06/18/2009
Barney Frank Backtracks, Now Supports DOMA Brief
Rep. Barney Frank released a statement yesterday backtracking on his remarks to the Boston Herald, saying that he commented to the press on the DOMA brief before having even read it...and...he now supports it.
Said Frank:
"When I was called by a newspaper reporter for reaction to the administration’s brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, I made the mistake of relying on other people’s oral descriptions to me of what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first. It is a lesson to me that I should not give in to press insistence that I comment before I have had a chance fully to inform myself on the subject at hand... Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded."
His full statement, AFTER THE JUMP...
Americablog: "Our senior most gay member of Congress actually said that had Obama argued in court that DOMA is unconstitutional, that would be akin to George Bush not going to court to, for example, get a warrant to spy on Americans. Get it? Defending gay people is like spying illegally. But comparing us to incest and pedophilia, using what I'm told was pretty much the original brief the Bush administration used against us years ago, is somehow a sign that we're better than the Republicans - by repeating their arguments in court."
***
Congressman Barney Frank issued the following statement in response to a newspaper story regarding his position on the brief by the Department of Justice about Smelt v. United States.
“When I was called by a newspaper reporter for reaction to the administration’s brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, I made the mistake of relying on other people’s oral descriptions to me of what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first. It is a lesson to me that I should not give in to press insistence that I comment before I have had a chance fully to inform myself on the subject at hand.”
“Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”
“It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example. It is the President’s job to try to change the law, but it is also his obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”
“I strongly opposed DOMA when it was adopted and I will continue to fight for changes. I support very strongly the lawsuit brought by the people at Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) that make the cogent argument that DOMA’s provision denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages blatantly violates the equal protection clause. And I will work with the Obama administration as they have promised to do to enact laws protecting LGBT people from hate crimes, from job discrimination, and from discrimination in the military. I will also be critical when I think inappropriate language is used. But after rereading this brief, I do not think that the Obama administration should be subject to harsh criticism in this instance.”
Posted 9:10 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Barney Frank, DOMA, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Thank you Barney for having the courage to speak the truth. We have to stop listening to the histrionics of that Americablog-nut job.
Posted by: JimSur212 | Jun 18, 2009 9:21:12 AM
Oh please!!! The language used in the DOMA brief is so offensive I can't believe anyone would support its argument. Is Barney Frank turning into a self hating old queen? Will no one stand up and say this is wrong?
Posted by: philberto | Jun 18, 2009 9:28:30 AM
Barney Frank is one of the only people who can play Obama even in political chess. For that matter, Frank could make Machiavelli sweat. If he's retrenching on this, it's because he's building up ducats for some payback down the line. Of course, what he said is horseshit, but there's motive in it.
Posted by: MikeMick | Jun 18, 2009 9:30:58 AM
RE: "There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard "
BULLSHIT, BARNEY, BULLSHIT
Shame on you Barney.
You know full well that nowhere in the brief is the government obligated to trot out every disingenuous false claim in order to file a brief. Nowhere does it say "some people argue"... in fact the brief explicitly MAKES the argument that DOMA is good law!!!
If Oscar Wilde called fox hunting "the unspeakable pursuing the inedible", then Barney Frank defending DOMA is "the ineffectual endorsing the indefensible"
Posted by: Strepsi | Jun 18, 2009 9:31:33 AM
He's a Congressman who has to suck up to the administration. No fair-minded human being, gay or straight, can defend either DOMA or any attempt to justify it.
It's a shame. Rep. Frank could have been a leader. Instead he is a lemming.
Posted by: jmdrwac | Jun 18, 2009 9:37:31 AM
I think Mikemick summed it up perfectly. This is politics folks - it ain't pretty. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if this was all just a bit of political theater and part of a master plan. I haven't seen any outrage about Obama now offering (albeit weak) equal benefits for federal workers. DOMA and DADT will be gone in short order.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 18, 2009 9:43:58 AM
Mike, any idea of how short that order will be?
Posted by: Roscoe | Jun 18, 2009 9:49:54 AM
This is a vain attempt by the DNC to use a gay icon to try and defuse the DOMA issue. We got their attention when gay leaders and contributors started pulling our money back. We must not allow them to deter us from this course. We finally have their attention and finally have them scared. We must continue this course.
Posted by: Robert Rhea | Jun 18, 2009 9:55:32 AM
I don't care if Barney is trying to play some clever political game -- which, by the way, I don't believe for a minute; he's got a quick wit, but I've never seen any evidence that he's that skillful a political player -- his statement is harmful. Every major gay legal organization in this country understands the unnecessary harm caused by that brief, but Barney knows better? Please.
Posted by: Glenn | Jun 18, 2009 9:55:51 AM
Wow, do you think when the Obama administration is over they will give Barney his nuts back, or perhaps they'll get bejeweled for Michelle? Oh wait, he didn't have any because his solution for the past 30 years has been to tell us to wait because now isn't the time to push for full equality. Fail.
Posted by: ChristopherM | Jun 18, 2009 10:01:11 AM
So Barney is a collaborator...what's new about that? It's not like thers is no precedent for this sort of thing. Barney is just auditioning for a seat in the camp orchestra.
Posted by: Jim Kelly | Jun 18, 2009 10:01:42 AM
did you histrionic homos even read and understand this part:
"It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case."
the point is DOMA is fucked up, but supporting the laws is the president's job until we can fully work towards changing them. obama's got this; he just needs our support and, yes, constructive pressure.
Posted by: adam | Jun 18, 2009 10:14:42 AM
People!
Barack Obama took an oath to defend the laws of the United States. As long as that onerous piece of crap law is on the books, he is required to defend it.
This is why many people wanted Obama for president, because he wouldn't ignore the restrictions on presidential power or find workarounds to get what they wanted. Bush never met a limit on presidential power he didn't ignore, and Obama is playing by the rules.
And yes, this means we don't get what we want immediately. This does mean we have to keep up the pressure, but it does not mean that Obama is tossing us to the curb. I think we should continue to push him to give us that fierce advocacy he promised, but indulging in hatred blinds us just as much as it blinds our opponents.
You are going to say "How long do we have to wait?" The answer is as long as it takes. We cannot overthrow the government that we must be a part of to have full equality. I just find all these negative reactions very discouraging--either we have the rule of law (which will, when we get it, ensure our equality) or we don't. If we want people to break the laws in our favor, we should expect people to break the laws against us.
Posted by: Dennis | Jun 18, 2009 10:16:39 AM
My mind reels at all the gays telling other gays to shut up and sit down and eat their plate of Obama bullshit.
FUCK YOU.
Posted by: Terry | Jun 18, 2009 10:17:13 AM
I used to be proud of him- now I am ashamed. I heard his comments on the radio and I couldnt help but get angry.
No Federal rights means that my partner and I will eventually be forced apart by a continent.
I dont want to be patient any longer. Enough is Enough.
I strongly urge the GLBT community to boycott the democratic party.
You are fools to believe they are the party for us! The DO NOT CARE!!
Posted by: Jon Evans | Jun 18, 2009 10:17:59 AM
Uh sorry folks, but Barney has a point. The gay blogs freaked out and ran with "INCEST!!!" and "PEDOPHILIA!!!!", making it sound as if the brief directly compared gay couples to a father raping his three-year-old daughter, when it did no such thing.
All it did was make you look hysterical, and DISTRACT from the more troubling legal assertions the brief actually made.
Box Turtle Bulletin was the only website that seemed to have any sort of realistic assessment of the story.
Posted by: Eshto | Jun 18, 2009 10:44:22 AM
Barney's been called in to quell the growing furor over the DNC fundraiser. He's a figurehead, the natural choice. So Barney goes back to the press and says the DOMA brief wasn't as BAD AS ALL THAT.
The question is: what reassurances did Barney get to hold his nose and retract his first statement to the press? The second question is: does he think now is a good time to explain to the GLTB citizens who helped elect Obama just exactly what they're going to get for their efforts?
You see, the "fierce urgency of now" works both ways, and we've actually noticed President Fierce has promised a great deal but done fuck all for us, really.
Posted by: elcamino | Jun 18, 2009 10:46:17 AM
@Terry: THANK YOU, my thoughts exactly.
Posted by: farrellcsun | Jun 18, 2009 10:46:57 AM
How about ONE of you who posted your BS on here READ THE FULL DOMA Brief then you should comment. NOT ONE of you on here has read the entire brief so how can you say someone is full of shit when you don't know.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 18, 2009 10:49:53 AM
Guys, You have to get over "Obama has to defend the law". Obama's crime is one of ignorance and inattention. Eric Holder should have been on watch for this kind of thing. The DOMA Brief was written by a Bush Era Mormon Bigot who wanted to spread his lies and hate.
The fact is that we do not have a "Fierce Advocate" in the White House, we have an inattentive president who doesn't give our community a second thought unless our checkbooks are open. Only be denying them our resources and showing solidarity will we put enough pressure to make them pay attention. Andy, David Mixner, and the others are on the right track. We have to demonstrate, we have to make noise, and we have to let them never forget that we will not stand idly by and continue waiting like good little boys and girls. If they want us to support them, they MUST support us.
Posted by: Robert Rhea | Jun 18, 2009 10:50:48 AM
I have read the brief, actually. It is as offensive as Americablog described. There's another Obama authored brief coming down the pike in July - should be interesting to see the wording on that too.
Another poster has claimed that Box Turtle Bulletin claims that the DOMA brief was not deeply offensive to gays, but here's a quite from lead article this morning:
" this is the brief which suggests that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against gay people because gay people are free to marry anyone they want, as long as its someone of the opposite sex. And besides, the brief continues, if it did discriminate, that’s okay too. Maybe Congress just wanted to save a few bucks in Social Security benefits, and that’s a good enough reason right there — never mind that we pay the same taxes into the fund just like everyone else."
Posted by: elcamino | Jun 18, 2009 10:55:49 AM
I'm officially confused?!?? but I'm not bashing rep. Barney. He's generally been candid and on the right side of a lot of my important issues.
Posted by: ED2 | Jun 18, 2009 10:58:10 AM
Defending the indefensible is getting HARDER AND HARDER, as our potentates (on both sides) in D.C. are reluctantly learning.
Posted by: elcamino | Jun 18, 2009 10:58:17 AM
"I wouldn't be surprised if this was all just a bit of political theater and part of a master plan."
This is the same bullshit we were asked to swallow during 8 years of Bill Clinton's right-wing kowtowing.
Posted by: Bill W | Jun 18, 2009 11:00:37 AM
I've been trying to read the DOJ's brief today. Where does it compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest? Neither word appears in the brief.
I think, so far, that it is offensive to gays, because it doesn't give gays what they want. It seems, based on current laws, both federal and state, fairly even-handed.
Posted by: J.P. | Jun 18, 2009 11:00:40 AM