Official White House Response to DOJ – DOMA Uproar

For the record, here's the official response the White House sent Towleroad (also sent to other media) to the uproar over the Department of Justice's motion for dismissal of the federal same-sex marriage case:

"As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The President has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

Comments

  1. BLUEINTUIT says

    LOOK AT THE GREEN PARTY PLATFORM. I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD VOTE ANYTHING OTHER THAN DEMOCRATIC, BUT I’M SWITCHING TO THE GREEN PARTY. WE NEED TO MAKE A STATEMENT AS A GROUP.

  2. jimstoic says

    The key word is “generally.” It’s not mandatory, and the Obama administration shouldn’t have supported this case. Furthermore, there’s defending and there’s defending. This brief went much, much too far.

  3. Alex says

    So I guess that answers the question of whether the Obama administration knew this was happening. Clearly they do and they support it.

    Cue the apologists who try to say maybe he didn’t know…we’re patiently waiting your next excuse for this Administration’s failure to follow through…on anything.

  4. says

    Oh, bullshit. The law is indefensible and Obama (and his DOJ) knows it. Even if they did have some sort of a duty to defend the law, they didn’t have to plumb the depths of wingnut rhetoric to do so.

    It will be a cold day in hell before Obama sees a dime from me. And if he doesn’t start putting some actions behind all his pretty words about gay rights, he can forget about getting my vote in 2012, too.

  5. Leena says

    What a steaming pile of bull crap. Utter f—in cowards with no leadership on this issue.

    I guess this is the “big news in June” that was rumored to be given to LGBT people. What a riot.

    This turns the administration from neutral shameful silence to ACTIVELY WORKING AGAINST LGBT PEOPLE.

    Shame on them.

    This is an outrage.

  6. Mark says

    We have been played big time.
    I’m changing my voter registration to anything but Democratic.
    I’m not voting for this liar in the next election.
    He lied to us to our faces when he wanted money. Now he doesn’t only ignore us, he spits on us.

  7. Kyle Sullivan says

    Sure — defend the law by comparing gay men and women to child rapists. Yeah, right, that’s the way to do it.

    Big surprise here, folks.

  8. Clay says

    Just to inject a note of calm into this thread, it’s worth keeping in mind the potential implications of a Federal Justice Dept that picks and chooses which Federal laws it decides to enforce/defend. Of course this law is disgusting, but imagine a rightwing Justice Dept refusing to enforce an existing Hate Crimes law or ENDA, or the Voting Rights Act. It’s the exact same legal principle.

    Where we really need to go after Obama is the HIV travel ban, which even Bush said should go and for which the basic legwork has already been done.

  9. Rafael says

    By the way I think they are getting ready for the Olson Boies lawsuit. The DOJ explicitly cited and argued against the principles and cases that could be tested in that case. This would explain why they went out of their way in defending DOMA by demeaning gay people and their humanity in the process. The White House is afraid of the political implications a Supreme Court ruling in our favor could have in regards to the Obama administration and their aspirations of a second term.

  10. Hish says

    Until now, I believed that we should still wait and see before filling up the LGBT scorecard for the Obama administration. Relatively speaking, it is a rather young administration.

    Today, I wonder if I was wrong to think that everyone who has criticized the Obama administration’s LGBT record so far jumped the gun in doing so…

    It’s not even because they haven’t really done anything ‘yet’. I (we?) could’ve waited longer. But using that excuse to defend their action really hits a nerve with me. “We support you, but we have to wait till Congress repeals DADT and DOMA before we will show it.”

    To appeal to a broader spectrum, I think the Obama administration just wants to avoid being labeled an activist administration. After all, the label of ‘activist’ judge comes with negative implications, especially that they will stray too far from established laws or the constitution. So, they proclaim support for LGBT rights, but will wait till it won’t be too ‘activist’ or far-left to actually act on it before actually doing so. It’s politically savvy for everyone but LGBT rights supporters.

    Still, I have hope, and when/if the administration finally demonstrates some action and leadership over this issue, we shouldn’t hesitate to revise our opinions towards it.

  11. B says

    I’m switching parties. I feel like a tool with the all the time and money I voted for change. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. At least we knew with Bush. Obama’s just a snake.

    I think GLBT citizens should claim 8 dependents on their taxes this year. State and Federal governments would lose a fortune and it would cost a fortune to pursue.

    The time for civil disobedience is now!

  12. Todd in NYC says

    I think it’s time to cancel the Gay Pride Parade in NYC this year. It’s the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots – No party, no music, no fun, no nakedness we need to get serious about this – we need to replace it with a massive march for equal rights – we need to take it to the streets. I’m sick and tired of this bullshit. We need to get angry.

  13. JimSur212 says

    Calm down people. Being against DOMA and wanting Congress to repeal it doesn’t mean that one has to believe DOMA is itself unconstitutional. I read the entire brief and it is constitutionally sound and reflects precedent. That doesn’t mean that the rights of gay people to marry shouldn’t be found in the constitution and I do hope the Boies/Olson suit succeeds. But right now, under existing precedent, it is not a constitutional right and, putting my personal feelings and interests aside, I don’t see how the constitution as currently interpreted would require states to recognize gay marriages from another state. I wish it we in there, but it isn’t.

  14. says

    There’s a huge difference between “defending” and “rubbing it in your face.”

    The outright bigotry in this document was, well, illuminating. We now know *exactly* where the administration stands.

  15. Boone68 says

    I understand the DOJ’s need to be consistent in defending existing statutes and I believe that it is the right thing to do. The point made regarding a Republican administration picking and choosing which laws to defend and enforce is truly frightening and is a point well taken. HOWEVER, the language and insults and falsities in these briefs are inexcusable and indefensible. Do they realize what they are saying? Do they understand that they are the same people who promised to work for equality? I will NEVER vote for anyone who personally insults me and my family in such a way. Their words are right out of a Pat Robertson speech or a DOM commercial. Dispicable and unforgivable.

  16. Perry says

    LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.

    YOU DON’T GET ANOTHER DIME FROM ME.

    I’M NOT VOTING FOR YOUR A– UNTIL YOU TREAT GAY PEOPLE WITH BASIC DECENCY AND DON’T LIE TO THEM ABOUT YOUR INTENTIONS ANYMORE.

    LIKE A SNAKE, IS WHAT ANOTHER POSTER WROTE.

  17. Goober Peas says

    For the president and administration that are known for their skill at “messaging” and with the level of control they exhibit in all things political, they are absolutely TONE DEAF to the LGBT community.

    Filing this brief during Pride month, on the anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia, and letting a Bush-appointed Mormon lawyer write the brief in the way that he did is unconscionable and indefensible unless the Obama administration is really thumbing their collective noses at our community.

    I have no problem with the DOJ defending the law as that is their responsibility. I can’t really argue against their defending it zealously, as the code of ethics for lawyers requires.

    What burns my ass is how our straight allies and the Obamabots jump up and start telling us to sit down and shut up and wait our turn until after the economy is fixed, after health care reform is passed, and then it will be after the 2010 election, and after Obama runs for re-election, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. ad infinitum.

    I can be patient. I’ve been actively working for equality for 30+ years. I am realistic and understand the politics of the situation. What I can’t understand is why we are allowing Clinton holdovers dictate the agenda here — it’s as if they are after a “payback” for Clinton’s roasting on DADT and they are hellbent on keeping Obama at arm’s length from us at all times.

    And we, and our representative organizations, are letting them. We worked against a very hostile Reagan administration and managed to radically alter the American health care system during the height of the AIDS crisis. We need to rebuild that same fire and those same coalitions today. It is still a matter of life and death for too many of us.

  18. Michael Bedwell says

    @ JimSur212:

    “is constituionally sound…”???

    Excuse me Fairy Mason, but I’ll take the fact that four LEGAL EXPERT organizations
    that have denounced the Obama brief as the more credible opinion:

    American Civil Liberties Union
    Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
    Lambda Legal
    National Center for Lesbian Rights

    “…and reflects precedent”???

    So did the ruling that kept Dred Scott a slave and slavery legal. So did the Hardwick ruling that kept sodomy laws legal until “Lawrence.” So do the majority of rulings on DADT.

    Finally, “the rights of gay people to marry” was NOT a position of the plaintiff’s suit. What was? The very things that OBAMA used to get us into bed …. er give him the nomination.

    He promised to FIGHT for DOMA repeal not DEFEND it.

    That promise disappeared from WhiteHouse.gov weeks ago, but they kept the Obama “supports federal rights for LGBT couples”…nota bene not “except for married couples” [as this couple is in California] because he opposes marriage equality.

    Need MULTIPLE videotaped reminders of those promises during the campaign, go here:

    http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001841/

    And NOW the Obama Legal Gestapo are imagining that we’ll deep throat the bull about Congressional repeal, as they did to excuse their DADT defense, when in both cases HE just MADE THE SAME ARGUMENTS for the passage of DOMA and DADT in the first place????

    What’s he going to say to Congress now to keep HIS PROMISES to FIGHT FOR their repeal?

    “Whoops.”

  19. Goober Peas says

    P.S. And stop sending me the urgent requests to support your damned efforts on health care reform until you make some kind of meaningful gesture to let us know that we are not forgotten and off the radar entirely. I work for you when I know you work for me. That’s the way it plays, fellas!

    P.P.S. And stop pissing on my shoe and telling me that I’m drooling. The Obama administration and the DOJ have chosen NOT to defend the myriad laws broken by the Bush administration. They are continuing the illegal detention, rendition, torture, and suppression of evidence policies. They are working overtime to protect billionaires from their greedy mistakes while letting American taxpayers swing in the wind financially. I”M NOT AN OBAMABOT so your defense is useless. I am a citizen and I fight for my rights, democrat or republican in office. Period!

  20. Chris says

    @jimsur212

    You don’t see how the constitution as currently interpreted would require states to recognize gay marriage from another state???

    It’s called the Full Faith and Credit clause. Look it up.

    This is not about whether gay marriages are constitutional. This is about whether a federal law that nullifies the Constitution on one particular issue, that affects a single particular group, is constitutional. Clearly it is not, since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and DOMA is in conflict with it.

  21. Rocco says

    1)Donnie McClurkin
    2)Rick Warren
    3)Silence as more LGBT folks are discharged under DADT
    4)Nothing but an offensive joke as Iowa and other states endorse marriage equality
    5)Now this?!? The language they used to defend DOMA was right from Focus on the Family…I am done unless he does a 360…
    which ain’t gonna happen. Like someone earlier said, Cheney would have been better
    (I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life).

  22. Jonathan Wallach says

    Thank you CHRIS for citing the Full Faith and Credit clause to Jimsur. As a lawyer who can’t believe the things that people say they think they know I just didn’t have the energy tonight to correct him. Today has been too upsetting. DOMA was unconstitutional the day it was adopted and it still is. It was not an amendment to the constitution, it was a badly written piece of legislation that runs afoul of the constitution.

  23. says

    Sensing an uproar, the administration now argues that it “has to” defend current law, although the President recognizes that DOMA denies gay and lesbian couples equal rights and benefits and supposedly wants it to be legislatively repealed. The President and his handlers and apologists don’t seem to understand that it’s hard to believe that they want to get rid of DOMA and believe it is unjust when they file a brief that with such vicious enthusiasm and brio marshalls all the fundies’ and neanderthal’s arguments about why DOMA is supposedly consistent with equal protection and good for America and that compares gay relationships with those founded on incest.

  24. Christian Young says

    So now we have to push the Congress to pass the legislation so then Obama can’t have an excuse to stand up to our causes?! If so, LET’S DO IT! I am tired of people coming out with excuses because so and so didn’t do his/her part!

  25. MattP says

    I am personally offended by the lengths to which the DOJ defended DOMA and especially outraged at the language and tone utilized. It’s one thing to throw up your hands and say “oh well, can’t change it…” but it’s another thing entirely to reinforce the homophobic rhetoric spewed by the religi-nazis and extremist bigots with increasing frequency.

    Shame on you, President Obama. Shame on your whole administration.

  26. elcamino says

    Hope? Change?

    Who the hell is giving Obama advice on GLTB issues? Rick Warren? Does ANYONE at the White House realize they are pissing all over one of their most ardent and activist bases?

    It’s not just exasperating, it gratuitously stupid.

  27. BMF says

    @jonathan wallach & chris: I am ALSO a lawyer. The US Supreme Court has recognized a public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution that permits states to AVOID recognizing certain acts. One of these exceptions IS marriage. This is how states can refuse to recognize marriages on the basis of consanguinity or because they are polygamous. It’s amazing that you’re going to question the legal knowledge of others without fully understanding the issue yourselves.

  28. el polacko says

    there’s a huge difference between saying something like “we are obligated to defend the law as it stands” and jumping whole-hog into it, drudging up discredited stereotypes to bolster your case.
    this is the SECOND anti-gay briefing from the obama administration in as many weeks.
    they also DEFENDED dadt to the supreme court, once again with all the old “unit cohesion” and “troop morale” bullshit intact. and yet we STILL have apologists telling us to wait because they don’t realllly mean it… UGH !! get a friggin’ clue, folks ! we were lied to to get our money and our votes and now we are under the proverbial bus with so many others that barack has thrown there.. until he talks pretty to the suckers again 2012.

  29. Todd in NYC says

    Fuck the stupid march on washington idea, it did nothing for us in ’93 it’ll do nothing for us now. we need to do more. much more. give me liberty or give me death. i’m so fucking sick and tired of waiting for someone else to give us our equal rights, it’s time we demand them. we have to get serious about this. no half-naked pride parades, no disco music, no bullshit, this is serious. if no one else is serious, then we’ll never get anywhere.

  30. Chitown Kev says

    It wasn’t what was said in the brief. It was the horrific way it was said then he serves up this totally inadequate sick excuse of a defense. Language like:

    “allegdly married”

    “forum shopping”

    And that’s even before all the homophobic sterotyped casework.

    Until further notice, fuck you Barack Obama!

  31. Daniel says

    I’m suddenly in agreement with (of all people) Rush Limbaugh, hoping Obama is a Big Fail on everything he tries–the economy, health care reform, whatever. I didn’t vote for McCain last year, but I didn’t vote for this bullshit artist either. Four years of Obama will be more than enough, thank you.

  32. Todd in NYC says

    if we are not willing to sacrifice, either for ourselves or for the next generation, then we will never get anywhere, nor do we deserve to get anywhere with our struggle for equality. it’s time to stop with the parties and really, really reveal to the world our struggle. i’ll say it again, give me liberty or give me death. i’m 40 years old and i’m sick and tired of paying taxes and being a second class citizen. But i’m seeing that no one in the gay community is willing to sacrifice. if you are not willing to do what ever needs to be done to get our rights, that we deserve under the 14th amendment, then you deserve what you have now – which is nothing.

  33. searcher says

    well, this is bullshit. I agree with Matt from California. Even if it were necessary to defend it, they defended it in the most vitriolic way possible. Is this how the Obama admin says happy pride month? Cause all I’m hearing is go to hell, and be happy we acknowledged your existence as the equals of child rapists and incest.

  34. Todd in NYC says

    You people are all just sad and pathetic. no one is willing to do ANYTHING, every gay person is fine with the status quo – which is nothing handed on a platter full of shit.

  35. Jim Watson says

    @David Ratcliffe:
    “And look at what Secretary Clinton’s already done at The State Department. Dare I say, ‘Could have been…?'”

    You could say that and we would laugh in your face because SHE IS NO BETTER than Obama. A politician is a politician is a politician…ad nauseum.

  36. Anon says

    Just a reminder that this blog was one of the leading voices of gay support online for Obama versus Hillary during the campaign season, despite numerous predictions that he would indeed backtrack.

    We are sometimes our own worst enemy in this regard.

  37. Matthew says

    I don’t fault them for defending the law. Quite frankly, a supreme court ruling on DOMA would likely not go in our favor and would be a setback that could take decades to undo. However, the language they used in defending the law was offensive and dehumanizing. This administration has a lot to answer for.

  38. glennmcgahee says

    I always thought we would not win our rights politically, but we could win through the courts. The Obama administration may think that too since they are gonna make sure we are never heard in a court of law.

  39. GaryJ says

    That’s why I voted Independent, Obama is just another political liar like the rest, except he’s trying to turn the country into a Socialist state.

    I really don’t think he had or will do anything for the Gay community, except lie to them for their vote.

  40. jmdrwac says

    Obama said during the campaign that he thinks marriage is between a man an woman, based on his religious beliefs. Why is anyone surprised that his administration behaves this way?

  41. scoobydooch says

    how does it feel to finally wake up and know for sure that your black gay savior is a complete fraud? how does that kool aid taste now suckers????? does it taste good? this PUMA is laughing his ass off right now. and it feels sooooooooooooooo good.

  42. Jim says

    The President is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The DOJ does not have to support DOMA. They could file an amicus to defeat DOMA. This was a choice to defend DOMA and the language used in the brief is disgusting to the LGBT community.
    Obama keep compounding his actions against us. Look at the immigration laws for widows/widowers. It only applies to heterosexual marriages. Homos are still deported after their spouse dies. This is a federal benefit that we are denied, but DOJ says we aren’t denied any benefits.
    I’m giving a lot of thought to telling the Democrat party to fuck off.

  43. paul c says

    @Scoobydooch – I don’t see what’s funny about this unless you’re an anti-gay bigot. The fact that you throw “black” into your descriptive also makes me suspect that you have bigotry issues you need to work on.

    @Grant – I would assume that Savage is reacting to Andy’s pro-Obama propagandizing for the past year. I think it’s charming that there are still guys out there who you can invite to a big party (or convention) and whisper sweet lies into their gullible little ears and then have them follow you around like dim-witted puppies because they’re so flattered by your attention.

    Fortunately, it looks like Andy and most of Obama’s other victims in the gay community are waking up to reality, albeit about a year too late.

  44. scoobydooch says

    no paul, you and the democrats need to work on fully vetting your candidates and going over them with a fine tooth comb. how does it feel to get kicked in the teeth sweetie?

  45. paul c says

    @Scoobydooch – I’m neither stupid nor weak enough to feel the need or desire to belong to a political party. I’ve been an independent since I was 18, sweetie.

    And it’s not just Democrats who need to look more closely at their candidates. Unfortunately all the dummos in the parties look at the letter after the name and say “that’s good enough for me”…hence Bush and Obama.

  46. scoobydooch says

    no sweetie, the subject today is the GAY DEMOCRATS who willingly and happily crawled up inside barack obama’s asshole and gave them their hard earned money and trust and didn’t mind that this fraud was never properly vetted and didn’t mind that the mainstream media gave him a pass every single minute of the day and still do and crucified any other gay who had a brain inside of their head and used it and didn’t follow blindly as being racist, etc, etc, etc. i said the word black because you all need to eat it. and you are eating it now that you know he doesn’t give a flying f–k about you. hopefully you will now take a look at all the other f–ked up shit he is doing. i’d say take a closer look, but you never did that in the first place. you all made your bed. now pull back the covers, get the fuck in, and lay in it. and suffer!

  47. loki7329 says

    Can we please change the channel. It should be abundantly clear to everyone now that this Obama administration is a lost cause as far as lgbt issues go. So why are we still getting worked up over it?

    Believe me, I’m the last one happy about how things turned out. I donated a lot of money to his campaign. But sometimes your investments don’t pan out. Just cut your losses and move on.

    We have big battles looming in Iowa and Maine in the next election cycle. We have to protect the democratics who supported us in Iowa and we have to make sure the gains we won are not overturned in Maine.

    Stop getting worked up over things you can’t change. We’ve been had. Lesson learned. Move on. Save up your money and support for people who deserve it.

  48. Jim in MN says

    This is ridiculous. I was holding out hope that this was filed and Obama just wasnt made aware of it, or the extent to which this brief completely obliterates our humanity. This is actually the first time where I have read a statement by the current administration and completely felt they were being disingenuous and deceitful. The DOJ does selectively choose which laws to defend and which to pursue in its cases. Obama made clear that the DOJ would not go after medical marijuana cases where the state and federal government laws were not both violated. That is clearly a “selective” use of law. Additionally, the people that purport that the U.S. constitution does not grant gays the “right” to be married are incorrect. DOMA seeks to abridge the full faith and credit clause of the constitution upon one class of people which is unconstitutional. Additionally, and I believe its even a STRONGER argument and one that media organizations simply fail to discuss is Article 6 of the constitution which states that treaty law along with the constitution is the supreme law of the land and that states can not pass laws that violate terms of our treaties with foreign countries. We currently have treaties with several countries that grant same-sex marriage (Canada, Spain, Netherlands, etc) and the specific part of those treaties (called lex loci contractus) that dictates property rights and civil issues requires the U.S. GOVERNMENT along with its states to recognize marriages performed in those countries as valid within the U.S. By not recognizing those laws, the u.s. is in violation of our treaties. That places the onus of this squarely upon the u.s. government and the repercussions are GLOBAL if countries can suddenly decide to abide by or neglect certain provisions in their treaties with other countries. Now, I ask, *WHY* is this not a MAJOR issue for gay rights groups?

  49. jjasonham says

    Once again. Using a statement to stoke outrage. Drama.

    1. Obama Admin did not falsely claim anything. The DOJ does generally defend the laws it has on it’s books. That’s not a lie, and of course they would defend their own laws. America Blog sees a statement acknowledging a general defense of its own laws as the DOJ making a hard claim that it MUST always defend its laws. Then calling the hard claim a lie. That’s what we call a strawman.

    2. The defense did not compare incest to homosexuality. It did not say “Because homosexuality is like incest…lets use cases that include incest for precedents”. It used cases that were brought to court that used DOMA framework somewhere in the ruling or arguments…For example, state outlines for classifying marriage don’t have to be recognized by other states or the federal government. The specific cases referenced in these documents were 2 cousins, a 17 year old and adult, and a niece and uncle (not too sure about that last one). All of those marriages are OK in some states. The extent that the “incest” was used in the argument was simply rule on a precedent of marriages that are considered out of the ordinary across state lines. To imply that homosexuality was likened to incest, morally, by the DOJ in these briefs is DISINGENUOUS.

    Whoever said that gay rights would not be won politically, but in the courts, hit the nail on the head. But speaking in hyperbole about every single seemingly bigoted action is a complete disservice to the cause.

    Anyone going to the march on DC??

  50. jjasonham says

    And before I get roasted for my comment: I am not defending DOMA or even the language used in this defense. I’m merely pointing out that in order to argue your case effectively, you must understand the reasoning behind the opposition logically, not viscerally. Technically, nothing said was against the law….and technicalities are what got DOMA passed in the first place. It’s time everyone start focusing on DOMA as a “taking away of rights” (active) as opposed to a “denial of equality” (passive). There’s a huge difference in the court of law, as well as the court of public opinion. When polled about gay equality, more people were for it when DOMA/DADT was presented as a “taking away of rights”. I never placed all my hope on Obama to take care of this by himself, and it wouldn’t be any different with Hillary or anyone else in office. Don’t you see that the legislative repeal on this gives more weight and protection, to the favorable results that will come?? That means, and this is what I’ve been trying to say, that we must shift our focus from Obama to lead on this!!

    That said, it’s time for the author of the brief, W. Scott Simpson, to fucking GO. He is a Bush holdover. I would not be surprised one bit if this argument was laced with the inflammatory language just to get an uproar at such a politically/legislatively precarious time. He who angers you, controls you.

  51. says

    The door has been opened by the president.

    Is the community going to focus on this being handled badly, even atrociously, by his administration? Or is the focus going to rightly turn to the American people and our congress?

    Unite. Crank up the grassroots. And stop yelling.

    Change hearts and minds not through adversary politics.

    Peace!

  52. Wheezy says

    Obama has 4 years to make good on his campaign promises.

    Will I give up on his presidency after only 5 months?

    No.

    Will I hold his (and the rest of the Democrat’s) feet to the fire until he delivers on those campaign promises?

    Yes.

  53. says

    Obama can burn in hell. I will make every effort make sure he’s not re-elected, next term. Even if I have to vote for a Republican, at least they have the decency to hate me to my face. Likewise, I’ll be working to help unseat any democratic incumbent in the midterm elections…again, if that means replacing them with a Republican so be it.

    Congrats, Mr President…you just screwed the Democratic party.

    I’m with Rush, I hope he fails!

  54. Rik says

    @Todd In NYC – Canceling the pride parade would make a huge statement that would get worldwide press. But it won’t happen. Doing that would go against the line we’re all being fed. Too many people are emotionally invested in Obama. I think you’re going to find this story getting buried really fast.

    (Hope I’m wrong)

  55. jjasonham says

    @JSH

    Congrats. You officially sound 12 years old. You are now lumped into the category of poor southerners who continuously vote against their best interests.

  56. Jadvar says

    JimSur212, you need to read the constitution.

    Start with The Preamble then head on over to Article IV, the full faith and credit clause. It’s all there.

  57. Goober Peas says

    My guess (and I’m no political genius or mastermind) is that the DLCers advising Obama have calculated that he can pander to the Hispanic vote to cement his chances of reelection while throwing the gays and other progressives under the bus without any fear of reprisal. They assume that there will be no fallout from this from progressives because they will never vote Republican — and maybe they are right.

    I’m all for taking the long view at this point. Letting the Democrats fall back into powerless minority status again while simultaneously building a coalition party of progressives that will actually make a difference.

    Instead of having a future president who is an advocate for banksters, corporate titans, plutocrats, and Christianists, we can work toward a future president who embodies the ideals of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and equality for all. I know, I’m a dreamer, but change has a price and we need to look at all options at this point.

  58. GLang says

    Like most of you I am outraged by this language in the document.

    Besides some of the responses that have been mentioned. There is some very important pro-gay legislation in the House and Senate RIGHT NOW – that we can PUSH FORWARD!

    Frankly it’s the closest thing to FEDERAL Union RIGHTS recognition that we’ll probably see in a long time. Do you know about it? Have you advocated for it?

    The UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT S. 424 – HR- 1024. Along with the newly introduced REUNITING FAMILIES ACT HR-2709.

    Surely some here have heard of these bills. This legislation would allow US Citizens to sponsor their same sex partner for immigration, adhering to the same rules as hetrosexuals. This is not a marraige but a ‘permanant partnership’. Currently 19 of our closest allies allow such sponsorship. Yet the leader of the free world offers no such rights to their Gay citizens. Thousands are forced to either, split, live in exile in another country or live illegaly.

    The white House said they would support the UAFA in March 09 – many believe it’s an excellent issue to test them on and there is very good support on the Hill. It’s flown a bit under the radar but with the SJC Hearing last week http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3876 some of the haters are finally targeting the legislation.

    The RFA is particularly interesting because it combines many groups along w/ GLBT for the first time. There are politicians that are supportive and passionate – this will make you smile a bit I hope (start at about the 3 min mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI4LZZ0sM3o&feature=channel

    There are presently 109 Cosponsors in the House & 19 in the Senate http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01024:|/bss/d111query.html|

    These are the most basic civil rights. The right as a law abiding tax payer to love who you chose and legally Sponsor

    This is legislation that IS very real – Let’s kick some butt here and show what the entire Community can do when pushed!

    For starters you could sign the petition, email YOUR REP/SENATOR & get more info- http://www.immigrationequality.org/template.php?pageid=49

  59. Jim says

    I can’t believe I actually raised money for this guy’s campaign! Guess it’s the Green Party in 2012. The Dems can’t assume that we will always vote for them just because they are the lesser of two evils.

Leave A Reply