Gays and lesbians thrown under the bus, as usual

[Anders Hallin]

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/12/no-one-could-have-predicted
Folks who read the DOMA brief the Obama administration filed in California this morning—the one that compared gay marriage to incest and child rape and rehearsed numerous anti-gay arguments favored by the religious right—said that it read like it was written by the Bush administration. It went way beyond the half-hearted perforce defense of DOMA that folks were braced for.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/12/what-they-said
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/12/mainstream-gay-groups-to-obama-fuck-you

This is a President who said he is a "fierce advocate" for our rights. This doesn't look much like an advocate, it looks more like an enemy pulling the pin on the grenade and tossing it at us. While this may not be the perfect test case for DOMA, the Obama administration, in its defense of the Act, has filed a brief that is a roadmap for every fundnut anti-gay argument against the right of same-sex couples to marry.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11427/the-obama-admin-defends-doma-in-a-brief-comparing-marriage-equality-to-incest

Business as usual for the Democratic party, I suppose.

[Midnight Son]

Seems like all kinds of people are being crossed by Barry O. As a tree hugger, I'm pissed about allowing mountain top removal coal mining to continue.

Face it, there's really nobody to vote for that won't fuck you over the minute they get in office.

[Cubit]

Well, to be fair, I don't believe Obama ever said he was for gay marriage while campaigning. Still, the legal reasoning in those briefs has me a little annoyed as well.

[RyanMichael]

He never said he was going to push for its legalization, but he sure didn't sound like he was going to fight back against the progress made by others. The White House could've released a neutral brief if he was really so afraid of offending the bigoted religious folk whose vote he clearly values more than the LGBT community.

This is pure and utter bullshit.

[Anti-Bunny]

Well, to be fair, I don't believe Obama ever said he was for gay marriage while campaigning.
This. Obama played the bare minimum lip service to the LGBT groups. People just ASSUMED he would be the guy to bring change in this perticular area.

[extarbags]

It'll be interesting to see if there's a big enough hoopla to prompt a reaction from Obama himself on this, as it looks like it was handled by this douchebag Bush holdover. I'm not making apologies, because Obama is definitely responsible for this shitty policy direction, but I highly doubt he was directly involved in this brief; trolling minorities is pretty much the opposite of his m.o.

I'm with Sullivan for now; it seems likely that this is just not a priority of the adminstration at all, so they a) happily maintain the status quo on it, and b) dump the shitty Bush administration jerks they kept to appease the idiots who love "bipartisanship" so much on the case, which is how the least offensive president in recent memory ends up being responsible for a legal brief accusing gays of fucking their children, who are also underaged animals or something.

[Eduardo X]

This. Obama played the bare minimum lip service to the LGBT groups. People just ASSUMED he would be the guy to bring change in this perticular area.
Hillary was the one who said she was for equal rights.

I am jaded enough that I knew to not expect jack-shit from Obama on this front. My pessimism has paid off! I will live today as normal, without any disappointment.

[Tim James]

It's interesting that the Bush administration's lawyers filed a last-second brief in the D.C. handgun ban against firearms rights last year. Do these guys work in their own bubble?

[Flowers]

Grab your box of crayons, take out the dull pink one, and color me disappointed.

[RyanMichael]

Straight people need to stop being so disinterested in this. It's utterly appalling that we're treating our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, etc., like second-class citizens.

We can't let the bigots make these policy decisions without getting rightfully pissed, otherwise they're gonna keep on ignoring the issue to avoid upsetting the vocally loud minority of hatemongers.

[Jon Rowe]

I didn't vote for Obama for reasons like this!! Also, he was over-hyped. And to be a cool hipster I went against the grain to support Ralph Nader.

[Anaxagoras]

And to be a cool hipster I went against the grain to support Ralph Nader.

Shun the unbeliever! Shuuuuuuun!

[Tim James]

I didn't vote for Obama for reasons like this!! Also, he was over-hyped. And to be a cool hipster I went against the grain to support Ralph Nader.OMG you are turning me on. Want to go get a PBR and have sex?

(Note to homophobes: the italics mean someone else is speaking, like a hipster chick. Or a gay man. Oh dear God, I'd better just leave.)

[Jon Rowe]

Well, I am strictly straight... but now that you mention PBR...

[Adam B]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20020507h.gif

[gameoverman]

I voted for Obama because I wanted change, and he was supposedly for it.

This means change in ALL areas, one area being the way gays are treated in this country. So, even if he didn't promise anything specifically, more of the same is a supreme disappointment.

[Tim James]

I voted for Obama because I wanted change, and he was supposedly for it.

This means change in ALL areas...No offense, but was this your first election?

[Anders Hallin]

The HRC responds:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/06/a-letter-to-the-president-from-joe-solmonese/
Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,”[1] I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.

[ydejin]

Well, to be fair, I don't believe Obama ever said he was for gay marriage while campaigning.
You are right. In fact IIRC he explicitly said that he was against gay marriage, but supported Civil Unions.

[MattKeil]

Somewhere in that morass is there a reason for the inequality enforced by law that doesn't boil down to "god says it's icky"?

[Aeon221]

The HRC responds:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/06/a-letter-to-the-president-from-joe-solmonese/

Yeah, that accurately captures my feelings as well. How could this administration let such a hateful and discriminatory document be filed on their behalf?

[Aeon221]

Somewhere in that morass is there a reason for the inequality enforced by law that doesn't boil down to "god says it's icky"?

No. In fact, as the article notes, there are some outright contrafactual claims in the brief. It's ridiculous.

[Hanacker]

The HRC responds:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/06/a-letter-to-the-president-from-joe-solmonese/

After Eduardo X's comment, I was wondering how Hillary got a "The" attached to the front of her name...

[pogozorro]

Yeah, that accurately captures my feelings as well. How could this administration let such a hateful and discriminatory document be filed on their behalf?

Because Obama is shrewd and is using DOMA to 1) pander to the bigoted right while 2) allowing a number of legal challenges to take it down in its entirety.

Really.

I bet.

[Tim James]

He also might be trying to lock up the California vote in 2012.

[Anti-Bunny]

Yeah, dude, don't worry. He really DOES want to institute gay marriage and get rid of DADT! But, it will have to wait until after reelection. Sorry! Just wait until 2012. Unless Hillary has a chance, then 2016.

[Saiban]

No. In fact, as the article notes, there are some outright contrafactual claims in the brief. It's ridiculous.

I had held out some hope that Obama would at least put an end to shit like that -- total subversion of the law when it's politically expedient. Keeping most of the Bush 'national security' (Hah!) policy indicated that wouldn't be the case, and this kind of seals the deal.

[Enidigm]

Surely the administration will withdraw this brief once they discover it's contents, right?

I don't understand the deep antagonism so many feel about this issue, but they see it, fairly or not, as a tiny (tiny) minority imposing their beliefs on others. (Speaking to my father about this a couple weeks ago, for ex., he ranted in anger that " there are only 11,000 couples that got gay married in California, why is it such a big deal??".)

[Dave Markell]

I don't understand the deep antagonism so many feel about this issue, but they see it, fairly or not, as a tiny (tiny) minority imposing their beliefs on others.

Homophobia combined with a desire to force your neighbors to conform to your standards of right and wrong is the simple answer for the views of people like your dad. If gay folk were really trying to impose their beliefs on others, they would be pushing for hetero's having to marry the same sex. All gays really want is to be left alone to do their own thing, which was supposedly a core American value at some point in the forgotten past. Guys like your father (and my step-father, who fought long and hard for California's Prop 8) drive me nuts. The existence of ONE gay couple that wants to be married is reason enough for a truly free country to recognize and sanction that union.

And yeah, I'm appalled that the Obama administration is behind this. Even if they just let it "slip through the cracks", they're guilty of horrible negligence.

[Casper]

I wonder how much it is a political capital thing. While it's horrible not to move forward on this, it seems to me that 1) there is movement building in the states to allow it anyway 2) he clearly views the economy and healthcare (and the wars) as top tier issues and will use his high approval rating to push those forward before expending capital (amongst conservatives who he will need to get healthcare done with any hope of a long lasting effect) on "less important" issues.

I'm fairly confident that as the heat of the crisis in the economy (which his admin sees as tightly connected to healthcare) eases, he will turn his attention to less pressing social issues. But maybe that's me drinking the koolaid

[Jeff Fries]

Grab your box of crayons, take out the dull pink one, and color me disappointed.

Only if you take this quarter here and call somebody who cares (or use your cellphone)

[Hawkeye Fierce]

It seemed pretty clear to me during the campaign that gay marriage was simply not a very high priority for Obama. Which was unfortunate, but I have to agree that there were and are more significant national issues to be concerned about. The progress of gay rights at the state level seems to take some of the urgency away as well.

This brief, though, yeesh. Ugly, ugly stuff. I'll just continue to hope that individual states continue to see the light, and make this issue moot at the federal level within a decade or so.

[Jon Rowe]

I think people just assumed that he was being silent because of the election and not wanting to lose votes from the center.

I guess he is still worrying about 2012.

[Tim James]

You guys are getting it all wrong. Since California's prop 8 vote, Obama now sees bigotry as a winning issue! Duh.

[Disconnected]

The mind boggles. Centrists. Who want to deny their fellow citizens equality before the law. Centrists.

But I guess Nazism was pretty normal too, once.

[Cubit]

It boggles my mind that civil rights in the 60's was a national issue, but many people prefer gay marriage be left to the individual states to decide. Doesn't make sense.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Should civil rights in the 60's been left up to the states?It's a good point, and I would prefer a top-down approach to this problem. However, that does not seem to be forthcoming right at the moment. At least in this case there's cause for optimism with regard to the states, which I don't think was really the case for the civil rights movement. Nor am I saying that people should just sit down and be quiet about the issue since the states are handling it, quite the opposite.

What I was trying to express before is that I see the individual state recognition of gay marriage as a silver lining, not as an overall solution.

[ReptileHouse]

The AP is reporting that there will be federal benefits for same-sex partners of federal workers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_gay_benefits).

[Supersport]

The AP is reporting that there will be federal benefits for same-sex partners of federal workers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_gay_benefits).

And if history tells us anything, once the Fed adopts it; the states do. I think we need to give Obama a little more credit than this thread has delivered. He threw a curve ball on Prop 8 and then his very next pitch is a fast ball for the strike-out.

[rossm]

And if history tells us anything, once the Fed adopts it; the states do. I think we need to give Obama a little more credit than this thread has delivered. He threw a curve ball on Prop 8 and then his very next pitch is a fast ball for the strike-out.
It apparently does not include health care, retirement benefits, social security, and it expires when obama leaves office.

[Guido Jones]

It apparently does not include health care, retirement benefits, social security, and it expires when obama leaves office.

That requires Congress to change them, to be fair. But yeah, this seems like a useless change to try and quiet down gay rights activists.

[Supersport]

It apparently does not include health care, retirement benefits, social security, and it expires when obama leaves office.

Yeah as the day went on and more details came out, I agree that this isn't a HUGE step but a step none the less. It has to start somewhere and I have a feeling that there is more to come.

[Nezz]

It boggles my mind that civil rights in the 60's was a national issue, but many people prefer gay marriage be left to the individual states to decide. Doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. Racism and homosexualism are both modern ideologies. It makes a lot of sense for traditionally minded fellows, who are many, to reject both. Homosexualism, therefore, will never find a democratic majority. The tactical choices of the activists are just reflections of this substantial difference.

[RSofaer]

There has to be a better word than homosexualism for whatever you're trying to say. Also, what?

[Disconnected]

Sure it does. Racism and homosexualism are both modern ideologies.

Most likely both are incidental to nationalist/tribalist/patriarchal cultural values, so you can probably count on both having been around roughly as long as humans. You can certainly find examples of both throughout the last couple of thousand years of human history.

[Anti-Bunny]

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the 50-year-old civil rights organization founded by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others, is seeking to remove the president of its Los Angeles chapter in response to his support of same-sex marriage in California.
So much for civil rights, I guess. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11gay.html)

[Anti-Bunny]

Decorated combat pilot to be thrown under the bus (http://www.idahostatesman.com/273/story/874410.html?storylink=omni_popular), after being forced to out himself by police. Two years short of full retirement, too.