Comments

  1. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    You can bet that if the case involved discrimination against Blacks, Obama would have argued for (marriage) equality everywhere in the US as a fundamental constitutional right. Bigot Obama does not get that “separate but equal” is still unequal. The right to marry in California but not the other 40 or so states is not equality. Plus, Obama failed to argue that Gays are a suspect class, which they clearly are. While I do not give credit to the Republicans at all (who have been as bigoted as Obama and the Democrats on Gay rights) it is telling that former Republican Solicitor General Ted Olson went the whole 9 yards in arguing for Gay marriage equality. Obama insults every Gay American with his half-ass support, and every Straight American who subscribes to MLK, Jr.’s notion of equality.

  2. Chip says

    I am incredibly proud to call Obama my president. Thank you for your support, and for helping the rest of our country to recognize the importance of equality for gay people.

    PS. don’t feed the trolls.

  3. Frank says

    Jesus Christ! Will you give it a rest James. You been singing that some tired song for months now and it’s time to change the tune already.

  4. Kyle says

    “The Court may decide that if it doesn’t apply in this case it probably can’t apply in any case–there’s no good reason for it. That’s–If I were on the Court, that would probably be the view I put forward. But I’m not a judge, I’m the President.”

  5. says

    The thing is Obama says one thing and DOES another. What he is saying during this presser is different from what was WRITTEN on the brief.

    The equal protection clause cannot only apply to eight states, that is just stupid and downright nonsense. Obama is trying to have it both ways by satisfying the gay base and the democratic party who say that this is a “states right” issue. Not it is NOT.

    I understand there people who do not understand what Obama has just done, that is because these people are blinded by pure ideology and partisanship and are not aware of the LEGAL FACTS presented by 9th circuit, Judge Walker and Ted Olson and Obama is giving all of that legal precedent the finger.

  6. 24play says

    “To be proud of a president who doesn’t fully support equality for Gays is to support inequality for Gays.”—James E. Pietrangelo, II

    And yet I bet you didn’t vote for Al Sharpton back in 2004 when he was a presidential candidate who had voiced full support for marriage equality, did you, James?

  7. says

    Andre says: ‘Maybe James should run for the presidency and have things the way James wants it.’
    —-
    Well, maybe Obama should do what HE promised to his gay base. What about giving green cards to bi-national couples? Nope, Napolitano caved to Beohner. What about the ENDA executive order that HE promised since 2008 for federal contractors? Or is that no longer important to the Obama gay worshipers? If not, then what else are these gays willing to sacrifice at Obama’s altar on our behalf?

    There is nothing wrong with challenging someone who claims to be on our side but still has not done anything tangible to prove his leadership in this regard.

    Call me crazy but I don’t think James is the real problem here.

  8. will says

    I for one am tired and dismayed with the perpetually disenfranchised gay activists who criticize Obama no matter what move he makes.

    Gay activist on TH: “Not enough! He’s a fraud! We want MORE! He’s playing a duplicitous game! Everything from this administration is freaking NONSENSE! We’re getting steamrolled! Look at me!”

  9. says

    James, the Obama administration is answering the question presented by SCOTUS, pertaining to California’s Prop 8 case. Favorably, and honorably, may I add. Absolutely nothing in this to complain about!

  10. Dw says

    It’s all about getting Kennedy (and maybe even Roberts) to sign on. And the brief does a brilliant job of playing to them without scaring them off.

    And please don’t feed the ridiculous trolls here.

    It’s a great day. And this brief, together with the amazing republican signed brief, I actually believe we’re very likely to win the vote at least 5-4.

  11. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    24play: I love how people like you cannot refute my argument so you switch to some ridiculous ad hominem comment. You can’t defend Obama’s shameful support for inequality so you try to switch the blame to me by “betting” that I didn’t vote for Sharpton who you say did support full equality. The fact remains that Obama, not me, yet again failed to support full equality for Gays.

    As for Sharpton, I would never have voted for a bigot like him. He is as racist against Whites and Jews as David Duke is against Blacks and Jews.

    I don’t and won’t support anyone who discriminates against anyone. I actually practice MLK, Jr.’s philosophy of equality.

  12. Belthazar says

    Hollingsworth — Issue: 1) Whether the EP Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and (2) whether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case.

    The Justice Department’s brief addressed the questions asked.

  13. says

    @DW
    You are correct, all of this hanging on the shoulders of Kennedy and Roberts. But I disagree with the notion that Obama’s silly brief is going to impact these justices. The central argument of the brief was basically awkward and alien to legal and constitutional questions of this case. I think the Cato brief is more interesting being that Kennedy listens to them 99.8% of the time. I think that is more exciting. Kennedy and Roberts don’t always listen to the white house.

    @Searchcz
    You are basically defending Obama against the fact that he as an elected official has made promises to the gay community that he so far hasn’t kept. He should have been honest and said “I can’t do that” – end of story; and then we vote accordingly at the dem primary. If you step back and actually read the brief and compare it to the facts of the case you would understand the position (based on FACTS not IDEOLOGY) that I have taken.

  14. will says

    There is no QUESTION in my mind that Kennndy will support the striking down of Prop 8. The majority opinion of “Lawrence v. Texas” is HIS. And I think we have Roberts, too.

    The question is not: will they strike down or won’t they? The votes are there. It’s the narrowness (scope)of the decision. Will it apply to CA only or will it have national implications?

  15. Belthazar says

    Addressing, whether [Marriage] is a states right issue. For the following reasons, I believe marriage is a State’s right issue [10th Amend…powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people]. Further, I believe it is a stretch to use the “Necessary and Proper Clause” to grant the Federal Government power over defining Marriage, which has historically rested with States.

    States (banning marriage equality), I believe it comes down to an EP [14th] argument. States may have the right to define ‘marriage’, but EP prevents disparate treatment and impact in that definition. IMO, EP will also get you pass other States “Public Policy Doctrine”, as to the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

  16. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Will: If some Republican president or high official had said in the 1950s and 60s that Blacks should be fully equal only in all “northern states” but not in “southern states,” or if some Republican made that argument today, you’d be (rightfully) calling that person racist and supportive of inequality and against equality faster than a New York minute. Yet, you have the gall now to say that Obama’s argument–that Gays should have marriage equality only in some states (i.e. California) but not others–is somehow not discriminatory or not supportive of inequality. Yours and Obama’s is the Orwellian speak. Anything less than full equality cannot be called equality. Even Republican supporters of marriage equality don’t support the half-assed equality that Obama and his supporters like you advocate.

  17. says

    James, those “republican supporters of marriage equality” also voted for a man who was opposed to it, and spoke of an all-out national ban.

    So how bloody far does their support go, eh? They’ll talk about how it’s important, but when it comes time to vote they’ll totally vote for the bigot who wants to ban gays from marrying anyway. Wow.

    What’s up your @ss? A republican you’re hiding?

  18. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Mateom proves my point, yet again. He can’t refute my argument or Jose Soto’s argument so he resorts to ridiculous ad hominem snarkiness. Mateom says that Jose and I “probably” didn’t vote, and that we’ve done nothing to enact positive change and that we are “trolls.” Obviously, “probably” is no basis to support any argument. Mateom’s name-calling (“trolls”) is just pure childishness. And Mateom’s last retort–that we’ve done nothing to enact positive change–is both simply false and simply irrelevant to the issue. I’ve certainly done more than Obama has to enact change. And whatever I’ve done (or not done) and whatever Jose has done (or not done) doesn’t change the fact that Obama did not and does not support full equality. Period.. Full stop..

  19. Chitown Kev says

    Comments were eaten again.

    As I said, Obama is far from perfect to be sure, but would those who are harshly criticizing him as if he were George Wallace…would they be saing ANYTHING if Mitt Romney were president?

  20. Chitown Kev says

    FYI, James…

    actually, Lyndon Johnson did tell Martin Luther King that voting rights could not be included in the CRA of 64, therefore, LBJ fell far short of endorsing complete equality foir blacks.

    and Franklin Roosevelt resisted pressure just prior to WWII and did not racially integrate the armed services…

    so even if one accepts that what you say about Obama is true, he’s acting no different from anyone else who worked in the Oval Office (and I’ve defending FDR’s decision not to sign an EO desegregating the military).

  21. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Little Kiwi: There will always be people like you who hate the truth, who hate people like me who call Obama (and others) out on their bigotry, who hate people like me who fully support MLK, Jr.s philosophy no matter who is involved.

    Your comment about my reference to Republican supporters would have some validity if I had praised the Republican supporters. I didn’t. Obviously, I was merely pointing out that Obama is no supporter of equality when even members of the party whose platform is opposed to Gay equality is ahead of him in calling for full marriage equality.

    Again, like Mateom, you prove my point. You can’t refute my argument so you resort to childish comment like having a Republican up my ass. Grow up.

  22. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Chitown Kev and Little Kiwi: doing the same as any other president, or doing somewhat more than any other president, is not a measure for praise when it comes to equality. Prior to becoming a born-again Christian, George Wallace did the same that prior governors did in enforcing discrimination against Blacks, and after his conversion Wallace did somewhat more than prior governers in supporting equality (by having Blacks in his cabinet, etc.). Yet you don’t see me praising Wallace; nor do you see history praising Wallace–and rightfully so. So no one should be praising Obama, who enforced discrimination against Gays during his presidency, even when legally he had the option not to; who until recently opposed Gay marriage, and who did not support full marriage equality or suspect classification in his PROP 8 brief.

    Obama has continuously engaged and enabled discrimination thus because of people like you who give him cover with your support.

  23. says

    I didn’t see you, once upon a time, at Queer Rising meetings, did I?

    How are those republicans “ahead of Obama” when their support is LITERALLY the definition of lip-service? they claim to care, yet vote for those who work AGAINST it.

    You call President Obama a bigot, then tell others to “stop resorting to childish name-calling.”

    Uh, ok Sugarpie.

    You really think that President Obama is a bigot simply because he hasn’t passed legislations you want in the manner and speed that you’d prefer?

    I like MLK’s philosophy. Also Malcolm X’s, to be honest.

    And I highly encourage you to take your passion into blog form – that way we can all learn from your confident and empowered example.

    Why would I hate a person for believing in MLK Jr.s philosophy? What I can’t stand is, specifically, people screaming loudly in a freakin’ vacuum.

  24. Francis says

    I’d say 85-90% of people I’ve seen are very excited and pleased about the brief filed by President Obama. He knows what he’s doing. He’s our friend, and he’s our ally.

  25. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Little Kiwi: I won’t respond to most of your last post since it refutes itself, but to answer your question:

    supporting full marriage equality, i.e, nationwide, is certainly “ahead” of supporting marriage equality in only California (and/or the states that already have equality).

  26. says

    James, you’re sounding like Lt. Dan Choi when he went on that utterly insane “President Obama is the Worst President in History” kick which signaled his breakdown.

    yes yes. we hear what you’re against. pray tell, specifically tell us what (or WHOM) you are FOR.

    it’s very clear that you have a chosen need to hate Obama. Hope that works for you. But hating Obama won’t bring about Equality for LGBT people.

  27. Chitown Kev says

    James, no one praises the george Wallace of “Segragation now, Segregation forever” fame.

    History does record not only that Wallace changed but that what that change actually was was a reversal to form after a period in which he didn’t win the Presidiency.

    And no, history doesn’t praise Wallace but it does say this:

    Wallace himself became a victim of violence on May 15, 1972, while campaigning for president in Maryland. He was shot five times as he stepped out from behind a bulletproof podium. One of the bullets badly damaged his spinal cord, leaving him paralyzed.
    “One has to wonder if, sitting in that wheelchair, maybe he had a chance to contemplate,” Poe says of Wallace’s years after the shooting.
    Some years later, after Lewis had been elected to Congress, he heard from Wallace. “He said, ‘John Lewis, will you come by and talk with me?’
    “And I remember the occasion so well,” Lewis says. “It was like someone confessing to their priest or to a minister. He wanted people to forgive him. He said to me, ‘I never hated anybody; I never hated any black people.’
    “He said, ‘Mr. Lewis, I’m sorry.’ And I said, ‘Well, governor, I accept your apology.’ ”
    Poe was also able to reach the same conclusion. “Being the type of person I am, out of my heart and soul, I can forgive George Wallace. Yes. Heaven’s sakes, I forgive him,” Poe says. “But forget? No. Never.”
    Even today, Lewis says he often reflects on the governor’s speech.
    “Does it hurt me? No,” Lewis says. “In the end, I think George Wallace was one of the signs on this long journey towards the creation of a better America, toward the creation of a more perfect union. It was just one of the stumbling blocks along the way.”
    In his later years, Wallace reached out to civil rights activists and appeared in black churches to ask forgiveness. In his last election as governor of Alabama, in 1982, he won with more than 90 percent of the black vote. Wallace died in September 1998.

    http://www.npr.org/2013/01/14/169080969/segregation-forever-a-fiery-pledge-forgiven-but-not-forgotten

  28. Zlick says

    I’m too happy about our Pres to worry about the trolls that he brings out, especially ones that didn’t read the brief, don’t comprehend what he said in this news conference, and haven’t got a freaking clue.

    And yeah, there’s plenty more Obama COULD do … but that won’t take away from what he HAS done. As a gay Californian, this brief filing makes me feel all lovey and warm. It’s narrow, but it’s strategic (and, since I’m very familiar with legal briefs, a narrow amicus brief is commonplace anyway). But this is not your typical amicus – it’s from the freaking President of the United States. This is big, this is rad.

    Smile and waive at the silly trolls.

  29. says

    by voting for Romney, they can throw their “i’m a republican who supports gay marriage” claims out the freakin’ window.

    Romney would be a man who would never, ever, send a message of equality, inclusivity and celebrating diversity to his country. President Obama has given more hope to those young people growing up in Republican homes than any other president in history.

    But yeah – didn’t I used to see you at Queer Rising meetings in NYC?

    Yes. You’re against Obama. Whom, SPECIFICALLY, are you for? FOR?

    If you don’t want to be called names, you might want to think twice about your constant labeling of President Obama as a “bigot”.

    Mind you, your other comments about “how if this had been a BLACK ___ blah blah blah” are likely more telling than I want them to be.

  30. says

    In 1967, the federal government did not weigh in on Loving v. Virginia. In 2013, the Obama administration had no requirement to weigh in on Prop 8, yet they did, finding it unconstitutional. They also weighed in on DOMA, finding it, too, unconstitutional. (That the briefs are tailored to the actual cases and the actual Supreme Court we’re stuck with is hardly outlandish or bigoted to anyone with depth of thought.) And anyone who thinks these briefs don’t matter or who is reading dark and heinous anti-gayness into the briefs or into the President’s statement today is seeing them through a fantasy of personal and irrational animosity towards the President.

    Like any President, Obama has made missteps (God is in the mix, Rick Warren) that will affect his legacy (just ask Clinton about DADT and DOMA), but it’s clear at this point that Obama–unlike his predecessors–is on the right side of history (along with more and more others, including a small minority of Republicans) on gay rights and especially marriage equality. Anyone is free to pretend otherwise, but that’s not how the history is going to go down.

  31. says

    Thank You, Ernie.

    Know what’s been ugly, in the last 5 years? Miserable gay white men that seem to WANT Obama to “not do anything” so they can have a reason to join their p.o.s. white families in hating That Black President.

    *barf*

  32. says

    @ CHITOWN KEV:
    Hm. I don’t think my beef with Obama is that he lacks ‘perfection’ but rather his treachery and lies, I think you are posing an impossible argument that I for one cannot rebuke since it is a reality that no human being can ever be ‘perfect’ BUT one can be ‘honest’ and fulfill promises that were made in exchange for votes. It is THAT simple.

    @Little Kiwi:
    I for one, am not debating his ‘stances’ but rather the brief that he has filed with the court and the arguments presented therein. But if we are to deviate from the discussion to Obama’s record… well then, I don’t think you may want to go there: it is pretty dismal – and this is an objective opinion on my behalf based on the facts.

    Obama is not ‘bigoted’ against the gay community, maybe bigoted of reality and the facts of the prop 8 case.

    @Kevinnvt
    Well, I would like to know how you are able to judge my reading level. I’ve read it and I came to this obvious conclusion. The discussion is not about my reading skills or political ideology, this is about LEGAL FACTS. I’ve read every document and have followed and researched this case pretty well from the start. I was very skeptical at the beginning but after actually READING and doing my homework on case law and other SCOTUS cases the Plaintiff’s arguments, evidence, and conclusions are pretty solid. While Obama’s brief was weak, deluded, and just does not FIT into this legal puzzle. It is quite disingenuous that you are challenging me on my reading skills being that your comment reveals that you no doubt failed to read my entire posts and comments.

  33. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Zlick: But this isn’t the first Supreme Court brief from Obama on the issue of Gay equality. He filed one in 2009, opposing Gay equality. He was the one smiling back then, laughing at people like you who support him because he whispers sweet nothings in your ears and you “feel” good and happy and fall all over for him. He’s smiling happy now too, since he gets your support for telling you Gay people should only be equal in California. He treats Gay people as less than equal and you love him. So rad!!!!!

    The one who didn’t read the brief or understand the situation or have a clue is you Zlick.

    There are many Republicans who personally support equality but who, for “strategic” reasons, politically oppose it. Under your philosophy, you give them credit.

    You must be waving at yourself Zlick….

  34. says

    @Ernie,

    That is a fine political ad for Obama.

    Can we know focus on the brief that has been submitted which introduces a warped new ‘8 state solution’ theory that is not based on the facts of the case?

    Thank you.

  35. Zlick says

    Hi James,

    Nope. I think you’re just not listening. He says pretty clearly in the interview at the top of this screen that he himself would rule all states had to allow equal marriage if he were a judge, and points out how the brief alludes to that. It’s on narrow grounds for a good reason, but the implication is clear that no gay marriage ban can survive heightened scrutiny, even though first and foremost among those to be struck down as MOST absurd are the ones in states that have “anything but marriage” civil unions or domestic partnerships.

    I’m going to assume you’re being obtuse on purpose, to make your own political point. But English is my first language – so I really can grasp what Obama’s saying in the interview … and I read and write legal briefs for a living, so I’m confident in my ability to comprehend the Obama brief as well.

    Thanks for playing though. Now back under the bridge with you!

  36. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Little Kiwi: You definitely don’t sound like Lt. Choi. Lt. Choi was a brave leader of the Gay-rights movement who stood up for equality time and time again despite criticism from people like you.

    You sound only like you, Little Kiwi, the hater of truth. You can’t refute criticism of Obama so you call Obama critics haters and mentally ill. Your tactic is so easy to refute…. How seriously can one even take you Little Kiwi when you don’t even use your real name.

  37. says

    Actually, Choi and I know each other. I was rather proud to protest and march alongside him for a few years.

    Btw, click my link to see my blog, my name, and all that jazz. “littlekiwi” is a nom de plume, inspired by the character in gay NYC author Ethan Mordden’s books.

    http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/gay-centric-high-school-proposed-1.972231
    or click that. me on canadian national news talking about gay stuff :-) i aint hiding, sugarpie.

    I haven’t yet used the term “haters” or “mentally ill”, actually. I think the specifics of your criticism, as with Choi’s statement about Obama being the worst President in American History, reveal that you’ve lost the plot.

    but yeah, click my name to see who i am and what i do, and why i do it. it’s that simple.

    but calling me a hater of truth is hilarious. feel free to link us to your own page or videos where you put a brave face to your beliefs.
    you know, like me.

  38. says

    @Zlick
    “He says pretty clearly in the interview at the top of this screen that he himself would rule all states had to allow equal marriage if he were a judge.”

    Yes, I get that. It would be nice to have Chief Justice Obama, but that is NOT reality since Obama himself ran for PRESIDENT his career choice was politics not law.

    In the end if you are easily persuaded by “what ifs” and “I wish I was” and other fantastic hypothetical stories then I guess your passion is screenwriting not law. Obama is clearly only throwing you a bone for you to feast on. There is NOTHING wrong with that. You can feast on that for as long as you please. I am focused on the meat and potatoes not the bone. I am focused on the legal arguments that his Justice Dept as put together. I am focused on reality.

    REALITY: stakes are pretty high, if you get it wrong it will set all the work you and I and everybody else has worked for for the past years. Just think about that. I am more concerned about our community. You are more concerned about a politician.

  39. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Zlick: Obama saying he would as a judge rule in favor of nationwide equality is meaningless, when as president (which is what he actually is) he argued for limited equality, i.e., inequality. There are Republicans who say that Gays should be allowed to marry, but who don’t actually support inclusion in the party’s platform–the point being that anybody can say they are for full equality for political purposes and then oppose full equality or not act for it. Besides not arguing for full equality in the brief, Obama also failed to argue for suspect classification–something you omit to mention altogether.

    English is your first language? Couldn’t have guessed that. I thought Childish was your first language.

    You read and write legal briefs for a living? I am not impressed. Nor is anyone else. Plenty of us are attorneys who read and write briefs–some of us even litigate for Gay equality–again, unlike Obama who argues in briefs for “limited equality,” i.e. inequality.

  40. says

    one step at a time, kids…

    correcting the mistakes of Prop 8 is one thing, especially since he’s addressing the SCOTUS…

    everyone keeps calling for an executive order, but we’re still seeing individual states passing marriage equality laws. The man still has 3 more years…sit tight.

  41. says

    LITTLE KIWI’s slanderous accusation that I am a racist is totally crossing the line, is off base and really childish and stupid.

    I am more convinced that KIWI is stuck in a fantasy bubble thinking that I’m a white male whose only purpose in life is to get at Obama for because he’s black. FYI, I am a person of color and a gay activist for over a decade.

    Now I will just have to take everything KIWI says to be based on his bigoted and ignorant world view. Which I may add, can no longer be taken seriously in a discussion involving legal facts and case law.

  42. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Little Kiwi: Again, most of your last post refutes itself. I will say this. You certainly did not march with Lt. Choi for the last few years if/since you don’t know who I am or what I’ve done for equality or if/since you made that comment about Lt. Choi’s breakdown .

    Second, no matter how much you try to walk your original comment regarding Lt. Choi and his breakdown back, the simple fact is that you conflated mine and Lt. Choi’s criticism of Obama with Lt. Choi’s breakdown, i.e., you conflated criticism of Obama with mental illness (and racism). You should be ashamed, esp. given the stigma that the mentally ill face in society due to comments like yours.

  43. says

    @KDNA
    “everyone keeps calling for an executive order”
    —-
    I would be inclined to agree with your sentiment if it wasn’t for the fact that he agreed to do it in 2008. Yes he has 3 more years to go. But it is quite strange that it has taken him almost 5 years to sign a simple executive order. I wonder how many more years he needs to do something he PROMISED to the gay community. If he was a true statesman he would come out and say “look you guys I’ve promised you this, but for XYZ reason I can’t do it, sorry…” I think that would be commendable and it is something he rarely ever does: take responsibility. We are talking about Washington though.

  44. James E. Pietrangelo, II says

    Jose: I HAVE been reading your comments, and I find them compelling, as fair and objective. I think it is telling of Little Kiwi (and Obama whom he supports) that 1) Little Kiwi didn’t even bother to read your posts, and 2) then had the gall to slander you as racist and self-hating. That’s all Obama supporters have as argument–ad hominem attacks. Thank you Jose for demanding full equality for Gay people, rather than laud calls like Obama’s for “separate but equal” or limited equality. I’m signing off for now. We’ve established our point beyond refutation.

  45. says

    @LITTLE KIWI,

    I don’t think I need to ‘chill out.’ I’m fine. I’m not the one using the race card or making stupid unfounded accusations about people like myself who disagree with SOME things has done.

    I read all the comments. And that specific comment was directed at everybody, don’t try an backtrack out of this one.

    We are not talking about racists, self hating gays, self hating blacks etc. We are talking about Obama’s brief. I am judging the content of such document. I don’t view Obama as a ‘black’ president, but rather a politician lacking any good qualities and character. Didn’t MLK say to judge people based on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin? But yet YOU are the one who sees Obama as a ‘black President’ you look at him and say BLACK GUY!!! I look at him and say: hey what about that executive order you promised?

    Please for your own sake, grow up.

  46. says

    The days while this case is being heard by SCOTUS will be mind destroying……i am not looking forward to reading the smug self righteous words of that “I’m the cleverest bot in the class”, bastard, Scalia.

    I know in advance that I will be incandescent…..but I will be unable to resist following every bitter Catholic taunt of his pre judged bile.
    Recuse yourself Scalia, have a modicum of self respect.
    President Obama has had the decency to reflect on his views and change them.
    Scalia is locked in vitriol and last century prejudice.

  47. says

    Perhaps they’re the same person?

    No. But it doesn’t matter.

    Comments were being eaten today, so I decided to go for the pithy and obvious conclusion. I read the brief last night. And it is far from the wrongheaded readings of it that people whose names begin with J (apologies to JFKNT) persist in giving it. I read the blog. Wrong. I just don’t want to waste my time.

    Let history judge.

  48. says

    @JACKFKNTWIST

    Scalia is a fascist, plain and simple. I read a lot his rants (or opinions as he calls them) and they are borderline lunacy. If you really want to see an activist Judge, well here you have one.

    I will be attending the hearing myself. Though the stakes are high it is really who has the best argument justices Kennedy and Roberts can rely on. The four justices on the ‘liberal’ side have no doubt already made up their minds before going to sleep last night if not in fact years ago. Scalia Musolini, Thomas the Mute, Alito the Altar Boy can all pretty much bite me.

    We are literally INCHES away from making history. We don’t need politicians throwing bones at gay people. Yes Obama, we know you LOVE us, blah blah blah… We need ACTION. Legalize gay marriage across the nation, uphold the 14th amendment, call it a day, and move on the other important issues that also need our attention, not pandering.

  49. says

    @KEVINVT

    “Let history judge.”

    By that time it would be too late if this thing gets screwed up. I prefer to judge right now in the present so that ‘history’ will worth wild teach to future generations. It is very promising. The comments on Towleroad are simply rolling off my back, though I find the religious defense of a politician who has been caught lying to be titillating.

    And of course some commenters have failed to address the *NEW* legal theory proposed by Obama.

  50. Zlick says

    Jose Soto – “too late to stop this thing??” Huh? Are you implying your comments posted to a story on gay blog on the internet are going to halt a Supreme Court clerk’s consideration of the amicus brief filed by the President of the United States? Get over yourself.

    Go ahead and have all the opinions you want, but have delusions of grandeur somewhere else, huh?

    These are all just exchanged of opinion here, but it’s not helped by people hearing and reading entirely different things in English from the same exact sources (in this case, the interview and the legal brief). I leave that nonsense to the Teapublicans. I’ve no stomach for it here among purported progressives.

  51. PAUL B. says

    I can’t read all of these rants…life is too short. I just come to the conclusion that mental illness attaches itself just as easily to the gay gene as the straight gene. I can only suggest that maybe someday, gene therapy will include culling the nutjobs from both persuasions. Bye, bye…James & Jose.

  52. Chitown Kev says

    But Jose, it’s you and your alter ego James that chose to put this in a historical context by comparing Barack Obama to George Wallace.

    For the purposes of my argument I am conceding a Wallace/Obama comparison (which is, in actuality, ludicrous on its’ face).

    For example, I really didn’t like it in 2008 when candidate Obama talked out of both sides of his mouth on Prop 8…that is, he was against gay marriage but also against Proposition 8.

    So never let it be said that I haven’t had my beefs with the president on a number of things.

    But Obama, like George Wallace, came around to a position on the right side of history.

    Yet you don’t give the acknowledgement to Obama that black people did give to George Wallace when George Wallace joined the right side of history.

    I wonder why that is.

  53. will says

    Ok. Clint Eastwood has just added his name. That’s a BIG one, too, publicity-wise! This will insure other names and groups hop onto the bandwagon.

    I hold NO GRUDGES, either, for past stanced (ie, David Frum!), I want ALL to hop onto this bandwagon! Time to come out of the woodwork! ♥ ♥

  54. says

    Weird, AFER–you know, the people behind the Prop 8 case and presumably pretty familiar with it–have issued a statement applauding the Obama administration’s brief. Somehow they don’t see it as Obama missing the boat or throwing useless bones to gay people, but hey, what would they and the plaintiffs know?

  55. says

    “I’ve no stomach for it here among purported progressives.”

    Fair enough. If that is all you have to offer then pretty much you have wasted your time. This sentence pretty much sums up your whole argument in a nutshell, just like this brief, basically useless.

  56. says

    “I can’t read all of these rants…life is too short. I just come to the conclusion that mental…’

    Truly fascinating. You have no time in this “short life” but you do have enough time to make psychological evaluations.

    I think that you are just upset that I’m not worshiping a politician. It’s okay you’ll get over it.

  57. says

    @ERNIE,

    “Weird, AFER–you know, the people behind the Prop 8 case and presumably pretty familiar with it”

    Well, you presumed wrong my friend.

    AFER are NOT directly involved with the case, and they are NOT the plaintiffs. They are a non profit that is raising money for the case and the plaintiffs and other projects. I support them every six months or so.

    Yes, I’ve received their email about the brief and how much they appreciated, which is fine and that is, of course expected. Like any other gay org they have issued a standard statement of appreciation. AFER’s statement, though as much you want it to be, does not go into detail, nor do I expect it to, with regards to the new legal theories that the White House is proposing.

  58. andrew says

    Once again, Mr Obama shows us that he is indeed the best friend that LGBT people have ever had in the White House. I am proud that I was able to vote for him in both his election victories.

  59. rick scatorum says

    GREAT DISCUSSION, although it doesn’t need to be so nasty.

    would it be better for Obama to file a brief in the doma case? Please respond:

    qequality4 at aol

  60. says

    Pietrangelo, Yes, I do remember you from Queer Rising. This stance of yours, which seems to be Anti-Obama more than pro-Anything Else, wasn’t rather evident then.

    i stand by what i’ve said.

    we hear you. you don’t like Obama.

    now, what and whom are you FOR?

    and whom did you vote for in the last election?

  61. says

    Sorry, Jose, but I did not presume wrong. As the sole sponsor of the federal court case and as the group who put together the legal team for the Plaintiffs, I think it’s safe to say that AFER is “behind” the Prop 8 case. Why would you cast doubt on their statement of appreciation? Are they and all the other gay groups concealing their true thoughts? And the White House isn’t proposing “new legal theories,” unless you consider heightened scrutiny and equal protection new.

    And, Rick, as Chitown Kev points out, the Obama administration already filed a brief in Edie Windsor’s case. And I agree that the DOMA case will likely have the most impact as Section 3 is clearly unconstitutional and a broad ruling in the Prop 8 case has never been viewed as the most likely scenario.

  62. Artie_in_Lauderdale says

    @ James Pietrangelo,

    All that matters is the inevitable progress that will come from the DOMA and Prop 8 cases. Your particular form of Obama Derangement Syndrome is a crashing bore that nobody seriously cares about. Whether it’s on the Internet or at cocktail parties, you’ll just wind up putting people to sleep.

  63. says

    @ERNIE,

    “Why would you cast doubt on their statement of appreciation?”

    I’m not doubting their appreciation at all. I’m just telling you the reality of what is going on. AFER is a non-profit that i strongly support, but that does not mean that AFER is analyzing every word of every brief or is handling the case, they are merely bank rolling this good cause. The law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP are the only real people “behind” any thing. I’m not sure what Ted Olson really thinks about Obama’s new quack theory, but he can judge for himself and his clients.

    “And the White House isn’t proposing “new legal theories,”

    They have created a new class of people on which to apply heightened scrutiny and equal protection on, this new group of people are people in civil partnerships and civil unions which pretty much discounts everybody else in the state of California and states that have CPs and CUs and gays in other states that do not have CPs or CUs.

  64. says

    “the most pro-LGBT President in the history of the United States of America”

    Gee I wonder how one can go about and make such presumptions *before* the president’s term is even up. I been told just to “wait” and that Obama will fix almost everything he promised to fix for the gay community, yet you refuse to do the same and wait before making such grandiose pronouncements regardless of other facts.

    Simply, you are rather stating an opinion which you are entitled to have, but not a fact. And people can have other opinions of Obama, and as well all based on opinion, that is just something you have to come to accept. My opinion is that Obama’s *record* (based on facts I seen) on gay issues is pretty dismal.

  65. says

    Think of it this way:

    JFK said that *before the decade is over* we ARE going to take man to the moon and bring him back safely. And so we did before the decade was over and we took a man to the moon and brought him back safely.

    Obama just says “it would be nice to go to Mars huh?” Of course you can call him the most “pro-going to mars president we ever had” which is something else from actually having an astronaut physically land on mars.

  66. andrew says

    Putting a man on the moon was relatively easy. Its just physics. Changing peoples minds and hearts about deeply held social beliefs is far more difficult and requires different kinds of strategies and leadership. Of course Mr Obama, like all of us, has his flaws, but he is undoubtedly the very best friend that LGBT people have ever had in the White House.

  67. says

    Well, Jose, I suspect AFER might disagree with your idea that they are “merely bank rolling” the cause and therefore incapable of understanding the Obama administration’s brief as well as you do.

  68. says

    From a lawyer for the Plaintiffs, who was “extremely pleased” with Obama’s brief:

    “This is a powerful brief by the United States placing the full weight of its authority in favor of equality for all Americans. This is an important day in this nation’s history. If the Court agrees with the United States that ‘heightened scrutiny’ applies, that is a clear path to marriage equality across the United States, because marriage bans in other states cannot satisfy that standard, either.”

  69. says

    Folks, click on Jose Soto’ name. that’s one of his blogs. click on the right, to the link to his OTHER blogs.

    he has an entire blog devoted to being a gay man who wants to sexually seduce straight men.

    because that’s what empowered gay men spend their time thinking about, right?

    *barf*

  70. Chitown Kev says

    Jose Soto, if any of the previous 43 occupants of the Oval Office has been more pro gay than President Obama (and Obama has not been perfect) please inform me who they are and what legislation and/or EOs they signed on to that’s more significant than Obama.

  71. irwin says

    this isn’t discrimination, it’s a grab at legitimizing a lifestyle.

    when was upholding an institution built on specific principles now considered an act of discrimination.

    if you don’t qualify for it, don’t apply.

    the qualifications for a marriage by design are not simply 2 people in love; love is an emotion that comes and goes; straight people marry wildly in love and then divorce at a 50% rate.

    marriage is designed to create a family unit that regenerates and supports itself unceasingly; we’ve got dna to protect, foster, and pass on.

    continue to love – that’s a powerful thing unto itself.

Leave A Reply