![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shirtlifterbearAn 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
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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.