Comments

1
meanwhile in the real news a poll is out showing 70 percent of American citizens want single-payer national health care even while the Big Pharma Big Medicine funded House and Senate are ignoring us.

But, hey, let's talk about something that ain't gonna happen instead. Since that appears to be what you want.

Did you know that the Sounders keeper likes to kiss?
2
Will? You can start a blog of your own, you know. Then you can prioritize whatever stories you think are the most interesting, most important, most compelling, etc.
3
Dan, why the question mark after Will? You see what I did there? And there? It's the appropriate place for a question mark. Go back to school, you moron.
4
@1 and seriously what have you done lately that makes you the authority on "taking action" for fuck's sakes?
5
agreed w/ #2 - In addition, what makes you think universal health care has any chance of advancing? Isn't it just as much a lost-cause as gay civil rights?
6
How many of you have e-mailed your Senator or Reps?
7
@ #1 Enough man. This is important to some of us if its not to you move along.
8
@1
Hey Will you've inspired me. I'm going to contact both of my U.S. Senators in writing and tell them to stand against single-payer national health care.

Thanks for being such an inspiration!!!
9
It’s really quite simple: The Obamessiah sez that action on gay rights must come through Congress, then Harry and Nancy squeal that they need to see a legislative proposal from the Preznit, then he says “oh no, it needs to come through Congress first,” then they say “oh no, you go first,” and he replies “no, really, you go first.”

Meanwhile, they feed constant disinformation to gay rights groups and the media like “we’ll vote on the Hate Crimes bill this week” and “we need 60 votes for the legislation” and then “no, it’ll be August,” and then “sorry, the bill’s dead this session.”

See how that works:

Obama + Congress + In action = gay rights DOA, QED, which is the actual goal.

10
What "everyone else" is saying except Barney Frank, probably the guy most qualified to have an opinion.
11
Obama beez defendimatin hisself from gay criticisms n'shit!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090617…

Obama fends off criticism from gay supporters
Email this Story

Jun 17, 5:42 PM (ET)

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama signaled to gay rights activists Wednesday that he's listening to their priorities by extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. But he didn't give them even close to everything they want, bringing growing anger against the president to the surface.

Obama aides urged gays and lesbians to have patience with the new White House's slow-and-steady approach to the politically charged topic. But his critics - and there were many - saw Wednesday's incremental move to expand gay rights as little more than pandering to a reliably Democratic voting bloc, with the primary aim not of making policy more fair but of cutting short a fundraising boycott.

12
Will in Seattle,

Did you know that in a nation of over 300 million people, the government can cover more than one issue at a time???

It seems impossible, but it's true!!! Live the dream.

P.S.

I also want single-payer healthcare, but Congress has made it crystal clear that choice is OFF. THE. TABLE.
13
What Michael "Kramer" Richards said.
14
This is important, but Dan is taking a ridiculous approach and simply not accepting that the President cannot solve this problem on his own. He is taking it step by step, in a way that allows him to retain his political capital, and still furthers the gay rights agenda. No, it's not everything you want. Yes, it is a good gesture. No it's not enough. Yes, the president is aware of that. No, he has broken ZERO promises. He even hasn't been in office for 6 months.

Why not relax and not demand this be done over night? Widen your perspective just a LITTLE, and you'll be pleasantly surprised that, given the turbulent political atmosphere, you are making progress, and not just perfunctory political progress, but real emotional progress that is going to change gay equality in this society for the better. The president can't do that. Only you can do that. It would be very nice if you didn't have to tear the president down in order to achieve those goals. It's unnecessary, and really makes you come across like a pretentious one minded prick.

This is a real issue. The President is making steps in your favor, the shift the political climate in Washington DC, to one that will support gay equality. I'll say it again: it won't happen over night. It can't happen over night. It has to come, little by little, so that people can get used to the idea. If that doesn't happen, there's going to be backlash, not just for the President, but for gay people in general. PLEASE have a level head about this. You're getting what you want, just not as fast as you want. Have just a touch of patience.
15
Frank says:
“When I was called by a newspaper reporter for reaction to the administration’s brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, I made the mistake of relying on other people’s oral descriptions to me of what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first. It is a lesson to me that I should not give in to press insistence that I comment before I have had a chance fully to inform myself on the subject at hand.”
“Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”
16
It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example. It is the President’s job to try to change the law, but it is also his obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”

“I strongly opposed DOMA when it was adopted and I will continue to fight for changes. I support very strongly the lawsuit brought by the people at Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) that make the cogent argument that DOMA’s provision denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages blatantly violates the equal protection clause. And I will work with the Obama administration as they have promised to do to enact laws protecting LGBT people from hate crimes, from job discrimination, and from discrimination in the military. I will also be critical when I think inappropriate language is used. But after rereading this brief, I do not think that the Obama administration should be subject to harsh criticism in this instance.”
17
@ 15,

Link?
18
@15 and @16
Kevin you need to source your quotes. Linking to them would be best.
19
We’ve got to show them that we’re not some hick dumbasses like the xtian-fascist nutcases that Bush II played for fools all those years.

They either get moving on equality or we’ll send our money elsewhere. And really, that sweet sweet campaign caaa$$$$h is the only thing they give a shit about.
20
Done. I just submitted online written messages to both my U.S. Senators imploring them to stand AGAINST single-payer national health care.

Thanks again Will in Seattle!!!
21
Sorry, here's the link: Barney Frank in a statement to CNN
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200…

kinda weird that cnn just updated the story but didn't change the headline, but there it is
22
...and why we should believe anything Socarides says at this point is beyond me, as clinton's rep to the gays during the 90s, he totally stabbed our community in the back.

I haven't seen any constitutional lawyer agree with Socarides, and ya'll can't just trust Aravosis to know what he's talking about. http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/…
23
@ Kevin Erickson,

I got squicked out just reading that. No wonder the Dems don't respect us when they can run right over us and have house fagz like Barney Frank beg for more. Does someone who agrees with his statement have any self-respect?
24
@23 What part of the legal argument Frank explains don't you agree with?

I agree with Frank's statement, and heck yeah, I respect myself. I think that activism that's fueled by sound legal arguments is more effective than activism fueled by demagoguery.
25
I love Dan Savage, but he's starting to remind me of the nutjobs on the Right who were pissed that Bush didn't immediately overturn Roe v. Wade when he took office.
26
They're all right, it's too little too late and too sullied to mean anything. We need REAL action right NOW.
27
Barney Frank knows who butters his buns; he's not going to stray too far from the DNC party mantra and their cash.

I totally like and respect him, but he does have that pander thing, tons of it.
28
A Barney Frank FAIL. It's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be his last. Plenty of reputable experts legal and otherwise agree that the Fierce Fraud's DOJ DOMA brief went far beyond what it needed to. The damage it has done will be seen as anti-gay groups start using passages from it to support their campaigns.
29
Avarosis needs to quit saying he talked with so and so, and THEY say this isn't true. Prove it, dammit. Links, studies, the law itself that would allow, say, full benefits. Don't just quote someone from the Clinton admin who apparently wasn't horrified enough back then to do anything.
30
Maybe he is waiting for his second term.
31
@9: History FAIL.
32
@28 when has a right-wing activist group ever used passages from a DOJ legal brief--not a decision, but a _brief_ in their campaigns?

I'm not convinced you know the basic facts of this case. Where was it argued? Who were the plaintiffs? How does it compare to other DOMA challenges? What would be the outcome if the court sided with the plaintiffs?
33
If progressives really want health reform, they should stop alienating gays. This fag would happily see your "more important" issues go down in flames because you couldn't win support from the gays.
34
I mean to say, progressives are only hurting their own interests and coalitions by telling gays to STFU.
35
Kevin Erickson--
Let's wait and see what happens. I'm not the originator of this idea. Fiercy's own words were used against gays and lesbians in the failed Prop 8 battle in spite of his weak support for the No campaign. It is not far-fetched to assume that extremists couldn't effectively distort details of the DOJ legal brief to fit their arguments.

It would be a great thing if everything in law were spelled out in exhaustive detail and in such a way that a non-lawyer average working class person could easily understand it, but it usually isn't. Interpretation is left to the reader, viewer, etc.

I suspect you would be a poor teacher to a class of average working Americans. You don't happen to be an attorney, do you?
36
@34 I don't see a lot of that happening, really. Maybe from Will, but mostly I do see some people (gay and straight) telling gays to make sure their outrage is well-targeted with sound legal and legislative strategies, and fully-informed with all the facts.
37
@36 Kevin Erickson--
Why am I not surprised that you "don't see a lot of that happening."
Why not take a read over to Pam Spaulding's blog, specifically this post: More on fair-weather progressive 'friend…
38
Worst person in the world: Mark in Colorado. I say this as a lesbian who is completely disgusted by Democrats' inaction on gay rights. I think the only way karma can work this out is for you to die from a completely treatable disease the day before a gay equal rights amendment is ratified.
39
@36 Kevin Erickson--
Better yet, take a look at this post over at Pam's blog:
Watch one progressive bus run over Rache…
40
@38 Lizzie--
Back at ya.
41
@ 31,

Could you please read the freakin' nooz, before spouting off?

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ekti…
42
@ 31,

REID: "We would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the president would like to see and when. With presidential leadership and direction, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress. We need all the troops we can get right now."
43
It is a treat watching the elements of the Democrapic 'Big Tent!' rip each other to shreds.
44
@35 Haha! I wish I was a lawyer. No, I'm just a lowly (working-class!) non-profit worker.

You're right that the details of the legal system can be confusing and hard to understand. I think that's a good reason to slow the heck down and make sure everyone understands the systems and processes and legal contexts before they start accusing people of having hateful views based on a legal brief that they might not have read themselves, or might not have the training to fully understand.

If I was going to try to explain this whole thing to a class of average working americans, I'd start by making sure everyone knows the process for challenging the constitutionality of a law in federal court, how it rises to the supreme court, etc. Then I'd outline the variety of ways that people have sought to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA, and explain which are stronger challenges and which are weaker challenges (Dominic's article in last week's Stranger does a good job of describing how a poorly strategized legal case can result in big setbacks for gay rights by setting an unfavorable precedent) . I'd probably talk about the varying views on the executive branch's discretion in declining to defend the constitutionality of a law.

Yes, this would take a long time, and a patient audience. But patience and willingness to learn the workings of government is what really gets things done in washington and results in meaningful changes in policy.
45
OMG THIS IS SO IMPORTANT! I'LL NEVER VOTE DEMOCRAT AGAIN. THANK GOD FOR DAN SAVAGE. EVEN THOUGH HE'S A FATHER AND SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT A WHOLE HOST OF ISSUES THAT WILL DIRECTLY AFFECT HIS CHILD DURING HIS LIFETIME, HE HAS CHOSEN, APPARENTLY ALONG WITH HIS BOYFRIEND, TO GO OFF THE DEEP END AND ACT LIKE HYSTERICAL ANGRY QUEENS AT A MACYS ONE DAY ONLY SALE OVER JUST ONE ISSUE. HOW RIGHT-TO-LIFE OF HIM!!! HOW WESTBORO!!! THANK GOD FOR HIM TELLING ME HOW ANGRY TO BE!!!!

OMG. OMG. OMG OMG. OMG. OMG.OMG. OMG. OMG!!!!!!

HILLARY IN 012!!!!!!!!!!!
46
@38: you sound like you'd be amused by karma hurting someone , hmmm, thats no so progressive is it?

it is really fucking stupid, though.

oh, and where is the karma beat down squad for boring scolds?
47
@42: You didn't even read your own story :)

The SLDN said that the DADT repeal is headed in the right direction and they support the current move. Essentially, as Sarvis states, either Obama says "I'll do it myself" or defines the timeline for the removal of DADT. That isn't easy, is it?

In terms of DOMA, I defy you to find a president who made a large civil rights change without screwing up royally first. Not Kennedy, Truman, or even all the way back to Lincoln. And any President who has dealt with Native Americans is completely excluded, in fact.

All this, 46 years after Kennedy finally effed up and had to run the Civil Rights Act himself (well, using a pre-drafted template from a Senator).
48
@37 Frankly, Pam's being uncharacteristically sloppy here, conflating differing opinions about tactics and the desire to stick to facts with the impulse to say that LGBT issues are less important than others.
49
He’s always a step or two behind where his supporters want him to be, getting pulled along by their enthusiasm, rather than out ahead of them where he might get cut off. It’s a community organizer’s MO. You never get out ahead of your constituency. Instead you shape the playing field so that your constituency’s desires flow towards where you think they should go, and allow them to carry you along behind them.

via - http://mattsteinglass.wordpress.com/2009…
50
@46: I think it's because 18,000 americans die each year for lack of medical service, and many thousands more for inadequate medical treatment. She's probably a bit annoyed that someone is saying "I hope you die because I can't get married!"
51
@44
Well, I'm sure your non-profit work is honorable but I fail to see how this is like a day laborer's job. I'm also assuming you have a better than high school education.

I like your syllabus-like paragraph. I would take your class.
However, the problem with explaining weaker and stronger challenges is that ultimately it will come down to your interpretation and your educated opinion on the matter. I'm sure there would be attorneys, or actually are attorneys who would disagree with one another on these salient points.

Unfortunately, it comes down to whom (or who?) one chooses to agree with. It happens that you and I see it differently and we each agree with different individuals, legal and otherwise.
52
@50:
"I think it's because 18,000 americans die each year for lack of medical service, and many thousands more for inadequate medical treatment. She's probably a bit annoyed that someone is saying "I hope you die because I can't get married!"

yes that needs to be addressed, but also some of those 18,000 are gay and are being denied basic rights during their end of life process. it's not a zero-sum thing, we can work on many fronts.
53
@52: Yup.

Supporters of gay rights have been told for years that we just need to wait our turn, that the time isn't quite right and there are other priorities. We're tired of being pushed aside and taken for granted. If not now, when?
54
"Dominic's article in last week's Stranger does a good job of describing how a poorly strategized legal case can result in big setbacks for gay rights by setting an unfavorable precedent)"

Nope, fail, wrong.

The legal efforts that led to Plessy v. Ferguson (the decision saying separate but equal is okay) did nothing to "Set back" the ultimate achievement of Brown v. Board.

Who in his right mind would think that brown v. Board would have happened in 1890 or 1910 or even 1930 without Plessy?

The entire nation was so vilely racist.

Now, this legal issue about DOMA is this:

the president is obliged to uphold the constitution. Whenever a law is unconstiutional, in his or her view, then he does not defend it, he challenges its fucking ass folks!

Now why is DOMA illegal?

Because there's no fucking way states can not recognize gay marriage from other states without deciding that gay marriage is vile and disgusting, like incest.

So here's the deal.

If Obamathinks gay marriage isn't vile and disgusting, this means to him DOMA is unconstitutional and it is illegal so he's duty bound to challenge it not support it.

Ib Obama thinks gay marriage is vile and disgusting, this means to him DOMA is constitution and legal so its' his duty to uphold and defend it.

It is that simple folks. His decision to defend it means he thinks being gay is vile and disgusting. That's it, end of story QED, gays just got stabbed in the back, please stop with the legal mumbo jumbo you don't udnerstand and the ridiculous comment by anonymous cowards coming up with never ending false tenets of constitutional law ("citing Tribe and "custom" one day, now "Facially unconstitutional" it's all a lot of hooey and he has not got a clue as to what he's talking about).

Once more:

DEFENDING DOMA MEANS OBAMA THINKS GAYS ARE VILE AND DISGUSTING LIKE INCEST.
55
@51 it's true that i did get to go a to a good school, thanks to loans & scholarships & luck of having parents who worked their asses off for me. I see what you're saying; I am privileged to have had access to education to help me understand stuff. Still I don't think that eliminates people's responsibility to think critically and work to understand the legal processes and context before hopping on the outrage bandwagon.

Regarding weaker & stronger challenges, your observation is correct: some of the details about strategy are subject to various opinions. But that's the beginning of a discussion, not the end. So you should have a discussion about all the arguments, and see what the broad consensus of experts in constitutional law say.

In this case, for example, it's important to note that as far as i can tell none of the major gay legal groups were actively backing the suit that the DOJ brief was responding to. So none of the major gay legal groups thought this particular case was how we were going to win the battle. That's a strong objective indicator that it was a weak strategy.
56
38 Mark in Colorado is a total hypocrite who's just hates the President. He even admitted on the previous thread that affording healthcare benefits to gay partners of federal employees was and I quote " Only an act of Congress", but even when admitting to that he still needs to whine and talk trash about the President.

It's good that some honest lesbians and gays like you here on Slog are finally starting to see how intransigent other gays are being right now.
57
@51 in any case, it's important to consider all the tactics systematically, even if people don't ultimately agree about which one is best. You and I both want to get national marriage rights, but if you think there's only one possible way to get there and you see me advocating something else, you might think i don't share your goal. If instead you've spent some time thinking about all the paths that could get there and critically evaluating them, then you can recognize someone who has the same goal as you but a different strategy for getting there. You can still try to win them over to your strategy, but you won't mistake a different strategy for hatred or animus.
58
Hello. There seems to be a perception around here that gays want their weddings only because they want them for silly, unimportant reasons. Perhaps these people, like Loveschild and her fellows in the army of darkness, think that we feel like our wedding just wouldn't be fabulous enough without legal force. Or perhaps we're just so needy and dramatic that we just want to screw over the whole country to get what we want.

What is lost, over and over, is the fact that THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE'S FAMILY, THEIR HOMES, THEIR JOBS, THEIR CHILDREN, THEIR LIVES, and THEIR DEATHS. Gays arent fighting to get married because of endless possibilities of bridal registry. They want make sure that their husbands and wives and children have access to healthcare. They want to offer their homes to children who would otherwise not have one. They want TAXPAYER PARITY, and an end to the homosexual subsidization of the heterosexual lifestyle. (Thats right, I shouldnt have to pay for your survivor benefits and tax breaks if I am not a decent enough human being to have them too). We thought our time had come with Obama. Now that it's clear that it was all pandering, the time has come to fight.
59
@56 Don't compliment me, crazy lady!
60
Baconcat @ 47,

This same article has been repeating itself for months on every GLBT issue: Odubya sez Congress has to do it, Congress wants the Preznit to do it, infinity.

Just a few days earlier, Reid claimed there were no DADT repeal sponsors and that he had no plans to introduce a repeal anyway:

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ekti…

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking at a press conference Monday said he has no plans to introduce a bill to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" in the Senate.

"I haven't identified any sponsors," he said. "My hope is that it can be done administratively."

Like by the preznit, apparently.

Granted, he's incompetent and probably insane, but still. Sheesh!
61
@55
Someone who works 10 to 12 or more hours a day digging ditches, welding steel, working with patients in a hospital, etc. isn't stupid and likely has fine critical thinking skills. Their priorities and experiences in life are quite different than yours or mine. As you grow older you'll see things are not so clean and tidy. Your expectations of others are idealistic and laudable. I'm starting to see more, through your writing and reading about your background and immersion in the non-profit world why there might likely be a communication disconnect between you and those whose lives revolve around just trying to get by day to day and who are susceptible to easy if not false sloganeering or arguments--not because they're lazy, but often times because they're not tuned into the issue, and it's not personal to them.

I'm not impressed by the actions of major gay legal groups. They are fallible like everything and everyone else.

Mostly, I believe you're missing the point. You're hung up with just the details of the legal brief and how you believe they're being misinterpreted. Many of us are concerned about the damage that could come from this as well as how we believe its being wrongly defended by those who would call themselves progressive or liberal. That's why I believe Pam Spaulding's posts are spot on and well reasoned.

Another problem is that you continue to support the new President while I do not and likely never will again. As a result this is a communication barrier that will make it difficult if not impossible for us to be in full agreement on this particular issue(s).

You're going to encounter many situations in life where intelligent people simply don't agree.
62
@57 Kevin Erickson--
I guess I just don't type fast enough at my 45yo age.

I agree with your comment completely. Well said.
63
@20 dude, currently you're the biggest chump on this site. You really showed Will man, when you speak your senators must listen. see what you did will? now accept your punishment.

but i must say mark, your delusions of power sure are entertaining!

(note to will, please come out AGAINST jetpacks for every american)

64
@56 Loveychiiild--

If you're going to quote me at least get it right. I said that only an act of Congress could provide healthcare benefits to spouses of same sex couples--NOT the absurd memorandum that Fiercy signed today which was not part of his show anyway.

But thanks for the shout-out! Woohoo!
65
My comment @64: and to be clear I was talking about same-sex spouses of federal employees.
66
@63, Thanks, Cochise.
I don't feel powerful though. I doubt Udall would agree with me anyway--but you never know, Colorado is more of a red hue of purple. As for Bennett, well he'll probably have a tough time holding onto the seat so I have no idea how he'll respond. Nobody in the state really knows who he is.

And honestly, I don't believe now is the right time for single-payer healthcare. So the inspiration I got from Will was genuine--he just helped me make up my mind. I wish I could say it was spite but alas no.
67
@42. Ha! This is the second time this week that Reid called Obama on his bullshit/inaction--first on DADT and now on DOMA. Love it.
68
@49 I think the clue to why the Obama administration is doing this is in that link you provided. Andrew Sullivan linked to it in regards to the Iran situation, but all I could think of was this DOMA controversy.

From my background and current employment, I'm still connected with a number of super-conservatives of the type that think Obama is the anti-Christ and gays are destroying America. I can tell you that there is _nothing_ that will stop the amazing natural momentum of the gay rights movement right now state to state and drag it back into the endless infuriating stasis of accusation and culture wars than Obama getting out in front as the champion of gay rights. The Right will raise millions off that one act and it could catalyze strong opposition to all of the other amazing and *concrete* progressive policy currently being enacted. They fear and despise him, and they're looking for him to give them any excuse to be the Liberal Apocalypse Monster they think he is.

The Presidency is about the person holding the office - the decisions they've made and the way they make them influencing the course of our national future. That's why I was so afraid when Bush took office because of the havoc his destructive frat-boy history and immaturity could do at such a powerful, influential level. And he didn't disappoint.

I've been watching Obama for over two years now, looking closely at the way he operates and trying to decipher as best I can the motives for his political moves, and this DOMA/"gay betrayal" thing is so out of character as to raise serious doubts with me, especially given his campaign rhetoric which he's by and large been attempting to deliver on. He's just not the kind to bait and switch, or cut and run.

Given his political savvy, I can't shake the feeling that this isn't some kind of clumsy, naked act of cowardice or animus. I think he's OK with the outrage from the gay community if a) it will mean the further apathy and inaction of the Right, and b) it will stimulate the gay community to continue to build unstoppable demand from the bottom up (excuse the pun) for this change to happen, which, as far as I can gather, is his preferred scenario for real change.

I have friends and family members who are gay. The implications of what Dan has been covering on Slog are horribly disheartening and outrageous IF, big IF, Obama simply is being a coward. And I just can't read it that way yet.

Six months in, he's in the middle of an incredibly delicate healthcare negotiation that could embed more progressive health policy in our culture for generations, as well as attempting to steer the enormous bureaucracy and Bush-soaked conservative culture that is the military through shutting down two wars I just think it's way too early to call it like "coward" and "h8ter".
69
Loveschild @ 56,

You might want to get out of your glass house. One can only recognize hypocrisy, because one realizes that they themselves are a hypocrite. And, before you climb up even higher on your high horse, and stare down your nose at the rest of us, remember it isn't I who calls you a hypocrite, it's Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit who said it in 1 John 1:1 8-10, Romans 2 and 3, Matthew 7: 1-5. Your hands are not clean, you are not pure, nor are you holy, you are but a lowly sinner with the rest of us. Your righteousness is not of your own doing, you received it by grace through salvation. Go and read the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18: 21-35), you who have received grace is commanded to give grace. Those who love much understand that they have been forgiven much. Blessed are the peacemakers, not those who come to stir up trouble.
70
Kevin,

The brief makes the arguments that states can refuse to recognize marriages that take place in other states that are contrary to the public policy of the home state. To support this argument, it then cites multiple instances of states refusing to recognize marriages between family members performed in other states (aside: if you want to marry your hot opposite sex cousin, New Mexico is where to go...). In short, that is indeed drawing a legal analogy between marriage between cousins and marriage between two women (or two men).

In general, LGBT folks do need to continue to hold the current administration's feet to the fire. We've gotten a whole lot of promises that amounted to a whole lot of nothing before (i.e., the Clinton administration). I strongly supported Obama (primaries and general), but the campaign is over and we do not need to be reflexively deferential to everything he does. Interests groups have to flex their muscle in order to get results.
71
@70 First, i totally agree about holding obama's feet to the fire. I think we can do that without all the "he lied/he's a secret homophobe/fuck this administration" rhetoric. Don't you?

And yes, as has been pointed out, the brief does "compare same-sex marriages" to the marriage of cousins, or of sixteen year olds, but only on the basis that some states approve those marriages and others do not and that difference from state to state is ok by the constitution. The DOJ doesn't make any argument about how same sex marriages are morally wrong like incestuous ones. I think Frank is right here; nothing to freak out about but it would have been nice if they'd presented that with a little more attention to underscoring the narrowness of that comparison.
72
I wonder if Will is the same way in real life as he is in his slog comments. Like, for example, maybe he'll occasionally wander into a shoe store and yell at them because they don't sell groceries. Groceries are every bit as important as shoes, after all.

And maybe he calls people every day just to let them know that he never thinks about them and couldn't care less what's going on in their lives.

It would sure explain his bewilderment at finding so many gay topics at a gay blog, as well as why he'd have so many posts, in so many different threads, about how little he cares about the topic at hand.
73
Geez, meanwhile John Aravosis has gone totally off the deep end because Barney Frank has dared to disagree with him.
74
"The DOJ doesn't make any argument about how same sex marriages are morally wrong like incestuous ones."

No, wrong.

If gay marriages are inherently okay, and vile and disgusting like incestuous ones, then the full faith and credit clause means that other states have to recognize them and DOMA is unconstitutional and illegal.

It's only if your position is that gay marriage IS vile and disgusting, aking to incest, that you can then say it's okay under the constitution for states to deny recognition thus it's okay for DOMA to tell states to deny recognition.

Let's stop pretending, okay? The notion that the federal government is just saying "well we're going to leave it up to the states on a state by state basis to decide that gay marriage is vile and disgusting we are agnostic on that so DOMA is okay" is the same, politically, as saying gay marriage is vile and disgusting.

And that's vile and disgusting no. 73.
75
Mark in Colorado and Kevin Erickson:

Brevity is the soul of wit. Please make a note.
76
Was no one interested in the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 bill that currently is up and shouldn't die? And why isn't McDerm a co-sponsor?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd… Take some energy and channel it here to make sure this bill keeps going -anybody actually ever written any of those folks that supposedly rep you back east?
77
@74

Sorry pal, Kevin's right and YOU'RE wrong. It's clear though that your words and your views result from a lifetime of being treated like a filthy, immoral animal so for that I'm truly sorry. But you have to do your best not to let these negative experiences cloud your view of the facts/reality because it's not helpful for advancing the cause.
78
We just have to keep making a nuisance of ourselves, and continue loudly demanding equality since Obama, and other democrats have proven that they not going to willingly be true to their words on this issue. They just keep stringing us along, making promises for some undermined future advances, asking us our money and votes. It's time to close our wallets to the DNC. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2475/3635…
80
We're all on the same side (OK almost all of us): granting full marriage rights to gays is a matter of fundamental justice. People may disagee on techniques to arrive at the end point - but we do want the same result. And we should keep pressuring for that result in whatever manner we think works best. Of course, it will help if most of the pressure is applied in the same direction. ASIDE: karma is created by each of us for ourselves. We each have control over our own mind .... why should we give anyone who hates us control over our thoughts by hating in return? They already have the power to distort our lives .... no, I'm not a Christian. I'm a Wiccan.... with Buddhist leanings.
81
@74: You're eating out of Aravosis' hand, it's cute.

It isn't that states believe that a 16 year old marrying someone older is vile and disgusting, it's the idea that there is a certain level of competence required to obtain such a contract. YOU might think a 16 year old getting married is disgusting, but that's largely how it happened up 'til the 70s. And those changes in laws are largely related to ensuring all girls get a full and proper chance at an education, so they limit their ability to get married so early. The comparison to "of age"/"underage" is merely in the realm of competence.

As to the comparison to marrying one's first cousin, again, that was a widely accepted norm. It was changed in light of a growing population. Governments both state and municipal felt it would do their population better to urge their residents to marry outside of their limited sphere. It was also rendered unnecessary, since choices were no longer limited to "comely first cousin, homely neighbor girl", so society felt it okay to say "no" outright in some places and cases.

DOMA is stupid. Stop being so DOMA.
82
Excellent point, Theo. I appreciate your comments a lot.
83
#9 - Congress is trying to pass the buck, as always. Anything but take responsibility for what they did. As if they need permission from Obama to take action on something they know is wrong. They are REALLY STARTING TO ANNOY ME WITH THIS SH_T. Every time we try to get some meaningful reform they start playing games. EVERY TIME!!!! Until we start making them do their jobs they will keep playing games and dead the changes we demanded when we flipped Congress to majority Dem and elected Obama.
84
What's with syvina @ 79 and @ 81 and all the ad links (at least that's what I think they are), they pop up all over slog?
85
rewind:

svinya @ 79 and @ 81.
86
Nice quote from People For the American Way. The guys who work there are cute btw.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.