(06/12/09) "Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget." (America Blog)

[Spang]

If these guys' interpretations are accurate, this is <CENSORED> up.

Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government's brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we've written about previously, it's another in California. We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable. 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."

Here is the entire document, and below are excerpts:

The Complete Article (http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html)

Immature I told you so posts to follow...

[Wyoming Dem]

It's true. I read about it elsewhere yesterday. It is important to read the entire piece at the link Spang provided. It eviscerates equal protection and equal rights for the Gay community under the law and blocks further attempts to file quite adroitly. One more campaign promise bites the dust. And as with everything else in this country it boils down to the first tenet of the government...MONEY, which there is not enough of for Obama to spend unfettered at the current rate he is throwing it away.

In my opinion, and yes, I loath the GUY, it has to be getting harder and harder for supporters to even recognize the candidate they voted for. One can only wonder what will be next and just how much "Bush Lite" will everyone be willing to make excuses for? I find it hilarious that he is turning out to be an even bigger Neo-con than Bush...

[Meg]

In my opinion, as yes, I loath the GUY, it has to be getting harder and harder for supporters to even recognise the candidate they voted for. One can only wonder what will be next and just how much "Bush Lite" will everyone be willing to make excuses for? I find it hilarious that he is turning out to be an even bigger Neo-con than Bush...

But let's not forget, some of us do remember the bus! How many people got tossed under there?:thinking:

[Horizon]

It's true. I read about it elsewhere yesterday. It is important to read the entire piece at the link Spang provided. It insicerates equal protection and equal rights for the Gay community under the law and blocks further attmepts to file quite adroitely. One more campaign promise bites the dust. And as with everything else in this country it boils down to the first tenet of the government...MONEY, which there is not enough of for Obama to spend unfettered at the current rate he is throwing it away.

In my opinion, as yes, I loath the GUY, it has to be getting harder and harder for supporters to even recognise the candidate they voted for. One can only wonder what will be next and just how much "Bush Lite" will everyone be willing to make excuses for? I find it hilarious that he is turning out to be an even bigger Neo-con than Bush...

So, it did not say when this took place or did I miss that?? I am disgusted by this. :atwitsend::atwitsend:

[Wyoming Dem]

So, it did not say when this took place or did I miss that?? I am disgusted by this. :atwitsend::atwitsend:
M...The government's brief was filed early yesterday. The site shown in Spang's post now has a posting of the actual brief. The LGBT community just got thrown under the infamous Obama bus and the bus backed up, did burn outs and popped a wheelie on top of them. I have bit**ed nonstop about Obama but this action is beyond contempt. LGBT Community...he took your votes and spent your donations and just told you to get F***ed. The American Jews are feeling exactly the same way. This GUY is a cypher and a consummate politician and a chameleon. I cannot begin to feel how badly abused and used the LGBT community must now feel.

[Horizon]

M...The government's brief was filed early yesterday. The site shown in Spang's post now has a posting of the actual brief. The LGBT community just got thrown under the infamous Obama bus and the bus backed up, did burn outs and popped a wheelie on top of them. I have bit**ed nonstop about Obama but this action is beyond contempt. LGBT Community...he took your votes and spent your donations and just told you to get F***ed. The American Jews are feeling exactly the same way. This GUY is a cypher and a consummate politician and a chameleon. I cannot begin to feel how badly abused and used the LGBT community must now feel.

Thanks WD, I could not tell when that was done. I now feel like an ass in trying to be accepting of him, in spite of all we learned before the GE.
There really are no words for my disappointment over this. Really considering not telling my daughter about this one. She was NEVER accepting of him. This will piss her off royally, as it should. Disgusting and reprehensible action by him. I hope as a minority he sleeps well at night knowing how he's thrown another minority group to the wolves. ASSHAT!:-bd:-bd

[Wyoming Dem]

I just about am speechless. I have fought for Gay rights my entire life...lost two lifelong friends to aids and one of my friends since about 2nd grade killed himself rather than face being cast out by his family. I am not gay or lesbian or anything else but I have dedicated a lot of my life to speaking up for those who are so denegrated in our society. Had I voted for Obama, beyond all the other broken promises, this is the one that would have been the "straw that broke the camels back" for me. And to do this for MONEY...Absolutely despicable.

[Horizon]

I just about am speechless. I have fought for Gay rights my entire life...lost two lifelong friends to aids and one of my friends since about 2nd grade killed himself rather than face being cast out by his family. I am not gay or lesbian or anything else but I have dedicated a lot of my life to speaking up for those who are so denegrated in our society. Had I voted for Obama, beyond all the other broken promises, this is the one that would have been the "straw that broke the camels back" for me. And to do this for MONEY...Absolutely despicable.

He is on this, BIG TIME!
http://blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/failboat.jpg

[Wyoming Dem]

He is on this, BIG TIME!
http://blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/failboat.jpg
HAHAHAHHA I just read another article titled "Obama's White House is falling down" (SOURCE) (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11866) And another one "Obama's "gift" may have a downside" (SOURCE) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/12/the_possible_downside_of_obamas_gift_96951.html)

So it sure seems to me that "The Bloom Is CLearly Off The Rose" I just don't know how many broken promises or accepting the Bush way of doing things it will take for the diehard's to finally realise that he is just another politician.

[Horizon]

HAHAHAHHA I just read another article titled "Obama's White House is falling down" (SOURCE) (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11866) And another one "Obama's "gift" may have a downside" (SOURCE) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/12/the_possible_downside_of_obamas_gift_96951.html)

So it sure seems to me that "The Bloom Is CLearly Off The Rose" I just don't know how many broken promises or accepting the Bush way of doing things it will take for the diehard's to finally realise that he is just another politician.

I went over and tweeted this to all manner of people and siteds, to get it out there so people know what he has done. I am sooooo pissed.
Off to the shower, road trip this afternoon. Damn that man.:atwitsend:

[Brooke]

Oh my gosh. I have a close friend in Oregon who isn't gay but very heavily into gay rights. She was still torn during the Primary and I had told her that Obama's record on gay issues wasn't good. She didn't believe me and voted for him in the primary and the GE. I'm sending her this article now. Not to rub it in, but just to make her aware.

[Jobu86]

I fully admit that Obama's actions on gay rights have been my greatest disappointment in him. I'm really hoping he changes his positions by the end of his term.

[Suzan]

Sorry, I have a terrible headache (paint fumes) and really can't do any heavy thinking. Seriously, lol, I couldn't spell my name right now. I managed to read through the thread, but can anyone sum up the article for me? I don't get why he'd do this. What's the political benefit? How could banning gay marriage be good for the budget? Is this a rehash of an old argument or something new?

[Wyoming Dem]

Susan, this perhaps is most important:
Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states:
Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no

The government is also arguing that by allowing gays to marry, they will lose "tax money" as they will no longer be able to tax two gay partners as "single" which we all know is the highest tax bracket.

DOMA simply provides, in effect, that as a result of their same-sex marriage they will not become eligible for the set of benefits that Congress has reserved exclusively to those who are related by the bonds of heterosexual marriage

[TheTaoOfBill]

I figured Obama would be weak on gay marriage rights. Just not this weak...

Everything else I've been happy with for the most part. This is the one issue I was expecting more out of.

[Suzan]

Thanks, WyD. It finally dawned on me that I should stick my head out the window and breathe some fresh air. With my wits somewhat cleared, I read the article on the linked site and found this:

"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 ("There is nothing irrational about Congress's stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal."); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress' line drawing in this instance."). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."

It is unfathomable to me that we're talking about denying American citizens their rights because of money. Think what a budget bonanza it would be if they didn't allow ANYONE to marry. Hm, maybe we should all be euthanized when we reach the age of 65 so we can't collect social security. When you're denying rights based on money, which rights are sacred????

[Wyoming Dem]

Thanks, WyD. It finally dawned on me that I should stick my head out the window and breathe some fresh air. With my wits somewhat cleared, I read the article on the linked site and found this:



It is unfathomable to me that we're talking about denying American citizens their rights because of money. Think what a budget bonanza it would be if they didn't allow ANYONE to marry. Hm, maybe we should all be euthanized when we reach the age of 65 so we can't collect social security. When you're denying rights based on money, which rights are sacred????
I say again, this is despicable and if anyone can still support this fraud, I can't for the life of me say why. WHAT HAS HE NOT flip flopped on? He is more like Bush than Bush... To be denied your rights simply because of sexual persuasion and the GREED of an Administration that is determined to put into practice EVERY DAMN ONE of Obama's hair-brained schemes and policies no matter the cost to this country and it's people (not to mention all of the other crap he has done or not done) is the epitomy of hypocrisy. Hope and change, hope and change, hope and change, blah, blah, blah...1/2 of American voters were flim-flammed, bamboozeled and used by this GUY and they are the one who should be rioting in the streets. I would really like to know WHAT EXACTLY he can do wrong that will be the "point of no return"?

[TheTaoOfBill]

WHAT HAS HE NOT flip flopped on? Only the two most important issues of the campaign according to polls. Foreign Policy and Economy. He's done just about everything he said it would on those two fronts. And that's why I still support him and likely will until the end of his term. Like I said I was expecting him to be weak on Gay marriage. And I wasn't expecting transparency issues to change over night. So I don't really consider him that much of a flip flopper. The only disappointment for me has been what this thread's topic is about. Gay Marriage. And gay rights in general. But everything else I've been relatively happy with.

[Wyoming Dem]

Only the two most important issues of the campaign according to polls. Foreign Policy and Economy. He's done just about everything he said it would on those two fronts. And that's why I still support him and likely will until the end of his term. Like I said I was expecting him to be weak on Gay marriage. And I wasn't expecting transparency issues to change over night. So I don't really consider him that much of a flip flopper. The only disappointment for me has been what this thread's topic is about. Gay Marriage. And gay rights in general. But everything else I've been relatively happy with.
And I understand your position on that Tao but...this is not being "weak" on Gay marriage..this is bold, get-in-your-face telling the LGBT community that they are less important than money...and that is a sad commentary. Disagree with the LGBT position or support them but I find it horrible that they could be equated to nothing more than money. It is appalling. This would be the same as telling heterosexuals that they now have to get divorced so that the government can get more from them in taxes as "single no dependant" taxpayers. I find this to be as cut-throat a move as Obama or any other Prez in recent memory has made. Are we now no more than a "dollar sign" to our government and they will gauge everything they do, every law they make as to how it will effect tax revenue? Because this is exactly what the brief filed says. That should make everyone very, very nervous.

[Wyoming Dem]

This just In...

From "The Political Hot SHeet" posted just a few minutes ago:
Gay Rights Groups Irate After Obama Administration Lauds Defense Of Marriage Act


Quote:
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama claimed "we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act," which says states are not required to recognize other states' same-sex marriages.

That was then. This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a "valid exercise of Congress' power" that is saving taxpayers money.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It doesn't prohibit same-sex marriages; instead, it says that no state "shall be required" to honor same-sex marriages taking place elsewhere or any "right or claim arising from such relationship."

Two married California men, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, sued the federal government to overturn DOMA. They claim that it violates their constitutionally-protected rights to travel, their rights to free speech, and their due process rights.

The U.S. Justice Department's brief doesn't address the morality of same-sex marriage. Instead, it makes the narrower legal argument that DOMA "merely permits each state to follow its own policy with respect to marriage" and the law "does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental." It also says that it saves money by not paying out marriage benefits under federal law, a move that "preserves scarce government resources."

Here's what the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and other groups said in a joint statement on Friday:


We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act... The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.

We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be "neutral" with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states. There is nothing "neutral" about the federal government's discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states.


It's true that the Justice Department is generally tasked with defending acts of Congress. Then again, Bill Clinton's DOJ refused to defend the abortion speech-related provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and a law mandating criminal penalties for giving paid Medicaid planning advice. Gay activist and Washington lawyer John Aravosis notes other examples of DOJ declining-to-defend.

If Mr. Obama felt strongly enough, or Attorney General Eric Holder believed DOMA was execrable enough, the DOJ could have taken a similar position in court here. At least the president could have coupled his administration's brief of DOMA with a speech calling on Congress to repeal it.

Neither, of course, happened. That led Aravosis to write:


It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice... Where in the law does it say that Obama was required to compare gay marriage to incest? And putting that little bit of religious right messaging aside, even if they "had" to file the brief against us, why didn't they just file a brief that argued the technicalities about why the case should have been thrown out (e.g., the plaintiffs had no standing)? No, what Obama did was throw the legal kitchen sink at us in a brief that could have been written by Antonin Scalia. They argued that DOMA is constitutional. Worse yet, they argue that it was a reasonable, rational, good law that actually saves the government money.


(Legally speaking, the DOJ didn't compare gay marriage to incest, and that word doesn't appear in the brief. What it did was make a lawyerly argument that "the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect," including not recognizing a marriage of an uncle to a niece that took place in Italy, "because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum.")

This isn't the first time Obama has drawn criticism from gay rights groups. His campaign platform said "we need to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy."

But the president has been silent on the topic since. Last month, The Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote: "We are in the same spot as in every Democratic administration: the well-paid leaders of the established groups get jobs and invites, and that's about it. Worse: we will get a purely symbolic, practically useless hate crimes bill that they will then wave in our faces to prove they need do nothing more."

A recent opinion article in the Wall Street Journal written by a gay man who served as an Army Ranger said: "He promised a full repeal of the ban if he was elected. But President Obama seems to be backing down from this pledge."

In hindsight, perhaps, it should be no surprise that Mr. Obama is shying away from this front in the cultural wars. He broke faith with liberal supporters over warrantless wiretaps, the repetition of the Bush administration's arguments on "state secrets," and the continuation of the Bush administration's indefinite military detentions of terrorism suspects.

The surprise should be that some supporters seem to have confused a politician's campaign promises with his actual policies.

And one comment that pretty well sums it up:

Quote:
Q: How does a snake say "F*** you!" ?

A: "Trust me!"

[Ikasu]

Q: How does a snake say "F*** you!" ?

A: "Trust me!"

Ouch.

[Alces95]

It is unfathomable to me that we're talking about denying American citizens their rights because of money. Think what a budget bonanza it would be if they didn't allow ANYONE to marry. Hm, maybe we should all be euthanized when we reach the age of 65 so we can't collect social security. When you're denying rights based on money, which rights are sacred????

genericstamp!

I'll say it again, why do we need the government to sanction any union to make it 'sacred'? Being with the one you love is a human right and whether the government agrees or not is, imo, irrelevant. Its time the government got out of all bedrooms period.

It would be a tax bonanza, for everyone; gay, straight single...all Americans. Imagine that. A tax code that views people equally.

The government sanctioning marriage is outdated and we should be fighting to stop our government from doing this for anyone; not add more to the rolls.

No civil marriage for anyone. That would be true equality.

[Spang]

Weddings bring in a lot of money. If we could find a bunch of people that want to get married and bring them to this country to get married, we could probably fix the economy.

[Meg]

Weddings bring in a lot of money. If we could find a bunch of people that want to get married and bring them to this country to get married, we could probably fix the economy.

Well there are those gays... oh, nevermind.

[Spang]

Well there are those gays...

I think we may be onto something!

[VotingHillary]

genericstamp!

No civil marriage for anyone. That would be true equality.

No it wouldn't because the laws are still on the books for benefits for heterosexual married couples...religious married couples would still get the benefits the federal government grants married couples. The issue isn't "civil marriages" should be outlawed. The issue is that "civil marriages" should be permitted for gay couples so that they too may have the same BENEFITS the government offers. And that is what the Obama adminstration is stating as the reason for DOMA...so gays don't have those benefits and the goverment has less money.

I have a better idea...let's do away with the tax benefits for married couples. Obama would love all the money the government would have then.

BTW, if you do away with "civil marriages," does this mean atheists can't be married?

[Spang]

Does AG Jerry Brown have some pull in California?

Dear Rob

Tonight, California Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a brief in support of the federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8 and restore marriage equality to California.

In stark contrast to President Obama's Justice Department filing a brief defending the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, California's Attorney General Jerry Brown today filed a brief in support of a federal challenge to Proposition 8. Equality California is extremely appreciative of the Attorney General's continued leadership in opposition to Proposition 8 and in support of ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.

Governor Schwarzenegger is expected to file his brief soon. We urge him to take the same principled stance and tell the Court that Prop. 8 violates the Constitution.

The time has come for all elected leaders to follow Jerry Brown’s example and stand up for equality for all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Equality California will continue our position of not endorsing or supporting any candidate for any level of public office who does not completely and unequivocally support total equality for our community.

In solidarity,


Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California

[mack20]

I, like Aravosis, would probably have accepted a filing by the DOJ saying that the case was without merit based on technicalities had they been required to file a brief. However, I absolutely 100% do NOT support the manner in which the DOJ responded to this and am extremely disappointed in Obama over it.

[CGP]

Maybe racism is good for the economy? :rolleyes:

Maybe sexism is good for the economy? :rolleyes:

I guess homophobia/heterosexism is also good for the economy? :rolleyes:

And those people with disabilities are a costly problem too...

I am so over all this crap. :-bd

But no surprises. I knew very early that Obama was no advocate for the gay community. Sadly, as weak as he is on "gay rights", he is probably a better option than any Republican alternative in this regard. Sad, very sad. :atwitsend:

[TheTaoOfBill]

Maybe racism is good for the economy? :rolleyes:

Maybe sexism is good for the economy? :rolleyes:

I guess homophobia/heterosexism is also good for the economy? :rolleyes:

And those people with disabilities are a costly problem too...

I am so over all this crap. :-bd

But no surprises. I knew very early that Obama was no advocate for the gay community. Sadly, as weak as he is on "gay rights", he is probably a better option than any Republican alternative in this regard. Sad, very sad. :atwitsend:

Yeah. As disappointing as Obama has been on this issue, standing still is better than moving backward. Though moving forward would be better still.

[VotingHillary]

But no surprises. I knew very early that Obama was no advocate for the gay community.

But you DID/DO know who was....hence this forum...

[Alces95]

No it wouldn't because the laws are still on the books for benefits for heterosexual married couples...religious married couples would still get the benefits the federal government grants married couples. The issue isn't "civil marriages" should be outlawed. The issue is that "civil marriages" should be permitted for gay couples so that they too may have the same BENEFITS the government offers. And that is what the Obama adminstration is stating as the reason for DOMA...so gays don't have those benefits and the goverment has less money.

I have a better idea...let's do away with the tax benefits for married couples. Obama would love all the money the government would have then.

BTW, if you do away with "civil marriages," does this mean atheists can't be married?

Heterosexual, same sex, any marriage... its not for the government to sanction. Having the government sanction a very human relationship is simply outdated.

Marriage and being with the one you love is a human right. Tax benefits are not. If government got out of the marriage business altogether, everyone would be better off.

[NativeSun]

Well to say "I told you so" would seem soooo wrong, so I will say instead, "You got what you voted for. Enjoy!"

[TheTaoOfBill]

Heterosexual, same sex, any marriage... its not for the government to sanction. Having the government sanction a very human relationship is simply outdated.

Marriage and being with the one you love is a human right. Tax benefits are not. If government got out of the marriage business altogether, everyone would be better off.

We shouldn't be forced to be religious to get married and we shouldn't be forced to call it something other than marriage if we want a state reconized partner ship. Having the government in the "Marriage business" allows non religious couples the freedom to get married outside of religious influence. Marriage has not been a religion only thing for centuries.

[Spang]

"You got what you voted for. Enjoy!"

My vote didn't count.

[Alces95]

We shouldn't be forced to be religious to get married and we shouldn't be forced to call it something other than marriage if we want a state reconized partner ship. Having the government in the "Marriage business" allows non religious couples the freedom to get married outside of religious influence. Marriage has not been a religion only thing for centuries.



Why do loving couples need Obama (or Bush or any government official) to bless their relationship? Human rights are those that exist because humans do, not because governments. If government didn't exist, life long partnerships still would.

[Laura Cereta]

I fully admit that Obama's actions on gay rights have been my greatest disappointment in him. I'm really hoping he changes his positions by the end of his term.

Well, he is kinda known for doing that...

[mavfin]

Why do loving couples need Obama (or Bush or any government official) to bless their relationship? Human rights are those that exist because humans do, not because governments. If government didn't exist, life long partnerships still would.

I understand your stance. However, as long as married couples get benefits financially,in survivorship, etc, and in who has the say for medical care, and in spouse/family benefits in their employment medical benefits, people will want the government marriage. As long as those remain the way they are, removing government from marriage will not work. Those benefits are the main reason gays want government marriage. If there were no benefits, they would have already found churches to bless their union and been done with it.

Also, I don't trust the churches *any* more than I trust the government. You may, but I don't.

[Horizon]

I'm gonna post this again. If we don't allow gay marriage, why allow atheists to marry?? What ever. Go Rob.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-thomas/the-big-gay-chip-on-my-sh_b_208183.html

The Big Gay Chip on My Shoulder
By Rob Thomas

I am a straight man, with a big gay chip on my shoulder.

A while back on my Twitter page (yes, I know how ridiculous it sounds), I mentioned that, if I believed in the devil, Pat Robertson might be him.

Being a fairly liberal-leaning guy with either liberal friends or Republican and Christian friends who don't believe that being one has anything to do with the other, I was surprised at how many people took offense to what I had to say.

These people weren't friends of Mr. Robertson but friends, apparently, of God. They had "spoken" with him and he had assured them that he was no friend of the gays. He also told them that he loved America more than any other country and was a huge fan of Dancing With the Stars.

The small controversy or "Twitter-versy" (patent on phrase pending) all started when I had made the mistake of asking why two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to make the same life-long commitment and (more importantly) under the same god, as straight people. Why can't my gay friends be as happily married as my wife and I? It seemed simple to me, but let me start off by telling you a series of things that I believe to be true:

I am a person who believes that people are born gay. I don't think you have any control over what moves you or to whom you're attracted. That's why it's called an attraction and not a choice.

I believe that America is a great nation of even greater people. I also believe that anyone who says that this is a "Christian nation" has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn't realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist or at least could see, even in the 1700s, that all through Europe at the time, religion was the cause of so much persecution that they needed to put into their brand new constitution a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE so that the ideals of a group of people could never be forced onto the whole. (I also find it funny when people point out to me that it says "one nation under god" in our pledge of allegiance, not realizing that this was an addition made in 1954 during the communism scare of the McCarthy era. It's not surprising, however, knowing that these same people would punch me in the mouth if I called Jesus a Jew.)

I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn't believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn't live their life according to the King James Bible isn't protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I've seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void.

I believe that to deny this right to the gay population is to say to them, "this god is not your god and he doesn't love you." There isn't one person who is against gay marriage that can give me a reason why it shouldn't be legal without bringing God or their religion into it. Still, I'm amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion. Isn't it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone's basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?

But this isn't a paper about religion. How could it be? Since we clearly have a separation of church and state, how could a conversation about laws have anything to do with religion at all? I'm writing about basic civil rights. We've been here before, fighting for the rights of African Americans or women to vote, or the rights of Jewish Americans to worship as they see fit. And, just as whites fought for African Americans or Christians for Jewish Americans, straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people.

I've heard it said before, many times, that if two men or two women are allowed to join into a civil union together, why can't they be happy with that and why is it so important that they call it marriage? In essence, what's in a name?

A civil union has to do with death. It's essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It's about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn't make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of "separate but equal" and we know how that works out.

The support of legalizing gay marriage is in no way meant to change the ideals of the section of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. But we should refuse to let other people's ideals shape the way we live our lives. Each of us has a short ride on this earth and as long as we stay in our lane, and don't affect someone else's ride, we should be allowed to drive as we see fit.

[Suzan]

I understand your stance. However, as long as married couples get benefits financially,in survivorship, etc, and in who has the say for medical care, and in spouse/family benefits in their employment medical benefits, people will want the government marriage. As long as those remain the way they are, removing government from marriage will not work. Those benefits are the main reason gays want government marriage. If there were no benefits, they would have already found churches to bless their union and been done with it.

Also, I don't trust the churches *any* more than I trust the government. You may, but I don't.

genericstamp! Well said.

Alyce makes sense in theory, but in reality, gay marriage needs to be recognized for there to be equality and parity under the law.

[Spang]

Obama Administration's DOMA Defense Unacceptable

When Barack Obama ran for President, he pledged to fully repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a mean-spirited piece of legislation that Bill Clinton signed in 1996 for crass political reasons. Obama says it’s still his intent to do so, but has yet to follow up with any action. Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief late last week defending a constitutional challenge to DOMA. The brief did not merely argue against the lawsuit on technical grounds such as the plaintiffs’ lack of standing, but advanced legal arguments that – if pursued by the courts – could greatly damage gay and lesbian rights. Most lawyers at the Justice Department who write these briefs are civil servants who cannot be replaced by a new President, and one of the authors was in fact a right-wing holdover from the Bush years. But Tony West, an Obama appointee and the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, allowed it to be filed in court – and his name appears on the front page. As Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, West may argue that he’s “just doing his job” – i.e., defending existing federal law. But the Administration can use discretion in these lawsuits, making this unacceptable.

The Politics Behind DOMA

Sponsored by Georgia Republican Bob Barr, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1996 – and Bill Clinton signed it into law while denouncing it as gay bashing. Clinton’s re-election campaign then advertised on Christian radio, touting his passage of DOMA as being pro-“family values.” The federal law did two things. It allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, which is why California was able to pass Proposition 22 in March 2000. It also barred federal benefits for same-sex couples (e.g., federal taxes, Social Security and immigration rights) – even if a state had marriage rights or civil unions.

In 2007, I asked Hillary Clinton if she would support repealing DOMA. She argued it “served a very important purpose,” but agreed that Part 3 (which bars all federal benefits) should be scrapped. Barack Obama, who was running against her for President, promised to repeal the whole legislation. For this and other reasons, I argued that he would make a better President for the LGBT community. I did not fault Obama for his rhetoric that marriage is “a man and a woman,” because his policy pledges were sound. While many gays and lesbians complained throughout the campaign, I retorted that he (a) opposed Proposition 8 and (b) would repeal DOMA.

Today, Congress has yet to pass – and Obama has yet to sign – legislation repealing DOMA. Which is not by itself a betrayal, because he never promised when the repeal would happen – and the recession has understandably kept the White House busy. Obama is cautious to a fault, and it’s clear he has tried during the first year to avoid getting pigeon-holed like Bill Clinton did on gays in the military. Prop 8 was also politically devastating to the effort at repealing DOMA, because it showed that even California rejects marriage equality. As a community organizer, Obama understands that activists cannot expect change without mobilizing a base. While advocates must keep pushing Obama on his promise, it will require a few more political victories before DOMA gets repealed.

Justice Department Brief is a Betrayal

Action by the Justice Department to oppose a lawsuit challenging DOMA, however, is a betrayal. A gay California couple that legally married before Prop 8 passed has sued to repeal DOMA on constitutional grounds, after the Bush Administration defeated their prior effort. Last week, the Obama Administration – through the U.S. Justice Department – filed a motion to dismiss their case. The brief argued that the couple lacks standing to sue, because they had not applied to get federal benefits that married couples enjoy – nor did they attempt to have their marriage recognized in a different state. The case could get thrown out for that reason alone, but I don’t have a problem with the Obama Administration raising those arguments.

But the brief then proceeds to defend DOMA “on the merits” – using language that is factually incorrect, and arguments that (if adopted by the courts) would damage future attempts to secure gay rights. The Administration argued that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not bar states from denying out-of-state gay marriages, and they cited prior cases of out-of-state marriages that were between (a) an uncle and niece, (b) a 16-year-old and adult and (c) first cousins. Comparing same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia is what one would expect from a Republican Administration, and for a court to agree with such reasoning is unhelpful.

I was not surprised that the brief said homosexuals are not a “suspect class,” because that is what federal courts currently recognize (as opposed to the California or Iowa Constitutions.) But I was shocked to see it argue that DOMA is “related to legitimate government interests,” because the federal government has an interest in saving money. In Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a Colorado proposition did not have a “rational basis” – because its only possible justification was anti-gay bias. For the Obama Administration to distinguish DOMA from Romer by dreaming up a “rational basis” will hurt future legal efforts on this issue.

But the most offensive part of the brief was how it defended Part 3 of DOMA, which bars same-sex couples from any federal benefits. Calling DOMA a “cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage,” the lawyers argued that Part 3 “does not discriminate against gays for federal benefits.” Which, of course, is patently false. DOMA is not a case of the federal government taking a “neutral” stance on a controversial topic. Part 3 expressly says the federal government will not recognize gay couples, even if a state chooses to acknowledge their marriage. Nor is it merely a “cautious” policy. Only twice has the U.S. Congress ever acted in its 200-year history to restrict marriage: (a) in 1865 when it made polygamy a crime, and (b) in 1996 when it passed DOMA.

Who Wrote it – and Who’s Responsible?

Many federal employees are civil servants who cannot be replaced because the new Administration disagrees with their politics. And because the gay couple in this case had previously challenged DOMA when George Bush was President, it is no surprise that the Justice Department had attorneys ready to defend the suit. In fact, one of the lawyers who wrote the brief – Scott Simpson – is a Mormon Republican, and a holdover from the Bush Administration. Alberto Gonzales even awarded the guy for his legal defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act. Arguably, the Obama Administration could not replace him with a new attorney.

But the first lawyer listed on the brief is Tony West, an Obama political appointee. West served as California finance chairman for Obama’s campaign, where he raised at least $500,000. He is the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who strongly supports gay marriage and is running for California Attorney General. His wife, Maya Harris, was until recently Executive Director of the Northern California ACLU. The ACLU issued a joint statement this weekend with other groups condemning the legal arguments in the brief, saying they were “very surprised and deeply disappointed” with the Obama Administration.

Of course, there is no evidence that West wrote the legal brief – or even knew about it. His name was on the brief, because he heads the Justice Department’s Civil Division (which handles all lawsuits filed against the federal government.) But that means he supervises the attorneys who wrote it, and he can be held accountable. Before gay marriage advocates start asking whether Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the legal brief, they should ask West: (1) did he review the legal brief before it was filed, (2) if so, why would he agree to have it submitted as written, (3) if not, would he have done so and (4) why were the arguments appropriate?

The Justice Department Had a Choice

West would probably say that he was “just doing his job.” His career shows he has taken controversial cases and clients before, such as defending John Walker Lindh (the American Taliban) on charges of treason. White House spokesman Shin Inouye told the Los Angeles Times that the Justice Department was following its normal practice of defending current law. “The President has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of DOMA,” he said. “However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”

Some advocates feel this is a double standard. The Justice Department chose not to prosecute officials in the Bush Administration for torture and other war crimes, even if their task is to “uphold the law.” But prosecutors always have the discretion on whether or not to press charges, unlike a defendant forced to respond to a lawsuit. The Obama Administration arguably has a political double standard in this case, but it still doesn’t answer the basic question: did the Justice Department have a choice?

Richard Socarides, a former top Justice Department official in the Clinton White House, argues that they did. “I know and accept that one of the Justice Department’s roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack,” he wrote this weekend. “But not in all cases, certainly not in this case – and not in this way … Where there are important political and social issues at stake, the President should make a policy decision first and then the lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.”

Moreover, consider how California Attorney General Jerry Brown handled the suit against Proposition 8. Rather than defend state law (as his predecessor did for Prop 22), his office argued in front of the Supreme Court that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Kenneth Starr (on behalf of the religious right) intervened to defend Prop 8, which the court accepted. It is not unusual when a law gets challenged in court that some advocates fear the government will not vigorously defend it. Occasionally, the court allows them to get involved. The Obama Administration did not have to defend DOMA, especially when there are plenty of right-wing groups ready to do it themselves.

There has been a lot of talk this weekend from lawyers, who claim the Obama Administration had no choice. Much of this analysis has taken a strict legal approach, without considering the inherent politics behind these decisions. But one lawyer said it differently. “The law can be very fluid,” he wrote, “and lawyers are taught in law school to find new ways to interpret words. Lawyers who craft new legal strategies and theories that sway courts are venerated in history as civil rights heroes … Sure, the brief was a legal document, but it was also very much a political document … Anyone who says that Republican and Democratic presidents alike don't let their politics influence their arguments before the courts is either a liar or terribly naïve.”

I completely agree. Judges, at the end of the day, are politically connected lawyers who wear robes – and lawyers cannot pretend to live in an abstract ivory tower. In a highly emotional and political case as this, we cannot discount the consequences of “upholding the law” – and the Obama Administration should have used their proper discretion in this case. Obama cannot claim to support the complete repeal of DOMA, if the Justice Department spews out arguments that may adversely affect gays and lesbians when they fight for their rights in court. Marriage equality advocates must express their displeasure, as we hope that Obama gets the message loud and clear.

The Source (http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Obama_Administration_s_DOMA_Defense_Unacceptable_7 031.html)

[Spang]

Barney Frank rips prez’s ‘big mistake’

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, one of the nation’s leading gay rights champions, blasted President Obama yesterday over a controversial anti-gay marriage court filing and is calling on the commander in chief to explain himself.

“I think the administration made a big mistake. The wording they used was inappropriate,” Frank (D-Newton) said of a brief filed by Obama’s Department of Justice that supported the Defense of Marriage Act.

The DOJ brief, which has touched off a firestorm of anger in the gay community, argued that states should not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, just as states don’t have to recognize incestuous marriages or unions involving underage girls.

“I’ve been in touch with the White House and I’m hoping the president will make clear these were not his views,” Frank said.

The controversy has prompted some prominent gay political donors and activists to boycott a gay/lesbian Democratic National Committee fund-raiser being co-hosted by Frank next week in Washington, D.C., Vice President Biden is slated to be the keynote speaker, but protests could mar the $1,000-a-head event.

Among those who’ve already pulled out of the fund-raiser are noted gay bloggers Andrew Towle and David Mixner, a former adviser to President Clinton.

Mixner called the DOJ brief “a sickening document that could have been written by the Rev. Pat Robertson.”

“Using the worst of stereotypes, it intimates that we don’t have constitutional guarantees, invokes scenarios of incest, of children and advocates that we don’t have the same rights as others,” Mixner wrote on his blog.

Frank said he understands the rage but vowed that the fund-raiser - one of the gay community’s biggest of the year - will go on.

“There are a lot of people who aren’t boycotting,” he said. “I think it’s a mistake to deny money to the DNC.”

DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias, a staunch gay rights advocate, defended Obama, telling Politico, “If this debacle of a brief represented the president’s views, I’d boycott too. I totally understand all the hurt and anger . . . (but I) still personally totally believe in the president.”

The Source (http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2009_06_17_Barney_Frank_rips_prez_s_%E2%80%98big_m istake_:_Fuming_over_anti-gay_wed_filing/srvc=home&position=6)