Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

Today at 5:45pm (after any chance of making the news) Obama will sign a presidential memo extending employment benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers. Sort of. Health care won't really be included, because of the restrictions of DOMA.

The move is obviously reactive. Joe Sudbay is on point again:

Somehow, despite all the progress and the massive shift in public opinion on gay issues since the early 90s, at the White House, the conventional wisdom on gay-related issues has been dialed back to 1993. The very top staffers at the White House have either fomented that perception or let it fester. There's a part of me that feels like this was a very cynical political ploy -- almost as if they want to have the gay community upset with them. It has been one thing after another and we're always told how smart everyone at the White House is. So, it really feels deliberate. They only decided it was a problem when the gay ATM started to shut down.

This is part of a bigger problem with progressive causes and the professional Democrats in DC. During campaigns, they want our money, our support, our blog posts, but once they win, we're not needed. Even worse, they view us as a problem. Many of them forget that they have their tax-payer financed jobs and benefits because of the work so many of us did. That has to stop. Democrats need to remember who their friends are even after they are elected and stop kissing the butts of those who work to defeat them.

Some will complain that gay activists are jumping the gun - that Obama's first priority is fixing the economy. They'll say that attempts to pull-down the DNC's gay fundraiser aren't productive and only hurt the notion of Democratic unity.

But the gay community didn't choose the game, the White House did. As Sudbay says - the Democratic establishment certainly wanted gay support (and money!) during the election. But after November, cynicism kicked in. The administration knows that politically the gay community has no where to go, so the WH moves only when pushed.

So here comes pushing.

I don't think is is over. A presidential order for (limited) federal employee benefits is welcome - but also hints that Obama still might underestimate the trouble brewing in the gay community.

Update [2009-6-17 12:5:54 by Josh Orton]: Markos adds a good point:

But let's remember, gay anger isn't stemming from administration inaction (though that's fueling it). It stems from action -- the submission of this hateful brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (which, by the way, totally failed to protect Sen. Jon Ensign's marriage). That anger is well justified.

Tags: Barack Obama, DADT, doma (all tags)

Comments

137 Comments

Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

I really can't put into words how disappointed I am over the administration's handling of GLBT issues.  The first candidate in the history of the country to be elected with a plank for civil unions in his platform, and instead of rising to the challenge (Barack could be the gays' LBJ), the Obama administration has skirted responsibility and action at every turn...and once again, we find that the only thing that matters in this is money.

I hope that Obama doesn't make out his legacy to be one of failure to move on the most critical civil rights issue of my generation.  That would be a tragic miscarriage of the mandate he was given in November.

by hornplayer 2009-06-17 07:36AM | 0 recs
'Every turn?' Really?

Obama administration has skirted responsibility and action at every turn

I assume that you can see the next 42 or 88 months of Obama's presidency when you make statements like this, because I can't imagine basing your criticism on just 6 months of presidency.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

I think at this point no one should have any illusion that we will not have to fight for what we want at the federal level. We do not have allies in the White House. That's the sad part of all of this.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 11:36AM | 0 recs
Gay Obots need to step away from the Kool-Aid,

stop circling the wagons, grow a pair, and demand that Obama fulfill his campaign promises!

After all, self-loathing is so 1980's!

by BigBoyBlue 2009-06-17 07:37AM | 0 recs
So last year

Drop the "Obot" and "Kool-aid" rhetoric.  That's sooo 2008.

by mikeinsf 2009-06-17 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Gay Obots need to step away from the Kool-Aid,

You need to step away from the cliches.

Or embrace them.  You COULD have thrown in "under the bus" for the trifecta.  Ain't no half-steppin'.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 07:12PM | 0 recs
Not reactive

This has been planned since March;

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schle singer/2009/03/13/obama-has-little-wiggl e-room-on-domestic-benefits-for-gay-part ners.html

This is a very interesting article by the way. Here's some highlights;

The New York Times reports today that the Obama administration is trying to figure out how to deal with an incipient controversy over whether the same-sex partners of federal employees can qualify for health benefits.

It is unfortunately an open-and-shut case in two respects: First as a matter of common sense and justice, of course same-sex partners should qualify for spousal benefits. Second as a matter of law, they don't. There's really not much wiggle room here.

Obama is on record as wanting to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and favoring spousal benefits for gay couples. But ... while the Defense of Marriage Act is cheap and offensive, it's also the law. That means the judges can't simply ignore it. The Times quotes New York lawyer and former Clinton adviser Richard Socarides to the effect that Obama "has broad discretionary authority to find ways to ameliorate some of the more blatant examples of discrimination," but it seems unlikely that this authority includes declaring a law void because he thinks it's discriminatory. That sounds an awful lot like a legal doctrine that Obama's predecessor might have endorsed: I don't like this law and have decided that it's illegal so I'm going to ignore it. That sort of thinking was wrong and dangerous regarding torture but would also be wrong and dangerous in this case--presidents don't get to pick and choose which laws they obey.

Perhaps the best way for Obama to deal with this issue right now is to say this: Once his health care overhaul is passed, the issue will be moot because everyone will be covered anyway.

by DTOzone 2009-06-17 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Not reactive

If you think the timing of this is only coincidence, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell...

by Josh Orton 2009-06-17 07:49AM | 0 recs
is that bridge....

to nowhere?

by WashStateBlue 2009-06-17 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Not reactive

I hope the timing of this ISN'T a coincidence.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

Is it reactive? I was told it was planned some weeks ago. Though Aravosis has been hysterical for longer than that. Hmm.

by MNPundit 2009-06-17 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

Perhaps this had been planned for some time, I honesty don't know.

But two points:

1) Is the LGBT community supposed to be jumping up and down with joy because the Obama Administration is courageously extending gay federal employees the benefit of partner relocation assistance (and no other benefits)?

2) The rush to get the word out last night (OMG!!! BREAKING NEWZ!!!!!!!!!!!!) about this memo by the White House and the very public signing that is planned today seem to indicate that they want to be lauded with good press for this tiny breadcrumb.  In the past 24 hours, they've built up an awful lot of media hoopla around an awful lot of nuthin' for this virtual non-event.

Sorry, I still support the man overall in his presidency, but when it comes to the matter of LGBT rights... epic fail thus far.

by Obamaphile 2009-06-17 08:05AM | 0 recs
Totally Agree

Epic Fail on Executive Power, on Freedom of Information and on Torture as well.

by MNPundit 2009-06-17 01:42PM | 0 recs
Sad but true

Only the blogosphere can take something that's a cheering sign in our leadership and make it into something supposedly terrible.

Well, the blogosphere and Republicans, I guess.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Sad but true

apologies, I'll try to clap harder

by Josh Orton 2009-06-17 08:07AM | 0 recs
You don't have to clap...

...but you can acknowledge that progress is progress; Obama's doing what he can within the constraints of the law, but Congress has to step up and give him something to sign for the battle to be won.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to clap...
No he can't. Remember, this is the liberal blogosphere.
We wnat our pony and we want it yesterday.
Obamam didn't fulfill the LGBT agenda the week beofre taking office, so now he's a bigger homophobe than all the Republicans and the Religous Right combined.
And all the Dem leaders from Opama to Thomas Jefferson were pink tutu-wearing wimps.
BTW we;re all doomed anyway beacause Dennis Kucinich didn't become President and everyone who served in the W.Bush administration wasn't marched before a wall and shot on Nov. 5, 2008.
by spirowasright 2009-06-17 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to clap...

Congress has to step up... yeah, just like they have on health care.  this Congress?  they have no idea how to step up, and for the most part they have terrible leadership.  but that's the thing, leadership comes from the President, not the gang of wild horses in the Senate or herd of sheep in the House.  we've had decades of a strong, assertive executive branch, and this one wants to keep punting responsibility for leadership on issues with even the slightest whiff of controversy to Congress?  should we be surprised when Harry Reid looks back and says "what, who, me?  no we don't have any bills related to that!"  weak and timid is all i see from this president, and i'm terribly disappointed, because the sad truth is he wouldn't lose a single vote on health care if he started taking real action to, say, get rid of DADT, which would shore up his GLBT support almost instantly.

by dasmeer 2009-06-17 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to clap...

And while it may be true that ultimately Congress must be the body that writes the legislation to repeal DOMA, President Obama sure could do a hell of a lot better job of pushing them to write such legislation.

The whole argument that Obama is powerless just doesn't pass muster.  What if Obama chose not to be an active participant in healthcare reform?  After all, the reform is ultimately gonna arrive on his desk as a bill that gets written by Congress, right?  If Obama was taking a completely uninvolved, passive role in the healthcare debate, would you be defending that, too?  Would you be saying, "Chill everybody, Obama can't do anything about healthcare - Congress has to write the bill first."

Somehow, I doubt it.

And no, I'm not equating the healthcare debate with the LGBT rights debate.  But I am pointing out the inherent bullshit in the claim that Obama is powerless to do anything whatsoever about LGBT rights.  He may not be able to write the laws, but he's got the nation's biggest bully pulpit to push for them to be written.  And he ain't using it.  Which sucks.

Additionally, he could also direct his Attorney General to pick someone who isn't a homobigoted asshole to write hateful legal briefs about DOMA.

by Obamaphile 2009-06-17 08:29AM | 0 recs
There's a lot of legislation

Obama could be pushing harder.  Labor's contribution to Obama's electoral victory outweights the gay community's by orders of magnitude, but the White House hasn't pushed Employee Free Choice at all.

But you don't see labor running around like its hair is on fire because, in apparent contrast to the gay community, labor is politically mature and understands how politics works and when to push and when to be patient.

by JJE 2009-06-17 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: There's a lot of legislation

yeah, but labor also hasn't had to bear derogatory, descriminatory language in an official legal briefing.  that's what started the fire.

by dasmeer 2009-06-17 10:16AM | 0 recs
citing relevant precedent

is not derogatory, discriminatory language, however much John Avarosis wishes it were otherwise.  The gay community overestimates its political influence if it thinks this kind of tantrum-throwing will advance its goals.

by JJE 2009-06-17 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: citing relevant precedent

in other words, "go to the back of the bus and sit down, little children."

thanks for being sensitive, Democrats.  so much for the party of empathy.

by dasmeer 2009-06-17 11:35AM | 0 recs
Face it

If you act like children, you get treated like children.  

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 12:05PM | 0 recs
In other words

"I want my binkie and I want it now!  I don't care if I'm too old for binkies or if the binkie doesn't even exist!"

So much for the reality-based community

by JJE 2009-06-17 12:10PM | 0 recs
It's the Sarah Palin strategy
  1. Peruse something written/said by opponent.
  2. Interpret something your opponent said as outrage-worthy.
  3. ???
  4. Profit!
by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to clap...

Again, thank you for having principles.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to clap...

All this is political opportunism and it simply reeks of it to stop the bleeding from the DOJ brief. The problem that is troubling in the brief is not the first half of the brief which asks the court dismiss on standing, which I completely agree, but goes further and asks the court to also dismiss "on the merits". Just so we are clear this isn't an issue of politicizing the law or not. It is not uncommon practice for the DOJ to side with the plaintiff or refuse to defend a law if it conflicts with administration policy or if there is a strong presumption that the legislation is unconstitutional itself. We get on this subject of politicizing the DOJ but we forget that this is a civil case not a criminal allegation. I would entirely agree if the DOJ was politicized in criminal procedures as did happen under the Bush Administration, but that is simply not the case.

I have absolutely no hope in the President for LGBT rights or for that matter actually health care reform. If you look at his website you can see that he has removed all his promises for the LGBT community from it just as the DOJ filed its brief (hmmm a little suspicious if you ask me).

I am glad that he is our President, but I am disappointing I really did expect true leadership from him. Instead we get don't blame me blame congress they have to do it. He has the majorities in the House and Senate and he needs to wield a little political capital to get shit done they way it needs to be done. Just like Bill Maher said can't he have a little bit of George Bush.

by political22 2009-06-17 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to clap...

Well, that's why we each have to do what we can to pressure him into changing policies rather than listening to the apologists try to convince us that up is not up, and down is not down. I still think if we keep the pressure up we can get a lot done like ENDA and DADT, but it will not happen without outside pressure. There are a lot of people whof eel as you do. Don't be discouraged.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Sad but true

A cheering sign?

Srsly?

What is so fantastic abt this?  He's signing a memo that in practice will allow gay federal employees to receive partner relocation assistance.  And ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER BENEFITS.

I'm just not seeing much for the LGBT community to get that excited over.  If this is meant to be some sort of reparation for that disgusting DOMA legal brief they filed last week, sorry... FAIL.

The LGBT community has every reason to be furious about this.  There's a big DNC fundraiser this week asking the gay community for money, and I hope it crashes and burns.  Obama would be wise to try to get the event called off, because his administration is just going to get embarrassed when the protests outside get played non-stop for 24 hours on all the cable networks.

Go back to the drawing board, Barack.  You've decidedly hurt yourself amongst one of your most loyal constituencies.  I believe that you are a good and well-intentioned person on these matters, and I want to believe your campaign promises were more than just lip service, but until you get something right on LGBT issues (like actively pushing for a repeal of DADT and DOMA, for starters?), you've got no business treating the gay community like your personal ATM machine.

by Obamaphile 2009-06-17 08:15AM | 0 recs
Oh come on!

He's signing a memo that in practice will allow gay federal employees to receive partner relocation assistance.  And ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER BENEFITS.

Hey!  Did you hear? Barack Obama just gave gay federal employees partner relocation assistance!  They didn't have that before!  Awesome!

Obama doesn't need to offer "reparation" for the DOMA defense, because he didn't do anything wrong, except maybe hurt some peoples' feelings.  He complied with the law and presented the argument as it had been presented the last time it was challenged (and upheld in court), if I recall correctly.  He proved that he is a better man than his predecessor and cares about the integrity of government.

Now, if Congress repealed DOMA and he vetoed that repeal, THEN you would be very correct to be pissed off.  He's not going to do that, though, so go call your congresspeople and urge them to repeal DOMA.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on!

What is the president, an inanimate rock?

The gay community could complain if he vetoed a DOMA repeal? Man, talk about low expectations.

by Josh Orton 2009-06-17 08:31AM | 0 recs
As just one example, yes

You guys are starting to go from "Obama is not doing things fast enough" as "Obama is our enemy" in the way your rhetoric sounds.  Obama hasn't done active harm to the movement, but you make it sound like he has.

Like it or not, gay rights is a hot potato issue, and Obama's carrying around a pile of those already... and, unfortunately, the ones he's carrying are a lot more urgent for more people.  The economy?  Health care?  The wars?  Almost  everyone I know, gay or straight, would rather Obama get a handle on those issues before tackling DOMA and DADT.  I know I would rather he succeed in his current agendas and then tackle gay rights from a position of strength, success, and political capital.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: As just one example, yes

gay rights is a hot potato issue

69% of the American public believes that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

You don't get much bigger public mandates than that.  Where's the political risk in pushing for DADT repeal?  That he might piss of the 31% of America who already don't support him on anything anyway?

Some elements of LGBT rights are a hot potato issue.

Pushing for the repeal of DADT is not.

There is no political capital to lose on this one, because the public has already given him the go-ahead BY A 2-1 MARGIN.

by Obamaphile 2009-06-17 09:04AM | 0 recs
Don't be naive

It's not the public that Obama has to worry about with this issue, it's the Senate, which is overly represented by red state senators (both Democrat and Republican).  While the population centers of the country are behind him on DADT, taking a firm stand on this early in his presidency would almost certainly align more rural states uniformly against him.

It would, effectively, kill or severely wound his other initiatives, because the Senate hurdle would be that much harder to overcome.  Don't believe me?  Ask Bill Clinton how it works.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't be naive

I agree. He should not take a stand on anything. It is better that he waits until his second term in the  last year to do anything.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 11:51AM | 0 recs
Oh, bruh3.

If you think that Obama hasn't taken a stand on anything so far, you're even more naive than I thought.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, bruh3.

a) I was making fun of your argument through hyperbole. b) I do think he has taken a stand. Some of which I agree with- such as the public option and his views in Iran, and others, I have not. c) If this is the best talking point that the apologists can think of, you are not going to convince any reasonable listener. I am a partisan regarding this issue. I don't expect you to convince me with this claptrap, but please, a 5 year child could see through it. I have to wonder who you are trying to convince with this stuff. Obama said he can handle multiple things as President. Indeed, historically, his plate when compared to LBF and FDR is not all that large.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:12PM | 0 recs
Yep

I get your hyperbole, that's why I qualified my statement with "if."

My stance on this issue is emminently reasonable, impartial, and sane.  You're not interested in realistic politics, and that's fine, but don't criticize me for understanding that Obama's got to handle your issue very carefully while juggling a dozen other issues, all just as or more important.

Obama said he could handle multiple things, and he clearly is handling this as well.  He just gave some benefits to gay federal employees, if you hadn't noticed.  The fact that this is viewed as bad because it's not enough, soon enough, is proof that some of the issue's proponents have unrealistic expectations.  

We elected Obama because he was the practical, realistic one.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep

Well you used a lot of adjectives so I guess you proved your point.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 01:44PM | 0 recs
Aw

Someone needs a hug. :)

Anyways, please get the last word now, bruh3.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-17 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Aw

No need to worry about that!

by Dreorg 2009-06-17 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on!

He's someone in whom they can project emotional desires and find partisan validation, and you are harshing their buzz.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on!

How about this.

You keep playing the "he can't really do anything, it is Congress' job to write the laws" card.

Let's say President Obama decided tomorrow to pull completely out of the healthcare reform issue.  Just completely stopped taking any advocacy position on the matter whatsoever.  And if asked why he's gone silent, his response was, "hey, Congress has to write the laws... not my job."

Would you be OK with that?

It is, after all, true... Obama can't personally reform healthcare without a bill being passed by Congress for him to sign.

Would you give him a pass for not being a staunch advocate on the matter?  Would you get pissed if others told you to quit whining, because Obama can't really do anything about healthcare, it's Congress' job?

Be honest.

by Obamaphile 2009-06-17 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on!

The answer is yes he would. They are not debating you in good faith. The other day I had a really good difference of opinion with Adam B over Obama's brief. Adam felt it was necessary. I did not. However, I never questioned in that discussion whether Adam, an ardent Obamaphille too, was arguing in bad faith. Why? Because he was not denying obvious truths and facts or favoring outlandish claims. I think that's a core difference here. It's whether the disagreement here can be termed as reasonable disagreement over hyperbole. I think its the later.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on!

The difference is that Adam did not go on and on making ridiculous claims like "it would have been an impeachable defense for Obama to do anything different."  In other words, the sort of rhetoric the defend-at-all-costs faction seems to have talked themselves into.

by Steve M 2009-06-17 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on!

Subject to the caveat that the best defense is a good offense, I meant, of course, an impeachable offense.

by Steve M 2009-06-17 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Like I've said

This is exactly the type of hyperbole I am talking about.  If the President decides to take a position on the constitutionality of a statute, that represents "politicizing the Justice Department" - no different, really, than Bush hiring a bunch of Regent grads or firing US Attorneys who refuse to prosecute Democrats.

Of course the Justice Department needs to be independent in terms of carrying out its prosecutorial function.  That hardly means it needs to be independent in terms of setting policy priorities or taking a position on the interpretation and constitutionality of statutes - those things are of course for the President to determine.  Like I said, it's just amazing the over-the-top stuff some of you will talk yourselves into, just to avoid confronting the reality that this issue could have been handled better.

by Steve M 2009-06-17 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: not a hyperbole

What would we think if Republican DOJs would refuse to defend abortion laws?  I dunno, what do we think about it?  Every single Republican administration since Reagan has argued in court that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

I doubt any of us were happy about that, but I don't recall anyone arguing that they had no right to make that argument or that it represented "politicizing the Justice Department."  Now, you can make that argument right here and now if you like, but understand that you're making a novel argument that doesn't correspond with anyone else's view of the Justice Department.

If the Obama Administration wanted to argue that DOMA was unconstitutional and that the prior decisions were wrongfully decided... guess what, they could do that.  Maybe they don't want to, maybe they think this wasn't the right case for it, but this insistence on pretending that they CAN'T or that it would be comparable to Bush firing the US Attorneys... it's just based on nothing.  It's based on principles that people just made up out of nowhere in order to defend Obama on this.

I don't mind people defending the administration, in fact my view is probably closer to Adam B than to bruh at the end of the day... but the defense that goes "if you think Obama should have acted differently, you hate the rule of law and have the morals of Karl Rove" is really silly rhetoric with no basis at all.

by Steve M 2009-06-17 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: not a hyperbole

Adam B, to me, was ultimately arguing that there were political consequences outside of questions about the rule of law that we should consider. Now, I disagreed with his concern because I feel the GOP will do what it wants regardless of what Obama does, but I understood it. More importantly for my goals as someone who wants equality, he was not trying to absolve Obama of responsibility for what Obama does as President.  He believed Obama needed to do a lot more for gay rights. Just not this. He was not arguing absurdities like the President has no powers of the bullypulpit in pushing a legislative agenda in Congress. He was not claiming up is down, and down is up by asserting that Obama's  actions on gay rights has been good so far or that Obama is playing some kind of 11 dimensional chess match that will one day prove all us whiny gays wrong.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse Me?

No, I don't remember complaints about politicizing the DOJ.  I remember people being upset that they were attempting to overturn Roe vs. Wade, of course.

It is just not credible to me that if the administration had decided to argue that DOMA was unconstitutional, the blogosphere would have been up in arms complaining that Obama is just as bad as Bush and it's oh so wrong.  The only reason this standard has been invented is an attempt to justify the action after the fact; it's noteworthy that the administration has not even offered this explanation itself.  Of course, lost in all this is the fact that there was a very substantial middle ground that the administration could have chosen as well.

by Steve M 2009-06-17 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The blogsphere wouldn't

Ok then, let me be more clear... all these comments I have seen about how it would be an impeachable offense for Obama to fail to defend the law, about how "Obama would lose my support if he politicized the DOJ like that," blah blah blah... I don't believe a single one of them.

by Steve M 2009-06-18 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on!

Yeah, I told Adam about my experiences with some of the posters here and on DailyKos. He gave me a great piece of advice- ignore them. So, from now, on, although I still plan to have my say there are a lot of posters I am just going to ignore because you are right.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on!

PS- Adam B, if I did not mention it, is a front pager writer for Daily Kos.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: In this wake of this kerfluffle

Well said friend.

I have had a couple of thoughts on this whole issue.

1.)People who are completely outraged don't understand how these things work.

2.)They seem to think six months was enough to time to get an entire agenda passed.

3.)They don't seem to understand that, in the political process, all of your fights are connected and that a President has to strike a careful balance in how they approach their agenda so as not to lose the votes that are needed for other priorities. (And I am talking about votes from people who are, ostensibly, on our side of the aisle.)

by JDF 2009-06-17 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: In this wake of this kerfluffle

If you have to exaggerate what people are asking for and change the factual history of what the President is doing to make your point, that says a lot about the strength of your argument.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: In this wake of this kerfluffle

Umm... I do neither, and I want those people to get everything they are asking for. I just don't think the best way to get it is to disown the one President we have ever had who might have a chance to get it for them. I think it is a disservice and I think people suddenly expecting the legislative process to bow to their immediate needs is insanity at best.

by JDF 2009-06-19 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

President Homophobama?  I'll say.  cut and pasted this from a comment on Kos.  even his fan boys there understand that not only doesn't he deserve a pass on this, he clearly has a problem with teh gay.  repeat after me obamabots.  dick cheney is more progressive on gay rights.  how does that taste?  a history of homophobama's homophobia...

# inviting ex-gay homobigot Donnie McClurkin to perform and emcee a concert for South Carolina black evangelicals and ignoring the warnings and protestations of several GLBT advocacy groups choosing to try convincing people McClurkin isn't homophobic and that even if he is, that Obama didn't agree with his views.

# In attempt to balance McClurkin, Obama adds a gay preacher to give the invocation at the concert but refuses the offers of several openly gay African-American ministers in favor of a openly gay white minister, Rev. Andy Sidden. (And we all know whites, especially gay whites, preaching to blacks goes over so well in the AA community.)

# At the concert, Sidden's invocation was delivered to an almost empty venue well before the concert began while McClurkin had the prominence of emceeing and performing and used his access to the mic to proclaim his ex-gay bullshit on how "God delivered me from homosexuality." It should be noted that ex-gays are viewed by most in the GLBT community to be radioactive and even more deplorable than Log Cabin Republicans because of the profoundly negative impact "reparative therapy" can have on people. (See Surviving Childhood)

# After the concert, Obama's campaign issued a condescending press release that mimicked one before the concert but included the offense statement, in all caps: "MCCLURKIN DOES NOT WANT TO CHANGE GAYS AND LESBIANS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR LIVES." So its OK to target unhappy gays with "reparative therapy" when such "therapy" is condemned by medical authorities including the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Amercian Psychiatric Association?

# When asked by a DKos member about his association with McClurkin in New Hampshire, the member reported that "he seemed ticked off that I brought it up. He did not apologize or say anything that would make me think he understood how offensive the incident was to LGBT folks. His answer was to repeat over and over 'It was just one concert.'" That's just goes to show he really didn't get that he had done something wrong. It was highly dismissive of something that is very important to the general mental health of the GLBT community and to the very lives of GLBT youth who are often forced into these "reparative therapy" programs against their will. (See eg. Zach Stark)

# Obama shows his position on McClurkin is a double standard when he not only denounced the anti-Semitism of the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, but famously at a debate with Hillary Clinton had to both reject and denounce a nonexistent offer of support from Farrakhan since such would sour Obama with the Jewish community, but it was OK to throw the GLBT community under the bus with McClurkin.

# Obama appointed Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec to be a "faith surrogate" for the Obama campaign in the state of California at the same time that Kmiec was actively serving as one of the biggest cheerleaders for Proposition 8.

# Obama went to Rick Warren's church for a forum with Republican John McCain. At the forum, Obama used the common right wing language to talk about marriage, abbreviated in the GLBT community as IBMIBAMAAW: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." Obama's exact statement was event worse that that stating "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix." He went on to reiterate his call for a return to segregation by creating a separate but "equal" institution for us fags.

# Just prior to the election, Obama released a toothless statement opposing Prop 8 in California, a statement so utterly weak, proponents of Prop 8 were able to chop off the first sentence of the statement and use the rest of the statement in robocalls advocating the passage of Prop 8. Obama didn't condemn the move or make a clear message that he definitively opposed Prop 8.

# He chose Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural ceremonies on January 20th while gays and Lesbians were still seething and protesting in the streets over the passage of Prop 8.

# Obama, apparently realizing he might have ticked off the gays with Rick Warren, invited Rev Gene Robinson to deliver the invocation at the We Are One concert that kicked off the Inaugural activities though adamently claimed that the slection had been made weeks before when that plainly was not the case or they would have used it to quiet the furor over Warren. Come concert time, Rev. Robinson's invocation was given before the TV broadcast began so the nationwide audience was denied viewing it and those at the concert didn't hear it either since a curious speaker malfunction just after a successful mic check prevented most of the overflow crowd at the Lincoln Memorial from hearing it.

# Obama did not appoint a single openly GLBT cabinet secretary, but made certain to appoint one from each of the other major constituencies of the Democratic Party.

# The Windy City Times revealed it had found a 1996 candidate questionnaire from Obama's run for the Illinois state Senate in which then Prof Obama stated his unequivocal support for same sex marriage meaning that his position on the issue has devolved from one of full equality to one of opposing equality opting for a segregationist institution instead.

# After the Iowa Supreme Court decision, the Obama White House released a statement on the ruling reiterating Obama's opposition to marriage equality and failed to even use the word "equal" at all. After a mini-blogosphere storm started to form, a "corrected" release was sent out changing the clause "he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law" to "he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

# After Vermont successfully overrode Gov Douglas' veto of the marriage equality bill and after Maine and New Hampshire's bills were signed into law, the White House's response was: "         <cricket churp>        <cricket churp>"

# The White House started deleting pro-GLBT language on the White House website. The outcry over the removal of the items prompted some of the material to be put back, but with much weaker, softer language forcing yet another revision of the language to placate the outrage.

# While appoint some GLBT persons to his administration, none of the appointments have been very high positions, the highest being the Director of Personnel Management. Obama passed on selecting an openly GLBT nominee to the Supreme Court and none of his other judicial appointments have been GLBT meaning there is still but one GLBT judge out of approximately 860 federal judgeships (0.12%).

# Obama has passed up several high profile opportunities to suspend separations under Don't Ask, Don't Tell when the discharges of 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao, Lt. Dan Choi and Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach became publicly notable. GLBT servicemembers continue to be discharged at a rate of approximately two per day.

# The Obama administration successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to deny a hearing on Lt. Col. Fehrehbach's challenge to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

# Obama's DOJ files an incendiary brief in a challenge to DOMA that relies on analogies to incest and pedophilia (or more correctly ebophilia) and goes well beyond what was necessary to secure that the petition in question is not granted a writ of certiorari.

by nokoolaidhere 2009-06-17 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

You realize, no one' going to read this.

Except for the first sentence.  Dick Cheney had eight years - EIGHT YEARS to do something.  He did nothing.  Not even federal marriage benefits.  Nothing.

Or I'll put it to you in a language you can understand: Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.  Since you seem so big on cliches.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

For the record, I uprated the comment because it is the same diary now on the recommend list at Daily Kos outlining the gay communities experience with Obama thus far. It's not an endorsement of everything you say, but you do provide a good rounddown of the narrative thus far.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

Then reprint the piece, without "are you listening homophobes?"  That's just stupid.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

I just assume the poster is angry over what's happening. If people want to understand why he's angry they should read the narrative, even if they disagree with his views.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

Trust me, they won't get pass Obots.  

Anyway you were just complaining yesterday about the extension of the primary narrative into this.  The original piece doesn't have any of that, and was received well.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

I'm really glad you guys are keeping on top of this issue.  I've been trying to keep up but just haven't had the time to do a full analysis.

I agree that this action by the White House is completely reactionary.  I think it really relates to something like the Draft Sestak Movement which saw how the Progressive Community can make a difference (even if we aren't elected officials) and get positive responses from elected officials.  

by Natch 2009-06-17 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

Here's a great run down of what's been happening over the last few months:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/17/ 124755/441

One of the issues in politics these days is that everything is approached as if there is no history or context. The value of this diary is that it provides the perspective of what has been covered extensively in the gay press since 2007. It misses a few things- like on DADT Obama's team telling the gay press that Obama would have a DADT repeal by 2010, but other than that, it's pretty good.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 11:56AM | 0 recs
That's a good summary

it shows how the LGBT community as a whole never really liked Obama.

by JJE 2009-06-17 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: That's a good summary

Debatable, but why is that relevant?

by Jess81 2009-06-17 12:24PM | 0 recs
Because

I suspect if Hillary had won and were doing this the outcry would not be nearly this loud.  This whole thing has blown so wildly out of proportion and a large part of it seems to be I-told-ya-so-ism.

by JJE 2009-06-17 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

You would be wrong. You really don't get it. This is not about who is in office. It's about an emerging civil rights movement. Whether you get it or not, Obama is almost besides the point other than he's the guy who is the President, and thus, of the main bullypulpits through which federal policies are pushed.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

I wish that were true, but this has gotten personalized to an absurd degree.  A poster up above is not only mad at Obama but everyone who voted for him.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

The anger is a product of being denied rights all your life that others take for granted. This has been a process that's been ocuring for 40 years with the Democratic Party. Obama is only the latest example. Progressives have not been the best of allies in the past. I place all of this in that larger context, and realize anger is not all that surprising under the circumstances.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

I'm not unsympathetic, I was just saying that it exists.  At the moment a lot of it is directed towards Barack Obama as a human being.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Because he's the President. If he were some Joe Shmoe on the street, I doubt anyone would care.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

That's not entirely it.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

How would you be able to determine that?

by bruh3 2009-06-17 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Whoa - we're both trying to determine the motives of huge swaths of people.  You can't just stop in the middle of it and ask a question like that - it's like "okay... why are we having this conversation?"

by Jess81 2009-06-17 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

What's more likely: That gay people are fighting for their civil rights are fighting for their rights because of the harm to their civil rights or because they hate Obama.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 04:30PM | 0 recs
That depends

I'd say the ones who are demonizing him with insulting names or doing other condenscending bridge burning acts, such recing posts that demonizing him with insulting names, are doing it because they hate Obama.

by DTOzone 2009-06-17 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

I can't tell who's gay online and who's not.  So "gay people are either fighting for their rights or they hate Obama is your formulation."

I'll answer your question with a question: how would you characterize someone coming in here with "listen up, Obots?" (In case you're not familiar with the lingo, that means me.  I am not President of the United States.)  Or someone simultaneously praising - not just defending - praising the signature of DOMA while blasting its defense by the Obama DOJ?  And before he had any constitutionl powers, there were people who blamed Obama personally for driving up the black turnout and thus contributing to the passage of prop 8 as if there were moral agency involved.

Not to mention things like "he's always been a homophobe.  More homophobic than McCain, more homophobic than Bush.  Were better off with Bush - at least we knew he was The Enemy."

by Jess81 2009-06-17 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

It sounds like you have pretty good radar in terms of distinguishing between the people who are legitimately upset (and maybe prone to some over-the-top rhetoric as a consequence) and those who are just haters.  We can all agree there are some of each, right?  Some people seem to have a difficult time telling the difference.

You are right that there is a lot of animosity aimed at Barack Obama as a person... but I also see many people who seem inordinately invested in defending Barack Obama as a person.  I like the guy, but just because someone aims a criticism at him that I don't necessarily agree with doesn't mean I have to blow a gasket defending his honor.

There are those for whom the issue of gay rights is one of the most critical issues on the table, and there are those who support gay rights but see it as more like one issue among many.  I don't think we're going to get very far as a coalition if the people in the latter group - who have much less cause to be worked up over any of this - insist on telling the people in the former group that they're being a bunch of babies.

by Steve M 2009-06-17 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Thanks.  Actually no one yet has told me I was being a baby but you're right; I wouldn't react well.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Just so you know, here's the Top 5 Arguments Regarding Why Gays Should STFU that I see. Often times, the

1) We don't have any power

2) We are just whining babies and nothing will ever make us happy

3) There are more important issues

4) Willful denial of any responsibility on Obama and denial of any facts that may imply his responsibility

5) Obama is playing 11 dimensional chess, and our ignorance of politics prevents us from appreciating his brilliance. One day gays will see the truth

Bonus arguments

6) "I have been a supporter of gay rights until now. But you uppiddy gays have convinced me not to be. So, if you don't STFU others will not care about your rights either."

7) The American people just don't carea bout this issue or you.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Oh believe me, I know.  Which is one of the reasons that when someone like "nokoolaideyall" comes around I'm quick the with zeros because I don't want to be standing next to him and associated with him.  Otherwise what right do I have to tell people that they're being abusive?

by Jess81 2009-06-17 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Speaking for me only- This is not abou Obama other than the fact he is President. I really have no idea how to respond to your post because it strikes me as focused on Obama rather than on the underlying issue of gay rights.  

My only concerns are policy concerns. So these people you are referring to are only relevant as far as I can accomplish whatever insignificant thing I can accomplish by stating my opinion and arguments along with their voices raising the issues. I will leave it to you to worryif their motives are  pure. Their motives really dont matter to me because my goal is no about Obama.

As a practical effect, as I keep telling you,a nd have said to others here, it does not matter if Obama is a homophobe because his policies right now promote bigotry. Some people will attribute that to his personal beliefs. Others will become offended because what is plain fact-t hat the polcies are based on bigotry- bothers them.

I don't think his personal beliefs are relevant. I am a big fan of a book called Hilter's Willing Executioners. Before you ask, it's not about comparing Obama to Hitler. (Yes, someone actually thought my mentnioning the book meant thtat was the comparison). The reason I bring up the book is that the basic thrust of the book is that people contributed to evil through every day ordinary action that alone may not be offensive, but those many acts occur creates evil.  that evil exists through intertia. DADT for example is intertia. Unnecessary bigotry that most Americans deplore, but its still occuring anyway. Does it matter whether it occurs because of political expediency or because Obama is a bigot? I don't think it matters. At the end of the day, it does not matter what Obama's heart is. It matters how he impacts that intertia.

My view of things is complicated- I can see Obama as good on some things,a nd bad on others. Not everyone can. They need him to be absolute evil to address the bigotry that results from his inaction or actions (the DOMA brief).  Others need him to be an absolute good.

i had this conversation with one of the posters here- That FDR did great things does not change the fact he did not do right by the black community in America. They did not seem to grasp that this was simply my stating plain truth. It does not matter why obama or fdr choose what they did. They still choose to propectuate a harm.  For my purposes, that's what i care about.

I also think people become emotional and the Democrats have not so far given them any reasons not to say things coming from that place of emotions. The fact is that the GOP is making small overtures so  many may latch onto it because the Democrats are providing that openning. People without much to lose latch on to a lot of things when they feel like they have no real choices. I give those people alot more slack for their anger than I give those who have no skin in the game regarding equality other than how its an abstract issue for them.

I am not sure whatelse i can say to you. I am being as honest as I can here. I think its pointless to expect people to all express emotions, which by definition is illogical, in a neat and tighty way that will not offend anyone.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

I don't disagree with any of that, which is why I asked whether there would be as much anger if it wasn't Obama was irrelevant.

But WE - you and I - WERE TALKING ABOUT MOTIVATIONS.  It was a onversation that someone else brought up and we both responded to.  It's not fair for you to make me into the bad guy by suddenly renouncing all of that with a long speech, the implication being that I'm hung up on personalities.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

I am not sure how you are the bad guy here just because I think we are talking about motivation in a differen way? That does not make you a bad guy. That makes no sense to me. we just are disagreeing over a particular point. That's all.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Okay, point taken.

To tell you the truth, I'm going to be somewhat defensive towards you for at least a little bit longer - I'll try to cut it as short as I can.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Well every story needs a good villian so it might as well be me.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Did I mention it's irrational?  Get down from that cross.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

...you question the assertion, but can you determine the converse?  I've see you mention that you're a lawyer?  Who was Dean of your alma mater, Cap'n Crunch?

by fogiv 2009-06-18 05:59AM | 0 recs
That emerging civil rights movement

should learn the lessons of the previous civil rights movement and lay a foundation of organizing and outreach rather than expecting politicians and courts to hand them everything at once.  Obama and other dem politicians aren't going to stick their necks out until the movement can demonstrate it has political clout.

by JJE 2009-06-17 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: That emerging civil rights movement

You are talking out of ignorance. a) the gay civil rights movement like other movements had had starts and stops. The emerging movement is the new movement  coming out of the prior movement of the 80s and 90s.   The gay civil rights movement started decades ago. b) Your description of the civil rights movement of others is wrong. I know specificially of the black civil rights movement. c) I have no idea what you mean by "political clout." it seems liek you have a talking point that you have not thought through. What is clout in the political context for politicans- money, votes and perception. Everything that is happening now, influences those things. It is producing clout. The only reason why this is coming up right now is because gays were pulling out of the DNC fundraiser. So, in context, your statments make no sense  at all.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:49PM | 0 recs
You called it &quot;emerging&quot;

not me.  

What is clout in the political context for politicans- money, votes and perception.

Correct.  And the "emerging" civil rights movement has not enough of all three, which situation will not improve if the current strategy of alienating allies continues on its course.

by JJE 2009-06-17 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: You called it &quot;emerging&quot;

I gave you the context of what I meant. My first stament needed clarification because I made assumption that I was speaking with an audience who understood the issue. On the second try, I tried to respect the fact you may not know the history.

And your theory about what it has at "this time" is unproveable. But, I will say that it is ironic given the context of the diary.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 01:47PM | 0 recs
Many things are unproveable

But I would bet that if a poll was taken about whether Americans were upset about the DOMA brief, fewer than 5% would have any idea what the question referred it is.

Are you trying to say that Obama has been chastened by the reaction to the DOMA brief and that's why he did this federal benefits thing?  That's just as unproveable, and unlikely.

by JJE 2009-06-17 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Many things are unproveable

In a context between you and the New York Times (amongst other news outlets) on the issue of why the hastening of this memorandum by Obama,I am going to believe the larger media rather than your opinion.

Your polling response is a dodge. The Jewish vote represents less than 5 percent of the American public, and very few of the public think about Israel as a major issue, but no one questions the political influence. This is true of almost every minority group or issue one can think of. That's not the barometer unless one is trying to change the subject.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 02:03PM | 0 recs
Ok

You believe media speculation, and I'll take note of the fact that, as noted in the diary, this announcement is coming too late to make any news, which is an odd way to quell the anger.

and very few of the public think about Israel as a major issue

Got anything to back this up other than your opinion?

by JJE 2009-06-17 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

If you want to understand this in a historical-emotional context- think of Prop 8 as the second stone wall for gay rights. There seems to have been an awakening. I have a lot of apolitical friends who are involved in politics for the first time because it spoke to them. This is not about Obama other than he is the President. So people expect him to keep his word.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Because

Even if that were true, that wouldn't change much in my mind.  Right is right.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 12:37PM | 0 recs
Right is right

and Rick Warren was a dumb mistake, as was McClurkin, as was Obama's flip-flop on SSM.  But people who don't understand the DOJs role are screaming about a legal brief they havne't read, and now it's just "OMG Obama evil sellout" 24/7.

by JJE 2009-06-17 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Right is right

I am a lawyer. I understand it perfectly well. You are not helping yourself here.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:50PM | 0 recs
So am I

and you don't understand either the unitary executive theory or what's in the DOJ brief, which, judging from your comments, you haven't read.   Perhaps there are CLE courses available on those topics.

by JJE 2009-06-17 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: So am I

Well, you certainly told me.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 01:50PM | 0 recs
So you concede

That you have neither read the DOJ brief nor understand the Unitary Executive thoery.  Good thing you're not litigating this issue or you'd see an increase in your malpractice premiums.

by JJE 2009-06-17 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: That's a good summary

I guess I do not understand your point. Are you saying that this is about us liking Obama or are you  saying you can understand why so many gay people are angry at his actions? I think the core issue is his actions. Soomeone wrote something last night that I absolutely agree with. One of the apologists for Obama kept saying so you are saying "in his heart of hearts Obama is a homophobe?" The answer given is the correct one "It does not matter what's in his heart. We are discussing the harm of policies and political actions taken. Those are the things that affect  us. He can love us, and it will not matter."  I have had that similar converation with others here. That bigotry is not a matter of what's in someone's heart a lone. If I had a view of what gay people would say- I would think its about the actions. Assuming I understand what youa re saying.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:31PM | 0 recs
The reaction

is so wildly out of proportion to what the actions deserve that leads me to suspect that there is also some personal animosity behind it.  That and the fact that the LGBT community is feeling smacked around after Prop. 8 has resulted in oversensitivity to slights like this meaningless brief.

by JJE 2009-06-17 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The reaction

You do not have the right to tell other people how they should feel about the denial of their civil rights.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 12:41PM | 0 recs
I have the right

to say whatever I please.  And you have the right to disagree however you like.  Tell me, what civil right did you have that you no longer have due to the DOJ brief?

by JJE 2009-06-17 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I have the right

There is no way you are a lawyer.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 01:51PM | 0 recs
Uh huh

You can tell I'm a lawyer because I actually read the brief before opining on it and I understand the unitary executive theory.  Do you want me to send you my certificate of good standing?

by JJE 2009-06-17 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh huh

No- I can't becauae you frame the discussions oddly from the perspective of a lawyer. You can not, for example, tell the difference between policy and rule of law.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 02:05PM | 0 recs
It seems clear

That you want to make this about me rather than about the issues.  Can't say I blame you.  If I was railing about a brief I hadn't read and made nonsensical claims about the unitary executive while claiming legal expertise I'd probably want to change the subject too.

by JJE 2009-06-17 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Uh huh

By the way, you also frame civil right oddly. The retort you made is something I would expect from a layperson rather than someone versed in what such terms of art mean.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 02:05PM | 0 recs
civil right isn't a term of art

what nonsense.  The "terms of art" that correspond to "civil right" are "Plaintiff's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983" or "Claim under Bivens."

You sound like a law student rather than a practitioner.

by JJE 2009-06-17 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: civil right isn't a term of art

I still don't think you are a lawyer.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 02:29PM | 0 recs
and likewise

I think that, at best, you just finished your first year of law school.

by JJE 2009-06-17 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: and likewise

 I guess that's about the only response you could. I still don't believe you are a lawyer. Good luck.

by bruh3 2009-06-17 03:09PM | 0 recs
Ok

Get back to me when you're a 3L - I might be able to help you with clerkship applications.

Or, if you ever do figure out a good response to the point I made earlier about how the Unitary Executive Theory has nothing to do with the judiciary, let me know.

by JJE 2009-06-17 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: That's a good summary

Your comment is a long-winded way of saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-06-17 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

I called obama a homphobe and my post got deleted.  nice stalinist web site you got there.

by nokoolaidhere 2009-06-17 12:19PM | 0 recs
No it didn't

You dipshit.  Your new SPA just hasn't reached trusted user status so you can't see posts that the community has determined are so stupid that they degrade the quality of the site.

by JJE 2009-06-17 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: No it didn't

And they can't read our responses.  Which is why I declined to answer them with a picture of the Kool-Aide man busting through a brick wall.

"OH YEAH!!!"

by Jess81 2009-06-17 12:23PM | 0 recs
Because he is not and your handle isn't

awe inspiring either. Calling this blog Stalinist website isn't helpful entry to this blog either.

by louisprandtl 2009-06-17 11:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

Actually I think Markos is wrong - if Obama were doing anything - anything at all - to move on DADT or DOMA, the briefing would be seen as the Constitutionally debateable point that it is.

As of now, it's a symbol for the important stuff.

by Jess81 2009-06-17 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Federal Benefits Won't Cut The Mustard

I was a little worried.  There were a couple of articles above the last "obama hates t3h gays!" article.

Only on open left(DD) could federal partner benefits signing be taken as a bash against gay Americans.

Sheesh.

by lojasmo 2009-06-17 02:22PM | 0 recs
Obama took the first steps today. Congress

and Senate needs to start the process of repealing DOMA and DADT. I mean NOW!
Obama can continue to help by reminding folks of the need for equality.

However the DOJ brief was shameful and hurtful. Somebody from DOJ ought to apologize to the LGBT community for such a bigoted debrief. Heck, I would be fired from my job, if in at a meeting, I equated same sex relationships to incests.

by louisprandtl 2009-06-17 11:48PM | 0 recs
Ugh

That's not what happened.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-18 09:00AM | 0 recs
uhh..ok..

by louisprandtl 2009-06-18 11:16AM | 0 recs
Read for yourself

http://centerblue.org/2009/06/12/everyon e-calm-down-on-obama-dojs-doma-brief/

In trying to back up the point, the brief cites other marriage-related cases. They probably couldn't find other examples of same sex marriages in the books to cite as evidence since they're a new thing. So they cast about for what they could find-and they came up with an incest case and a pederasty case with totally different facts but which argued the same conclusion: that State A can refuse recognition of State B's marriages.

Arguing by analogy is not the same thing as arguing from belief or from current facts. The DOJ brief is NOT saying same sex marriages are like incest or pederasty. They're just other cases that argue, by analogy, for the same conclusion being sought by the brief.

Please, please, please read up on the issue before you make outragious claims.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-18 11:48AM | 0 recs
Ok I should put forth an argument to my

company's management that they should deny same sex couples benefits because they wouldn't give the same to folks in incestuous relationship or in pederasty. I feel so much better now.

by louisprandtl 2009-06-18 06:14PM | 0 recs
Don't be disingenuous

Seriously, it's not like you're not even interested in understanding the issue.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-18 07:22PM | 0 recs
This is the second time you're making

personal attacks. I can read and understand the issue quite well..You on the other hand are defending the indefensible and a bigoted brief.

Here's the NYTimes Editorial for your perusal. In your words "Read and understand". Thank you very much.

The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the "traditional and universally recognized form of marriage." In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

The administration has had its hands full with the financial crisis, health care, Guantánamo Bay and other pressing matters. In times like these, issues like repealing the marriage act can seem like a distraction -- or a political liability. But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.

Here's link to Markos's take on it.

But let's remember, gay anger isn't stemming from administration inaction (though that's fueling it). It stems from action -- the submission of this hateful brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (which, by the way, totally failed to protect Sen. Jon Ensign's marriage). That anger is well justified.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/17/ 33828/9415

If you're happen to think that NYTimes Editors and Markos are all idiots, you good Sire need to bark another tree. And why is this your fight again? Have your rights had been taken away recently?

And while you're still pondering, here the link to the full brief.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obama s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

Instead of quoting vague blogs, please read it in toto. The offsensive paragraphs per John Aravosis's blog

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama -justice-department-defends-doma.html

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

And the paragraph your link failed to add:

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA

And why is this so difficult for you to understand that this brief was deeply offensive to LGBT community?

by louisprandtl 2009-06-18 09:49PM | 0 recs
Actually John A. does a comprehensive

job taking apart the brief.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama -justice-department-defends-doma.html

by louisprandtl 2009-06-18 10:10PM | 0 recs
by louisprandtl 2009-06-18 10:19PM | 0 recs
Personal attacks? No.

How is saying that you're not trying to understand the subject from a legal perspective a personal attack?  That's what it looks like to me. I admit that my frustration with the "arguments" (rather outrage) presented by you and others on this topic can get the better of me sometimes.

I'm not saying that you're ugly or dumb or anything.

In the end, that's what it comes down to, though.  You're taking personal offense at things that aren't personal attacks.  You say the brief is "hateful" when the liklihood of "hate" being the motivating factor (instead of simply making the case in legal terms and meant for a legal audience) is next to zero.

Marriage between an uncle and a niece, for example, is not an issue of incest, it's an issue of state law where this brief is concerned.  Some states allow it.  Others don't.  Marriage between a thirteen year old girl and a fifteen year-old boy in New Hampshire isn't a pederasty issue, it's an issue of state law where this brief is concerned.  When these people go to live in different states, the new places they live don't have to recognize their unions, because that would essentially defeat the purpose in having state-based marriage laws in the first place.

I don't really like state interference with marriage; honestly government should stay out of the marriage business and concentrate on civil unions between consenting adults for everybody, straight, gay, transgendered, whatever.  But that doesn't mean I think it's okay if existing laws are ignored; we live in a society of laws for a reason.

Have your rights had been taken away recently?

Your rights are my rights.  An attack on yours is an attack on mine.  I've been single by choice for years, so I might not feel the same sting that you do on this issue.  Don't assume, though, that you can argue from the standpoint of an abused minority and that I can't possibly relate to your struggle.  I can.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-19 05:30AM | 0 recs
Let's carry on the coversation then

and understand each other's position on the issue.

However I would like make sure that you understand that this is not a Obama vs LGBT issue. I know some had referred it way but I would like to make it clear that I don't think Obama is against LGBT rights. He is probably the best president ever who is favor of LGBT rights.

This is about a brief DOJ filed which was very insensitive to a section of our population, which used specious language to defend DOMA. I suggest you go through John A.'s take on it. He made a detailed analysis of why the brief is offensive to LGBT community.

Also I'm not gay, but I'm very proud to be part of the extended Friends of LGBT family.

by louisprandtl 2009-06-19 07:30AM | 0 recs
Alrighty

Listen, my big concern right here is that people are looking at a DoJ brief.  Legal briefs, by their very nature and purpose, are "Merits is a legal concept referring to the inherent rights and wrongs of a case, absent any emotional or technical biases."

This isn't a PR document.  It's not the official Obama position on gay marriage.  The purpose of a brief is to cite precident on related cases; in this particular instance, the related cases are about other marriage laws that differ from state to state.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do care enough to do some research on these things and I don't have to sell newspapers or pander to blog traffic.  I have nothing to gain by being a drama queen on this (and I'd use "drama queen" to describe anyone, straight or gay or otherwise, who acted this way on this issue); all I have is my interest in the truth, and, to me, the truth is that the DOMA brief is being spun to make unwarranted attacks on Obama, the guy who, just today, announced his intent to make sure that gay couples got listed on the census properly.

by Dracomicron 2009-06-19 08:03AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------