to support their causes: I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.
I'm not at all happy with today's DOJ brief, not in the slightest. I think Obama's been tone-deaf on LGBT issues since the inauguration, but I'm not sure that the language of "bigotry" is either helpful, accurate, or actually helps us in anyway build the political pressure to make the administration, and to make timid Congressional Democrats do the right thing. We know we're on the right side of history, but that's not enough for Beltway politics... Basically, I don't see us making the Administration or the Congress pass ENDA, repeal DOMA & DADT, and enact the rest of a pro-LGBT legislative agenda -- some individuals, some progressive Congressional reps, and some organizations notwithstanding. We all have to do a lot better if we want change to come.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:54 pm (UTC)That's why I'm rooting for a Johnson moment: A former Senator from Texas does NOT want to sign a Civil Rights bill and give away the South to the GOP, but he HAD to...
The thing is: in the past year, since the crucible of Prop 8's passage, the language of bigotry HAS been applied to Gay Civil Rights opponents for the first time, and "bigot" is such a powerful and accurate word that it makes the argument in ONE WORD.
Homophobia is the same as racism.
And is just as unacceptable.
It is bigotry, and to label it so moves votes.
(People don't want to be called bigots, don't want their names and addresses posted online as donors to Prop 8, don't want to be shunned at cocktail parties.)
Preferring him to McCain is easy, sure, but holding him to a higher standard than I would hold McCain is my right, because I should expect better of a Democrat, ESPECIALLY one who eld my hand and proudly declared himself my ally.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 11:49 pm (UTC)I believe that President Obama will eventually do the right thing, but it is probably not a personal priority. And face it, there are a bunch of bigger issues like the economy and health care which need a lot of his attention right now.
I have also come to the personal conclusion that Obama is a brilliant strategist and is quietly setting every battle up as a win. E.g.; the Sotomayor nomination. As much as the Republicans want to put up a fight and torpedo any Supreme Court nominee President Obama proposes, they have a Hobson's choice in opposing a very visible member of a voting bloc they desperately want to woo. It will be interesting to see how health care goes; Obama has already framed it as a problem for small business and Republicans will have to tread on eggshells to avoid appearing anti-business.
Unfortunately, the US Government will continue to enforce the laws as written for now, no matter how unfair they are to the LGBT community. I honestly believe that Obama will try to do the right thing... just not as soon as we would like.
And as upset as you are, do you really believe a McCain / Palin administration would have been better for the LGBT community and the rest of the country? I'd rather have someone in office who will listen to a rational argument and give it consideration than a 'shoot from the hip' maverick.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:38 pm (UTC)Maybe this backlash will cause him to backtrack?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 12:54 am (UTC)At best, I feel President Obama tolerates us (and I mean that in the worst possible way, the way twinks tolerate bears during Bear Week in Provincetown. Despite it being a 21st century buzzword, it isn't actually a good thing.) I don't know about other gay press, but "Bay Windows" in Boston called him out early on his not giving out any face time to the gay press. AT ALL. This was winter of 2008.
I'm not surprised, however. He deliberately went far left of Hillary, who's campaign was basically as pragmatic as President Obama is being now. I was highly suspect of his campaign. I voted for Senator Clinton, but once she conceded, I had no choice but to vote for then Senator Obama. For me, it wasn't so much about voting for him, but it was about voting against the status quo.
Sadly, gay democrats are being put in the same position as the log cabin republicans have been put in for the past 8+ years. Bent over, grabbing our ankles, and it's not fun, nor is it sexy. I'm not enjoying getting it in that position from our standard bearer and having the gay community apologize and make excuses for our abusive lover.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:39 pm (UTC)Sigh.
I just want to yell at him on the TV screen "Be BETTER!"
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 01:29 am (UTC)http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/who-wrote-the-doma-brief.html
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 02:20 am (UTC)I'm not saying the President has done anything for "the gay community," whatever that is. I am disappointed that he has not stepped up to bat, and used every opportunity to do what is right for us. But the reality is that the issues facing the LGBT community -- as horrible as some of them are -- are not as apparent, visible, or pressing as some other things are. Gay people are being lynched (though in not nearly the numbers that black people were in my early years). Gay children are being beaten up and killed, and forced to live in subjugation and shame. LGBT people in general do not have the same civil rights as the rest of America. These things are terrible, and they need to go away now.
In the meantime, children are being burned and bombed in the Middle East. Gay men in Iraq are having their anuses glued shut and are forced to take powerful laxative that send them into screaming agony for hours or days, until their intestines literally explode and they die. Women are being tortured and killed in Afghanistan. North Korea and Iran are building nuclear weapons. Americans are being killed in war. China and foreign companies are acquiring huge stakes in large American corporations. Nearly one in ten Americans are unemployed. Today I listened for an hour while a woman explained her younger, 20 year old sister's recent health tragedies that are leaving her unresponsive, with nearly three million dollars in medical bills that could cause her family to lose everything; because even though they have insurance, it comes with a 20% copay.
I'm pissed as hell about my rights. I cry when I think about what some young gay kids have to live with in their own homes. I am enraged when I hear about someone being hurt or killed because they are gay or transgendered. And the Christian right boils my blood so much that I have become a hateful opponent of all religion.
When Obama was sworn in, I really had no expectation that "things" were suddenly going to get better on any front. I never expected him to step in as a gay crusader. I did expect him to step up to the things he said in his campaign, which -- disappointingly -- included his belief that marriage was reserved for the breeders. Honestly, I regret voting for him in the primaries, and I would have preferred to vote for Clinton in the election.
But here's the thing: I believe that if we had elected Clinton, we would be having the same conversations about the same disappointments. Maybe more so, because she worked harder to court us during her campaign. But we've only had an administration change for six months. Thinking about the administration that was in office at the beginning of the year, and about the issues at hand, do we really expect, or even want, our issues to be a major focus of attention right now? Personally, I'm more concerned that we end the war in Iraq. I want to feel safe, and I want Israel to feel safe, from Iran (I'm still a Jew, even if I stomp all over the Torah). I don't want us to end up with soup lines and people being forced from their homes. I don't want all of our economic base to be in the hands of China. I DO want my stuff, and I want it sooner, rather than later! But even I, queer superhero that I want to be, have to concede that there are other priorities just now. I want the President's attention to be on saving my country from what has been done to it during the Shrub's administration. When things are a bit more secure overall, then he can pay some more attention to my needs and wants.
Continued in next comment...
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 02:20 am (UTC)And while we are waiting, society is actually changing. Isn't that what we really want, anyway? Iowa, of all places, has legislatively allowed gay marriage! New Hampshire! Fucking MAINE. We are making solid progress, in the face of loud opposition. Yes, there have been more setbacks than steps forward. But today the governor of New York told his legislature to get their asses in gear to remove the barriers to gay marriage.
And Jerry Brown just filed a brief supporting the repeal of Proposition H8. Schwarzenegger is expected to do the same.
This doesn't mean that I in any way let the President or the administration off the hook. What was said today by the DOJ was reprehensible and irresponsible. It would not surprise me if there was an amendment to the statement made later. I AM trying not to be reactive to what I see in the press, and whatever is popular to scream about on any given day.
When Obama took office, I intended to give him two years to make progress in getting things into order, before I started complaining. It will take his term(s), and the next several Presidents', to repair what the Shrub did to our country. I expect nothing in six months except learning to do the job. So far. In two years, however, I will be expecting a lot more.
More food for thought: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid90000.asp with which I know enough to neither agree nor disagree.
Defriend away. That's not a threat that will change what I know or think, or make me pretend otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:42 pm (UTC)B) You make a number of good points.
C) I didn't threaten to defriend anyone. I told people to defriend me if they were going to defend this direct attack on our rights. You certainly did not do that.
D) As I said in another comment, I hope that he has to sign a GODDAMNED CIVIL RIGHTS BILL that's shoved in front of him.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:09 am (UTC)It's not surprising that gay rights is trickling up from local and state levels. There is less at stake for those politicians and, therefore, more wiggle room. So, really? You expected the White House to be able to wiggle that wide? Attaining the office of President is so dependent on so many promises to so many people, that a President only gets to spend three out of his four years actually governing.
It's foolish to believe in miracle men and more foolish to believe that they can exist at the top. As
But you know what? It might also be due to the idea that change is possible, which is what the Obama win really seemed to mean.
Obama himself might be responsible for less change than those he inspired will. Here's hoping that his backsliding (ironic verb!) doesn't empower the forces against change.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:48 pm (UTC)Tie his hands and stick a pen in.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 04:36 pm (UTC)I hate that it's a Democratic bigot. It's somehow more distasteful because we're SUPPOSED to be nicer/better than the GOP.
Sigh.
I need a drink.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 06:02 pm (UTC)I can't stand it.