Comments
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.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
And yet hear you are reading and commenting on every single one!
http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/…
Yes, we need to hold his feet to the fire, but do it with facts.
I'm on edge from hearing "Dan! Dan! Dan!.." and it's not even my name. What an annoying little bitch.
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/06/americab…
He totally burned your ass on Clinton and it went right over your head.
In 1993 at this point you would have been cheering Clinton for moving on gay issues, early and hard. Six months later Clinton was in retreat and DADT was the result.
Obama is smart enough to wait for the right moment to actually accomplish something but you are too much of a terrible-twos-tantrum throwing whiny bitch to let the man do his work.
Tie the Knot on the Twentieth. Alliterative awesomeness with a top-of-mind twang.
In some places it would be revolutionary (think small town Texas) and in others it would just be a show of solidarity (SF, Seattle, etc.).
White versus Black. I believe that Dan still harbors latent animosity towards African/Non African Americans who passed Prop 8, as he wrote tirelessly about in November.
Now he can direct that misplaced rage at his black President
throw a black man in front of him and Dan starts Prop 8 flashback.
But on a serious note, can the next calm black man you turn into an angry activist be Obama? We could really use it, because this Presidency is turning into a turd faster than my lunch.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you get out of being an apologist for Preznit Farce Advocate?
Is it like Stockholm syndrome? Do you receive some kind of self-validation from denying reality and keeping us uppity faggots in our place?
I'm not being flippant here, I really wanna know for serious.
It is absurd that we have to argue this, but since we do have to argue this, we need to let our arguments be informed by facts.
I know that logic in the face of your hurt is threatening, but come ON.
And, I would like to say that it's not just going to be the coffers of the LGBT community that will be slammed shut, but the coffers of some straight supporters as well. I gave a large sum to Obama last election, and unless action has been taken on DOMA and DADT before the next election, I won't be doing so again. He may get my vote, but not my money. Yes, I know politicians break promises all the time, but this just seems so particularly blatant and egregious...
But, for what it's worth, 2 1/2 years is a long time, so I still have hope that action will be taken before the start of the next campaign. It may be later than we'd like, but I still think it will happen.
Let's get a commitment from people who are going to show up and ask for a license. We have to get groups from across the country to work together for this to happen, so we need to start writing them now to get support. We need to let the media know so there will be coverage.
It's a great idea, Baconcat, and I'll be there with my signs and friends to support it. Let's see who responds. Because I can tell you from yesterday to today, with so much support around the Civil Disobedience at the White House, only 3 people have come forward to actually work for it.
Dan- are you going to organize it? Because it seems like people only want to be involved if you're behind it.
protestforhumanrights.com
The DOMA brief seems quite clear in equating marriage equality to incestous marriages that states have a right to ignore, and it's now the government's official position that marriage equality is unspeakably nasty.
If you're gay, how can you respect yourself by apologizing for people who'd write such things about you and your loved ones?
Sounds like another Palin family name.
So, what is it? Is it clear or is it an allusion/illusion?
Dan himself wrote that the brief was written by a Bush holdover, so which is it?
"There needs to be people who are loud, angry, and obnoxious on these issues" to ruin his Presidency and any chance we have
Strange but true!
And Kevin? Everyone from ABC to the NYT to all the crazy-ass bloggers are talking about the incest dig. But, yeah, we're all just nuts. Me, the editorial board at the Times, John at Americablog, Andy at Towleroad, David Mixner, Stampp Corbin, HRC, NGLTF -- all nuts, all of us. It must be something in the semen we're all drinking.
I meet all the criteria for being a witness, so let's do it.
damn
that IS funny!
Hey!
I'm no racist!!
Uninformed and stupid, maybe...
But NO Racist!!!
The only way that turns into "equating marriage equality to incestuous marriage" or that "marriage equality is unspeakably nasty" is if you pipe the brief through Google Translate back and forth a few times before playing Telephone with a bunch of second-graders.
That's from the Stonewall Democrats—they just pulled out of the DNC's LGBT fundraiser.
Gee, Kev, maybe there's something wrong with the semen you're drinking.
In any case, if you're rich enough to be donating tons of money to the DNC and if your main political issue is gay rights, I'd suggest that donating to Lambda Legal or the NGLTF might be a better way to spend your funds. Both groups have accomplished more to advance LGBT rights than elected Democrats ever have (aside from 8 years of federal courts appointments by Clinton). Obviously it's important to elect Democrats to advance gay rights (since the R's actively hate us and all), but we also have to make ourselves heard by Democrats, which is what we're doing now.
It is incontrovertible fact that the brief simply cited existing precedent on recognizing out-of-state marriages when the forum state didn't want to. To say that it did anything more than that is to reveal one's tenuous grasp of either the English language or reality as a whole.
Change starts at home, yanno.
Talk about bitch-burger.
No wonder Dan is going batshit crazy.
Obama embarassed Dan's endorsement=credibility.
Dan, you were wrong about Obama. You are trying to make up for it by being a fierce advocate of fierceness, but still you were wrong. I hate to throw it in your face, but you were also wrong about the Iraq War.
What else are you wrong about? I suspect this is deeply troubling for you and the source of a lot of your feelings of betrayal.
You were wrong. *shrug*
I shit you not!
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/gay-d…
I shit you not!
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/gay-d…
Are you talking to anyone about organizing the Civil Disobedience? It would be nice to know if you're behind the effort you put out there.
Jared Polis boyctted the signing ceremony at the White House yesterday.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/cong-…
"Does it show our strategic brilliance when the last straw is the fact that the DOJ responded to a lawsuit our activist community didn't like anyway? Does it show our commitment to liberal/progressive/leftist politics when the only issues we care about are those that specifically mention LGBT people? Does it demonstrate an ability to unite people outside of our 5% of the population for our cause when we'll eat anyone alive, even other establishment queers, for not following lockstep in our anger and beliefs? Does trumping up charges and flinging insults demonstrate the maturity, emotional or political, to sustain a social justice movement?"
@43 The meme came from Aravosis and got picked up by everyone else, uncritically. Like Frank says there's room for criticism, and like him i wish DOJ had anticipated the possibility of misinterpretation. HRC seems be acting somewhat opportunistically, as they try to repair their standing with the blogosphere, raise $, and also leverage the flurry of attention into more pressure and more action (which is just fine).
The silver lining, regardless of your anger or my anger or anyone else's anger, is that finally we're doing something as a group. I'm annoyed that it has taken so long to get big cogs like Dan turning, but they're turning and we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face.
Save your ammo for the more fair-weather activists, because even though I think Dan has been a bit tepid in terms of outright advocacy in some regards (x20), he hasn't had the strange and completely self-serving "Amazing Grace" moment that Aravosis has had. He's been more or less consistent.
Then HRC blew it by being at the White House yesterday.
Instead, people are going completely off the rails and attacking people for daring to disagree with one flame-throwing blogger (Aravosis, incidentally, not Dan) whose legal reasoning skills are roughly equivalent to what you'd see on Judge Judy.
Filling in for Loveychild are we? Get over the victimology crap.
Lambda Legal, NGLTF and to a moderate extent GLAAD have done far better than HRC.
Aravosis has always been keen on trolling the media, and this is no exception. He is, in short, a huckster. But whatever, the GLBT community will eventually leave him behind as priorities are better focused-on and we get a clearer sense of where we need to be headed.
It didn't really cite examples of underage and incestuous marriages? Wow. Well pardon me...
Now, just because there's one idea out there doesn't mean each and every person is not empowered to come up with creative active methods to make sure change happens - maybe they're vets who were forced out, who publicly file forms at a specific VA Hospital every day - or maybe they're some roommates at college who actually aren't gay but file for gay marriage anyway at a specified courthouse to force the issue.
Once you make it obvious you aren't going away - in public - and will insist on your rights, politely but firmly - things happen.
This is what scares the anti-American right.
Because, like, Nobody else has actually read the brief for themselves and come to the same fucking conclusion after all...
Hey, douchebag Obama/Democratic apologists: LISTEN TO WHAT WE ARE SAYING!
We are mad because the President/Congress we helped elect with out time, money and votes is doing very little to fulfill ANY of the promises they made to the queer community. The repeal of DADT overwhelmingly has the public's support, yet nothing is apparently being done by the Administration or the Congress to end it. We elected these people because they said they supported our struggle for civil rights. We intend to hold them to those promises. If they don't, they're no longer going to get our time, money and votes...it's that simple.
But, the brief does compare gay married to incest (of the uncle/niece variety, anyways). It says that current law says that a state does not have to recognize "certain marriages performed elsewhere." And it gives examples of "certain marriages", including incest (uncle/niece), thus putting gay marriage in the same category ("certain marriages") as incestuous marriages.
In my mind, that's like saying, because states can refuse to recognize uncle/niece marriages or first cousin marriages, they can also refuse to recognize inter-racial marriage. The right to refuse to recognize certain unions does not mean that states should be allowed to refuse to recognize any category of union that they choose (e.g., we don't allow states to not recognize inter-racial marriage).
In Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, *two sixteen year-olds got married*, which is legitimate in New Jersey if they have parental consent. After the husband got sent to a Reformatory (juvenile detention), the wife sought an annulment of the marriage. Had then been married in New Jersey, the annulment would have been granted since the wife had not affirmed the marriage after reaching the age of 18. The court granted the annulment, noting that since New Jersey's public policy allowed for such annulments where the marriage was celebrated within the state, public policy allowed them to be granted for marriages celebrated outside the state, even if the annulment wouldn't be granted under the foreign state's law.
In short, the case stands for the proposition that states do not have to recognize out-of-state marriages, where the marriage would be voidable within the state. How, exactly, is bringing up this case as precedent that states don't have to recognize foreign marriages comparing marriage equality to "child rape" or "pedophilia?"
PS
Dan ignore the trolls, they want to make you rage like my drunk Uncles. They are the same that troll Towleroad.
xoPatrickNYC
@77: If all the anger isn't about the brief, but is about the larger issue of Obama not doing much of anything on LGBT issues, why are so many angry posts specifically about the motion?
@78: The difference is that no state can have a public policy against interracial marriage, thanks to Loving v. Virginia. While it's my personal position that the Equal Protection Clause requires marriage equality (bans on same-sex marriage are discrimination on the basis of sex that can't possibly survive intermediate scrutiny, thanks to the complete lack of anything approaching a compelling governmental interest in maintaining the bans), it nonetheless remains within state power at this point in time to have public policy against marriage equality.
The cases cited in the brief were not cited in order to create a category of "marriages that don't have to be recognized." That category already exists - marriages which are void under state policy do not have to be recognized when they are celebrated out of state. Since same-sex marriages are void under many states' policies, that places them in the category of marriages which may not be recognized without offending the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
I think we can make that argument and hold them to the fire without misrepresenting their opinions, and without attacking people who have different ideas about tactics and strategies, right?
However, I am confused by the people who are arguing that Obama himself must feel that gay marriage is akin to incest because of that legal brief. I read the brief and actually found it fascinating. It argues that DOMA is legal (and that there is legal precedent for federal law not honoring every state marriage law), not that it is right.
For instance, I can argue--and do believe--the death penalty is wrong. However, I don't think it is unconstitutional.
So I think Dan's question as to WHY Obama continues to kick the can down the road, while harsh, is unavoidable. Is Obama merely afraid (of nothing)? Or were Obama's campaign promises simply an updated version of those "I'm-really-tolerant" self-proclamations that I've had to put up with from conservatives over the past umpteen years?
I don't know the answer (yet), but in any event, as far as my wallet is concerned, Obama and the current DNC can look elsewhere for cash. Since 1978, I have voted exclusively for, and contributed to, Democrats. My feeling was that, all things being equal, the Democratic label should win out--because at least the Democratic Party SAID it supported my rights. That won't cut anymore. Now, so long as the Republican candidate supports my rights (not unheard of in my state), I will vote GOP. Time for a little payback.
But that's probably a reasonably justified reaction.
That said, I am not troubled in the least by the misreading of that portion of the brief. "He's comparing us to incest and pedophilia!" is a good rhetorical tool, which is only understood to be incorrect by a few. I'm reminded of the first lesson a professor of mine taught in Political Communication 101: "it's not the truth; it's what's perceived to be true." The brief was hurtful, but the perception that it's worse than it actually is has been galvanizing.
So I say let's stop talking about the legal finepoints now.
Seriously...the only moron you're fooling in here is yourself.
This particular case does not involve marriage to a minor then does it? I take it you're unfamiliar with how bigots keep insisting that gays just want to have sex with minors. I take it you're unfamiliar with how they keep insisting that homosexuality is caused by child abuse. Of course we have to keep DOMA in place...otherwise the gays will be marrying your children...
His, "We're not talking about DOMA" was pathetic and desperate and SELL OUT.
That depresses the hell out of me though.
Speaking of which:
@95-6: Yes, the case references minors, in the context of a marriage between two sixteen-year-olds. There is simply no honest and knowledgeable reading of the text of the motion that can result in the belief that it drew any sort of substantive equivalence between marriage equality and incest, underage marriage, pedophilia, or child rape.
The case is cited under the heading, "Section 2 is Consistent With Common Law Conflict[ of Laws] Principles." It follows a number of Supreme Court decisions establishing the scope of the Full Faith and Credit Clause on conflicts principles, noting "[u]nder this long-standing public policy doctrine, out-of-state statutes or acts that are contrary to the forum State's policy need not be followed under the Full Faith and Credit Clause."
Immediately before the block of citations that has caused such an uproar, the motion states, "The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy." The motion then notes a number of state supreme court cases that have refused to give effect to marriages they didn't like, *as support for the prior statement*. That's the way legal writing works - you state a proposition, and then cite precedent to support your position. Here, the position was "States don't have to recognize marriages they really don't like." The citations to cases that follow are in the brief solely to back up that point.
My post @82 was simply pointing out that, even if you were to *wrongfully* believe that somehow this citation was drawing an equivalence between marriage equality and the facts of the cited cases, you would nonetheless be incorrect to say that there was a comparison to "child rape" or "pedophilia," because the facts of that case were two minors who had married each other.
I'm sorry, the use of lie or a misinterpretation to futher a cause saddens me as well. I wasn't sure how to intepret the brief, but I understood how it was being interpreted was viewed as incredibly hurtful. I hope that it is the hurt that is driving this, not a lie that is knowingly being perpetuated. It isn't honorable, but it seems a sad human trait that both sides are willing to use.
p.s. I love my Drunk Irish Catholic (and Welsh, Scotch, German, Italian) Uncles and all their belligerence and outspoken-ness.