Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Gay Anger at Obama is Boiling Over

We were talking about this last week, but the story is not going away. The mainstream media have been picking it up, it's all over the talk shows. The Obama administration seems to have abandoned its campaign promises to gay and lesbian Americans -- worse than that, the administration appears to have turned on them.

From CBS News:
The anger from gay rights advocates toward President Obama is starting to boil over.

On Monday, Joe Solmonese, the president of the establishment gay rights group The Human Rights Campaign, sent an angry letter to the president objecting to the decision by the Obama Justice Department to file a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

"I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours," Solmonese wrote. "I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you."

The Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, mandates (1) that the federal government not recognize same-sex marriages and (2) that states not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Mr. Obama vowed to repeal DOMA as a presidential candidate but he has not taken any action to do so since becoming president. The Justice Department brief calls the legislation a "valid exercise of Congress' power" and says it is "reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage." Obama Faces Gay Groups' Growing Anger

I saw Howard Dean on the Maddow show last night talking about this Justice Department brief. I can't quote his exact words, and I don't think the transcript is up yet, but he seemed to be saying that this approach was a mistake. He was trying to make it sound like Obama himself probably didn't know anything about this, that the problem is caused by Bush-era staff in the Justice Department (as I recall, it was late and I was tired). Whatever, the new guy is blowing it left and right here. He campaigned on a set of promises and the gay community jumped behind him and supported him. There was some complaining when he invited Rick Warren to the inauguration, you might say it set off a few alarms, but I think people expected him to follow through with his promises, or at least create the appearance of trying. I for one took the Rick Warren incident as a sign that the administration was going to try to be bipartisan, to heal the divisiveness that tore the country apart for the previous eight years.
He goes onto single out a portion of the brief referencing a case involving "marriage of uncle to niece" to support the Justice position.

"I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones," he writes.

After the brief was filed, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that while the president has said he is committed to repealing DOMA, "until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

But the president, who is wary of opening up a fight over social issues that could endanger his ambitious agenda on health care and other issues, has not asked Congress to do so. And as blogger and gay rights advocate John Aravosis points out, Justice has chosen not to defend laws in the past, undercutting the implication that the department had no choice but to do so.

This Justice Department argument is bad enough, but that's not all the story.
As CBSNews.com reported earlier this month, the president has also declined to take action on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military, despite campaign promises to do so. While the administration has suggested it is working with the military to repeal the policy responsibly, the Pentagon says there have not been any serious discussions along those lines.

Many of the staffers in the Obama White House also served under President Bill Clinton, and they remember well how much political capital taking on gay rights cost Clinton early in his administration. But while gay rights advocates signaled sympathy to those concerns early in the Obama administration, their patience appears to be running out. (The picture above comes from a gay rights rally late last month.)

It should be noted that there do appear to be efforts on behalf of gay Americans in the works: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he is looking to pass hate crimes legislation before the August recess, and the extension of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees is said to be on the way. But these are widely viewed as significant but relatively minor potential victories, and are not likely to quiet the growing anger among gay advocates if they do go through.

When you talk to the people who aren't complaining, they say that maybe Obama plans to implement some of the policies he promised, maybe he has too much to do right now, maybe gay rights are on the back burner. But in the meantime the administration is taking an aggressive anti-gay position, kicking gays out of the military as fast as they can find them, arguing the far right's points on marriage. Hope is feeling, to a lot of people, like foolishness.

41 Comments:

Anonymous lightning rod said...

DOMA was signed by Clinton and is being agressively enforced by Obama.

Aren't they Democrats?

Do you think Obama would be defending a law that said whites and blacks couldn't marry?

I've told you guys many times that conflating racial identity with sexual preference is false analogy.

Looks like Sir Barry O agrees with me.

I like that guy.

June 16, 2009 1:45 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

The brief may be found at this link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/
Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

It is not as incendiary as some reports suggest, but people can read it for themselves and decide. Page 18 of the brief contains the "uncle/niece" marriage language, and related examples. The context is simply citing cases were states were deemed not to have violated the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution re the marriages from outside their borders that they would recognize.

The thing is here is that the actual case has no business being in federal court in the first place, because it was filed originally in state court, which has no jurisdiction over the federal government. Under the "derivative jurisdiction" doctrine, the district court must dismiss the case. I won't bore everyone with the full legal analysis of the derivative jurisdiction doctrine.

The DOJ brief could have just said that the case must be dismissed due to the derivative jurisdiction doctrine, and not gotten into the "merits." Still, lawyers tend to like to use every argument they can to win a case.

The merits of the argument regarding both the Full Faith and Credit argument and the argument concerning how federal agencies (including Social Security) view state-approved same-sex marriages centers around whether there could be a "rational" basis for the policy. While the brief shows lots of legal precedent supporting the proposition that such a legislative choice is "rational," it is bereft of any actual explanation of why such discrimination is "rational," other than to note that it costs the government more if more people are married. Hmm. I've always thought DOMA was basically an attack on marriage. Under that logic, we should discourage marriage altogether, because it costs the government money.

I have no idea how high up the brief went for review. The political appointees have come on board only in the last few weeks, and I would not be surprised if all they knew was that the brief urging dismissal would be filed -- not the particulars of what was contained in the brief.

June 16, 2009 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Under that logic, we should discourage marriage altogether, because it costs the government money."

But the money invested in traditional marriage yields a corresponding benefit to society that homosexual partnerships don't.

sorry, Charlie

June 16, 2009 6:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Benefits to society like this?

"WASHINGTON (June 16) – Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, a leading Republican mentioned as a potential presidential candidate, admitted Tuesday he had an extramarital affair with a woman who was a member of his campaign staff. "Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage," Ensign said at a brief news conference in his home state."

June 16, 2009 8:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, yeah

I forgot

sometimes people have affairs

let's just do away with marriage altogether

makes sense to me

I'm a TTF lunatic

June 16, 2009 8:37 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

"But the money invested in traditional marriage yields a corresponding benefit to society that homosexual partnerships don't."

Anon, that is a conclusion, not an analysis. Please explain the basis for that conclusion.

June 16, 2009 10:38 PM  
Anonymous lightning rod said...

sure, David

the male-female dynamic has a complemetary effect that produces a stability in the basic organizing structure of society, which is the family

the effect is actually transcendent

same sex realtionships don't achieve that and shouldn't be encouraged or given the same status as marriage by our society

investing in traditional marriage produces a stronger society, more capable of meeting the challenges of our age

June 17, 2009 3:51 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anyone who doesn't believe lgbt relationships bring stability to society should come to an AGLA or Equality Fairfax function and meet all the boring suburban couples there. Oh, but that would require coming out in the daytime, or under lights.

The Washington Times has a front-page article on the benefits being offered by the federal government.

June 17, 2009 5:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anyone who doesn't believe lgbt relationships bring stability to society should come to an AGLA or Equality Fairfax"

no thanks

June 17, 2009 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who believes lgbt relationships bring stability to society should come to a gay "pride" function and meet all the, um, interesting couples there.

June 17, 2009 9:07 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Lightning Rod claimed:

“the male-female dynamic has a complemetary [sic] effect that produces a stability in the basic organizing structure of society, which is the family”

And

“same sex realtionships [sic] don't achieve that and shouldn't be encouraged or given the same status as marriage by our society”

I happen to know a number of families headed by gay couples – most of them from my church. It is not uncommon for their relationship to have a complimentary dynamic; few single people have all of the qualities they need alone to navigate the myriad challenges that parents must overcome. From what I’ve seen so far, the children of these couples are growing up to be kind, caring, well-behaved, and responsible young adults. I’m glad these couples have organized themselves as a family in spite of the harassment they face from certain volatile parts of our society, and the institutionalized discrimination they confront.

“investing in traditional marriage produces a stronger society, more capable of meeting the challenges of our age”


I agree. Allowing gay couples to have the same legal protections and advantages of a traditional marriage will make it that much easier for gay and lesbian couples to raise their children, or the children they’ve adopted from heterosexual couples that chose to abdicate their parental responsibility. More children will be in stable and caring two-parent households. This could only make it easier to face the challenges of our age.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

June 17, 2009 10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barack's going to toss you guys a bone.

He's hoping you'll just gnaw on it and shut up.

I'm sure you will

...and vote for him again in 2012.

hahahahahahaha:

"WASHINGTON (June 17) - President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, a White House official said.

Obama plans to announce his decision Wednesday in the Oval Office, the official said Tuesday.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president hadn't yet signed the presidential memorandum.

The official said Obama would release more details Wednesday.

The decision is a political nod to a reliably Democratic voting bloc that has become impatient with the White House in recent weeks.

Several powerful gay fundraisers withdrew their support from a June 25 Democratic National Committee event where Vice President Joe Biden is expected to speak.

Their exit came in response to a June 12 Justice Department brief that defended the Defense of Marriage Act, a prime target for gay and lesbian criticism.

Gays and lesbians also fretted as the White House declined to intervene in the cases of enlisted military members facing courts martial for defying the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policies."

June 17, 2009 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmmm....will military personnel be considered "federal workers"?

I think not

June 17, 2009 10:09 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Lightning rod,

Unless you believe that permitting same sex marriage would somehow discourage heterosexuals from marrying, or that somehow the existence of same sex marriage would somehow convince straight people to become gay (and thus foresake opposite sex marriage for same sex marriage), your answer makes no sense.

Do you believe those things?

June 17, 2009 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

L rod said:

"money invested in traditional marriage yields a corresponding benefit to society that homosexual partnerships don't."

F back said:

"Anon, that is a conclusion, not an analysis. Please explain the basis for that conclusion."

L rod said:

"sure, David

the male-female dynamic has a complemetary effect that produces a stability in the basic organizing structure of society, which is the family

the effect is actually transcendent

same sex realtionships don't achieve that and shouldn't be encouraged or given the same status as marriage by our society

investing in traditional marriage produces a stronger society, more capable of meeting the challenges of our age"

F back said:

"Unless you believe that permitting same sex marriage would somehow discourage heterosexuals from marrying, or that somehow the existence of same sex marriage would somehow convince straight people to become gay (and thus foresake opposite sex marriage for same sex marriage), your answer makes no sense.

Do you believe those things?"

L rod now says:

"F, that is a conclusion, not an analysis. Please explain the basis for that conclusion."

We shouldn't be spending encouraging arrangements that don't contribute positively to society.

While we're on the topic, does anyone know what the cost of providing benefits to the sexual pals of homosexual federal workers will be?

Don't most of the guys who sleep with other guys already have jobs anyway?

Isn't this just going to shift who pays for it?

What's to stop single gays from just getting free health insurance for their unemployed buddies?

Isn't that discrimination against unmarried heterosexuals?

Doesn't seem like a worthy expenditure of my tax money.

June 17, 2009 1:15 PM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

that's right

it's not worthy

June 17, 2009 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"While we're on the topic, does anyone know what the cost of providing benefits to the sexual pals of homosexual federal workers will be?"

Yes, it will be much less than the cost of providing benefits to the spouses and children of heterosexual federal workers.

June 19, 2009 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in other words, a lot more than we're paying now

heterosexual spouses and children are good for society

homosexual sex partners are not

besides, those homosexual partners all have jobs that cover their health insurance anyway

all this will do is cause many of them to be paid for by my tax money

this is where the gay agenda leads

first, we tolerate them

now, they believe they are entitled to special support

June 19, 2009 3:24 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

special support

Oh, you mean like everybody else gets.

June 19, 2009 5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

marriage is a union bewteen a male and female forming a family, the basic organizing unit of society

it deserves special support from society, it produces a stable and harmonious society

the dynamic between two males is completely different and confers no benefit to society and does not deserve special support

June 19, 2009 8:09 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

It's not different at all. Two people fall in love, they want to start a family, what's the difference?

June 19, 2009 8:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

males and females have different emotional make-ups

they complement and fulfill each other in all kinds of ways that two members of the same sex don't

this is, for example, probably the main cause of extensive random promiscuity among male homosexuals

that, in turn, established the AIDS virus in our oppulation

not exactly beneficial to our society or something we'd want to encourage

June 19, 2009 10:48 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anon, if the world were populated with stereotypes, you might have a point. But these are real people you're talking about, and you don't know anything about them, so you end up sounding stupid.

June 19, 2009 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

are you saying there are no psychic differences between male and female?

if so, you're the one who sounds stupid

June 20, 2009 9:48 AM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Your attempt to make it sound like I was saying something I didn't say makes you sound even stupider than you did, and that's saying something.

There are all kinds of differences between individuals, obviously. There are statistical differences between males and females as groups, and lots of overlap on every dimension, including the continua of gender identity and sexual orientation.

June 20, 2009 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess I'm just stupid then, PB

what is your problem with the idea that male and female emotional characteristics complement each other in a way that benefits society?

Don't you understand that two males in a relationship don't have the same restraints on behavior that would deter rampant and random promiscuity, exposing our entire society to health risks, among other things?

Give us your considered thoughts rather than spouting out a bunch of gay agenda nonsense from your blow-hole.

Let's hear some rational ideas, Moby Dick.

June 20, 2009 10:30 AM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anon, if you actually knew any gay people you would not say what you're saying. All we're talking about here is people who are romantically attracted to someone of the same sex. The "rampant and random promiscuity" you talk about is your own fantasy, there is promiscuity among straight people, and it's not an argument against heterosexuality either.

As far as "exposing our entire society to health risks, among other things," I'm sure you imagine that gay people are a threat to you and your family personally, but that's silly. There is no "health risk" to being gay, and if there was it wouldn't affect you -- would it?

June 20, 2009 11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The "rampant and random promiscuity" you talk about is your own fantasy, there is promiscuity among straight people, and it's not an argument against heterosexuality either."

While there is obviously promiscuity among heterosexuals, it is of an entirely different nature. It's just not as available on a random and widespread basis as it is in homosexual communities.

"that's silly. There is no "health risk" to being gay, and if there was it wouldn't affect you -- would it?"

There must be some reason AIDS has been much more proportionately present in the gay community for the last 25 years than in the population at large.

It's presence affects everyone from someone who has to get a blood transfusion to we who have to pay higher health insurance premiums to cover treatment for this entirely preventable disease.

June 22, 2009 1:50 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

"There must be some reason AIDS has been much more proportionately present in the gay community "

Sure there's a reason -- AIDS was introduced into the gay community in the US and it spread through the web of contacts from person to person. Now it is mostly a black disease, not because the "black lifestyle" is dangerous, but for the same reason, it spreads to acquaintances. The virus is transmitted sexually, and it turns out that gay people have sex mainly with other gay people, black people have sex mainly with other black people.

You don't know anything about how "random and widespread" homosexual promiscuity is, any more than you know how random and widespread promiscuity is among straight people. You're simply parroting negative stereotypes in an unusually stupid-sounding manner. Tell me, have you ever actually seen two gay people having sex, with your own eyes? I don't mean in a movie, I mean for real -- to hear you tell it, they're coupling everywhere you look. Have you ever even seen a gay couple holding hands in public?

In fact, if there is any group in the country that is not promiscuous and does not suffer any special health risks, it is lesbians. Explain that one to me.

June 22, 2009 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's because the female emotional make-up restrains promiscuity which is the same reason male homosexuals are more promiscuous than the general population- by a long mile

June 22, 2009 2:30 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Wow, anon, you are well versed in your stereotypes! I envy your ability to live in such a simple world, with such a simple mind.

June 22, 2009 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gender differences are not stereotypes, PB

Interestingly enough, accusations of stereotyping are what transgenders say oppressed them for years

if there are no differences between genders, then what do you make of your T allies who claim to always have known there were really of another gender

are they just the victim of internal stereotyping?

if there are gender differences, what's so shocking about the idea that the genders are complementary and lend themselves to social stability

think about it

when you're not on medication

June 22, 2009 3:16 PM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

June 22, 2009 4:03 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anon, there are all kinds of differences between men and women on the average, and there is a degree of complementarity between the sexes -- conveniently for reproduction, one sticks out where the other goes in. It is silly though to act as if men and women are opposites in any important way. There are differences that are important for reproduction and some physical specialization has evolved over the millions of years, but human beings male and female are more similar to one another than different. Further, variation within each sex is so broad that the distributions of features overlap considerably.

There is a sense that we have of ourselves as male or female, and for some people that sense is in conflict with their physical apparatus, or if the apparatus is ambiguous, the sense of gender may be in conflict with the assigned sex. There is no benefit in insisting that such people "really are" the gender that a doctor said they were on the day they were born.

Further, there is no benefit in forcing people to behave in ways that satisfy your peculiar need to stereotype. I do not want to be just like Barbie, neither do I wish to be like Rambo, I find the middle ground to be kind of fun, and for me the most comfortable region is near one of the poles but it would be silly to insist that everyone should be like me, or even to force myself to obey some restriction on my freedom.

So people are different -- so what? I know, I know, it's too much for your intellect to handle.

June 22, 2009 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"there is no benefit in forcing people to behave in ways that satisfy your peculiar need to stereotype. I do not want to be just like Barbie, neither do I wish to be like Rambo"

wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to do anything

there are, however, despite your simplistic characterizaions, an emotional essence to gender differences that is inescapable

two guys together always will be different than a guy and a girl together

and while we don't want to prohibit anyone's freedom, there is no need to support or encouragement arrangements that are detrimental to society in the estimation of most people

try to persuade people to viewpoint if you like but stop trying to use the law to force it on everyone else

June 22, 2009 7:31 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

"two guys together always will be different than a guy and a girl together"

Okay, Anon, now you're getting somewhere. The only way you could know this is if you have been with guys and girls. Maybe you're a guy and for you it was better with girls, maybe it wasn't and you were frightened by what you might become. Why don't you tell us a little bit about that, these assertions about stereotypes are silly when you apparently have actual experience.

If you haven't tasted both kinds of love, you wouldn't be able to make this statement, unless you mean it in some philosophical sense that doesn't matter to anyone.

June 22, 2009 7:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

give it up, PBJ

all anyone needs to know is that guys and girls have different emotional make-ups

they think differently and it's not the anatomical complementariness so much as the emotional complementariness that makes marriage a heterosexual institution that benefits society

homosexual males are two loose cannons

homosexual females are a problem too, just a different type

June 22, 2009 9:01 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anon, these are just assertions based on stereotypes. You obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about. You don't know anything about whether men and women "think differently," you don't have any facts about gay or lesbian people, just stupid assertions.

I thought for a minute you might have something interesting to say. I guess not.

June 22, 2009 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PBJ, we're talking about external effects

they're evident to everyone

sorry if that doesn't interest you

if you want something sicker, so a search

June 22, 2009 10:03 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anon, I don't know what an "external effect" is. All I'm seeing here is stereotypes and uninformed generalizations. It looks like to me like you watch too much TV. Why don't you get out, meet some people, see what the real world's like.

June 22, 2009 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, right, PB

do you think polygamists are stereotyped too?

indeed, isn't any rule based on a type of stereotype, in your thinking

why not just let any group call themselves married and get special governmental assistance?

isn't just a generalization to say it won't work and then refuse to call it marriage?

how about if three girls, two guys and a kangaroo want to call themselves married?

who knows?

in the "real" world that might work

how can you say unless you've actually had relations with a kangaroo?

June 23, 2009 10:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home