Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Aravosis:Obama had a choice,And he chose to throw us under the bus, & then knife us for good measure

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:24 PM
Original message
Aravosis:Obama had a choice,And he chose to throw us under the bus, & then knife us for good measure
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:26 PM by Bluebear
John's a-fumin'!

======

Ben Smith at Politico just reported the following statement from the Department of Justice over their brief, filed last night, comparing gay marriage to incest:

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

Yeah, you see, that's an outright lie. Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

But it's worse than that. Let's just assume for a moment that the Justice spokesman didn't lie to Politico, even though they did. Let's just assume that Obama had no choice but to oppose the gay couple filing this DOMA lawsuit. Where in the law does it say that Obama was required to compare gay marriage to incest?

And putting that little bit of religious right messaging aside, even if they "had" to file the brief against us, why didn't they just file a brief that argued the technicalities about why the case should have been thrown out (e.g., the plaintiffs had no standing)? No, what Obama did was throw the legal kitchen sink at us in a brief that could have been written by Antonin Scalia. They argued that DOMA is constitutional. Worse yet, they argue that it was a reasonable, rational, good law that actually saves the government money. They argued that DOMA wasn't motivated by hate. That DOMA doesn't discriminate against gays one bit because, apparently, gays can get married if they want... well, if they want to marry straight people of the opposite gender. They invoked Loving v. VA, the miscegenation case, and argued how it doesn't apply to gay marriage, undercutting the entire basis of our civil rights movement - saying that our civil rights are not akin, are not as worth, not as real, as the civil rights of blacks and other minorities. They went out of their way to try to diminish the legal impact of our two big Supreme Court victories, Roemer and Lawrence - that will have implications on every future civil rights battle we fight.

No. The Obama administration didn't just lie to Politico, Obama lied to our community, or he lied to the court. But you don't publicly call yourself a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, and then compare married gays to incest. You don't make your first official legal statement on gay rights an outright attack on the underpinnings of our entire civil rights.

Our president had a choice. And he chose to throw us under the bus, and then knife us for good measure.

PS And here's another lie from the Justice spokesman:

The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits.

In fact, Obama argued last night that DOMA does not deny gays any rights or benefits:

Rights

In short, then, the failure in this manner to recognize a certain subset of marriages that are recognized by a certain subset of States cannot be taken as an infringement on plaintiffs' rights, even if same-sex marriage were accepted as a fundamental right under the Constitution.... DOMA, understood for what it actually does, infringes on no one's rights, and in all events it infringes on no right that has been constitutionally protected as fundamental, so as to invite heightened scrutiny.

Benefits

ay and lesbian individuals who unite in matrimony are denied no federal benefits to which they were entitled prior to their marriage; they remain eligible for every benefit they enjoyed beforehand...

DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits. To the contrary, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in federal employment and in a wide array of federal benefits programs by law, regulation, and Executive order.

You see, this is the problem with what Obama did to our community last night. He can talk all he wants about helping us get our civil rights (well, in fact, notice the Justice spokesman said nothing about Obama actually helping us get DOMA repealed), but the Obama administration's own word will now be used against us, and against him, if he ever deigns to actually fulfill even one promise to our community.

http://www.americablog.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. WOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well, they can't call Aravosis a PUMA. He was a solid Obama backer.
Through McClurkin and the inauguration, at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
130. He was truly 110% about it, too. One of the earliest and most vociferous pro-Obama bloggers.
He posted some truly hateful things about Clinton, and lost readers because of them.

At that time, of course, he was much loved on DU.

Now, of course, he's just some nut who is best ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. I want to see the document where Obama wrote all of this.
I want a video of Obama saying all of this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:27 PM
Original message
How does it feel to want? Try being gay in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
14. Geez, your the only person in America that has it tough!
Give me a fucking break.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Did I say I was the only person that has it tough? You give ME a "fucking break".
Einstein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
79. whatever 'tough' you might have, I doubt it includes being gay in
this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. posted wrong place :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #82
102. sorry, bluebear. these dropdown comments are tricky. :) I hope
you know it was for you know who. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. Of course. I know my roguevalley!
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
64. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
72. Enough of the scab mentality. You stand for what's right or you don't. Period.
I sit here and try to figure out how my trans partner is going to be able to survive with a goddamn driver's license and SSI# that doesn't match his gender for the rest of his life because of bigoted assholes like (well I'm sure you know a few...) and you're going to complain about how fucking tough YOU have it. You got it tough? WELL STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE REST OF US and stop being DIVISIVE and maybe we'll all get somewhere.

An injury to one is an injury to all. If you want to stand alone, then expect to keep having it tough. We'll keep organizing with our allies, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #72
81. I agree entirely, readmoreoften. hugs to your partner. This is a
terrible thing to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #81
90. We stand together or we die alone. And don't come complaining to us cuz you're dying alone.
I stand with all working people, all middle class people trying to make it, all poor people, of all racists, genders, within and without the US borders so long as they do the same. It's coming down to solidarity or common ruin. The divisions between us are laughable. One main division is dispelling the rest: the haves and the havenots. But that doesn't mean that all the haves will side with the haves and all the havenots will side with the havenots. Those born into the upper classes who have a conscious should be welcomed. Scabs should be dealt with in the usual fashion.

This ain't a joke. Thanks for the hugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #90
99. agreed. totally. completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
100. He's probably the only demo that doesn't have equal civil rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Look it up
The same briefing filed with the court also said that denying gay people their marriage rights will save tax dollars!

...and yes, it compared recognizing gay marriage in a state that doesn't have it to recognizing first cousin marriages 40-50 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Killer bass!
Do you play fretless as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
50. No sir, just four string fretted models.
Give me a 5 string or a fretless and I will just stare at it with my head cocked to the side like a curious dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. No "Portrait of Tracy" incoming, eh?
Seriously, awesome work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Did Obama write that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #17
53. No, his hand-picked attorney did
The one he appointed.

Besides....I (and Obama for that matter) believe the buck stops with the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #53
110. No. It was probably written by W. Scott Simpson, who's been handling such DOJ cases for years
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 03:50 PM by struggle4progress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. .
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:35 PM by glitch
edit to remove snark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Of course the Administration has nothing to do with the DOJ, it is actually run by
The Avon Lady.


:grr: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. You have the document?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
77. It is at the link
or were you too lazy to actually go there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:14 PM
Original message
here is your document
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
117. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Fuck!
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's unconscionable ........
I saw that brief, and I still don't believe it.

Yes, it could have been written by Scalia. I just don't understand how Obama can let this happen. It's contrary to everything he professed to stand for.

Change? What change?

To my friends who are affected by this proceeding, I offer you all my sympathy and sisterhood. This is, indeed, a sorry, sorry day for our country.........................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. i don't like the ruling, but does he even have the authority to tell the DOJ or courts how to rule?
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:32 PM by dionysus
i don't think he does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. The courts, not at all. The DOJ, limited authority.
The president can't legally interfere with the processes of the DOJ, meaning he can't tell them what to prosecute or not prosecute, what laws to observe, etcetera.

More specifically, he also can't (yet) throw out all the wingnut Bush appointees who were installed into "civil service" jobs there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
59. That's the bitch -
these people are insinuated into "career" positions, not "at pleasure" spots, so they have to be guided very gently away from anything of importance and given nonsense crap to do until they get fed up and resign. That's how it's always been handled, but it would appear that Holder's people have been a little slow on the uptake.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
126. But he can apparently tell Holder not to prosecute Bushco war criminals. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. DOJ doesn't 'rule'...courts do. This situation is about DOJ
they work for him - unless somebody has revamped the federal government since Tuesday and didn't bother to tell us.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. yes, but i am asking if he has the authority to dictate their decisions...
:eyes: indeed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
80. Maybe not, he's only the boss.
:eyes: :eyes: indeed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #80
109. there are limits to power you know. when bush had the attorneys fired it was highly illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #109
118. Which explains why he was prosecuted and now sits in jail.
Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #118
122. so you want him to abuse his power too...hookay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. The DOJ should reflect
the philosophy of the current administration, especially in an issue as big as this one

It's not a matter of "telling," but of having the right people write the brief and to be on the proper side on this one.

This just reeks of the Bush administration. I just don't understand................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. i bet you a million bucks a bush-era hack is responsible for this. that said,
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:46 PM by dionysus
obama hasn't had time to clear those guys out, also, he can't fire them arbitrarily can he? i think this is not a simple as we wish it was. i could be wrong, thats just how i see it. i'm no expert on DOJ minutea. remember we all got pissed when bush told the DOJ what to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. No, he can't,
and you can't stop them if they're career employees, but Holder's got to exercise some serious oversight over what's coming out of his Justice Department now. I assume they had a deadline to meet, so this had to go forth, but it sucks, it seriously, seriously sucks really bad.......................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. thank you for the explanation
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
86. actually, I think he can state good goals and have them pursued.
He can say this is wrong and pursue it through the courts. Since he is helping this shit pile go through, he can help the opposite position. He is not a man with hands tied. He is a man who is in the wrong here. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
10. Bullshit. A DOJ lawyer saying something is NOT the same as Obama saying it.
And it still pisses me off that DUers and the far left eat this shit up when we are supposed to be critical thinkers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. It's his DoJ and to deny that is ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. it's his DOJ, but legally, how much is he allowed to intervene? i don't see him as being personally
involded in these cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
36. Hopefully, his DoJ is aware of his policy positions
or else we have a leadership issue on our hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. i'm sure they're aware of his positions, but if a bush-era holdover is arguing a case,
is he legally obligated to follow administration policy? the issue would be more clear if we knew the answer to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #44
52. S/he's obligated to find a argument that suits the department.
Until Eric Holder goes on television and tells you his department is out of his control, that should be your assumption.

But, you do raise a good point. Why aren't we hearing more about these issues from Holder or from Obama's people? Why are we needing to fill in the blanks? That IS a lack of leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:37 PM
Original message
With something this indefensible, it's all they've got. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
29. i don't see anyone saying that it's a good ruling. its a crap ruling. but what i see a lot of
what i see a lot of is people acting like obama somehow did this personally.

the question would be, is he even involved in this case? I may be wrong, but i don't think he even has the authority to dictate to the DOJ what to do.

i can understand being angry at this ruling, but to instantly pin it on obama personally seems really knee-jerk to me.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. If you don't think the Attorney General reviews important bellweather DOJ cases with Obama
you aren't giving him much credit as Head of State. The Department of Justice is administered by the Executive Branch, not Judicial, not Legislative.

And it's not a ruling, it's a request for dismissal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
89. buck stops. honestly, I am surprised at this. This kind of vitriol
I didn't think he would stand for. He is now head of the entire government apparatus at his disposal. I don't see him not knowing. He's too smart and too wired in. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
33. There are going to be so many consequences here.
I don't even feel like ragging on Obama because this goes far beyond just him in every way. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
70. It's truly disgusting, no doubt the judge will not allow the dismissal based on those grounds.
But as other's have said, the pattern is not good. And if this is not Obama's policy he or his attorney general need to get a handle on THEIR department asap, before he squanders even more political capital.

If it is his policy then we're all in more trouble than we thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Has EVERYBODY forgotten so easily?
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:38 PM by TheWraith
The hundreds, possibly thousands of Bush political hires over the last 8 years, many if not most of whom were converted into "civil service" jobs so that they couldn't legally be fired by the next administration?

To say that Obama is singlehandedly responsible for everything that comes out of the DOJ is laughable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Obama is either the Executive or he's not. You pick.
Yes, DoJ, DoS and DoD are sewers full of Bush debris. That's true enough. It's still Obama's responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #23
78. So your argument is that the DOJ considers him a joke and he's too much of a coward to stand in
opposition? Pretty weak stuff ya got there.

I haven't heard any condemnation of the ruling so either he's a leader and responsible for this, or he's a follower and cowardly allowing the GOP to hijack his administration. Either position is unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
83. Apparently Harry S Truman took his little sign with him.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
95. Personally speaking, my memory is quite intact
I remember YOU and your vicious, unending attacks on the GLBT community here during the McClurkin debates. YOU are one of the reasons I had to take an extended hiatus from DU.

One thing I can count on -- if there's ever a thread regarding GLBT rights, you never miss an opportunity to insult the GLBT community here and tell them when and if they are permitted to be insulted, much less outraged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #95
139. +10
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. wait a minute... you seem to indicate that you detect some spin in the title!
get out of here! not on DU!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Well, I am clearly quoting another website, maybe "ignored" will take that into account
:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. You're right, that was true only when it was W's DOJ
this is different. Completely. Really. It is. Somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Bush had 8 years to pack the DOJ with his political cronies...
Along with every other department of the government. And then made sure they couldn't be fired by making their jobs civil service. Obama's had 5 very busy months to even start undoing that damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #28
69. Well, he's been very busy out buying hamburgers and can't seem to find 5 minutes
to utter a few words of encouragement or support. And now this. I guess you'd praise him if he poured gas on a kitten and lit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #69
106. that's fucked up. also, you seem to think obama has dictatorial powers over his administration. that
is naive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #106
120. Not dictatorial, managerial. Like how the BOSS determines how stuff is done.
If this crap was done without his knowledge (or even more frightening with his approval) it's different from the Bush WH...how, exactly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Look, don't bother with the truth, whining is so much more fun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Gay people = "whiners" now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Anyone can whine, gay straight you name it.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:41 PM by county worker
All cats meow,

All cats are animals,

All animals meow, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
85. Complaining about people criticizing an official when he does something wrong is whining.
And not only is it whining, it's cronyism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #85
111. Again, just what did Obama do? Let's see the document or hear the speach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #32
92. maybe, but straight people have RIGHTS that gay people only
dream of and I don't remember the last time I heard straight people being slandered as pedophiles, etc as a group the way gay people are everyday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. Saying Obama is doing this to you is whining!
Obama is not doing this to you. The DOJ is doing this to you. I believe you have a legitimate beef! I'm on your side but you sure don't make friends and influence people by constantly dragging Obama into everything!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. The DOJ is OBAMA'S department. Stop being so naive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. blue, i am sorry about this crappy ruling. but seriously, how much is obama legally allowed to
intervene? if he doesn't have the authority to have those guys do what he wants (and i'd bet money it was a bush-era holdover who did this), then isn't blaming obama kind of moot. i don't think that question has been answered on this thread. i understand you're anger, but it might be premature to pin this one directly to obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. McClurkin, Warren, DADT....
Patterns. Obama is likeable enough but it's increasingly clear that he wants gays and lesbians to shut up and go away. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. BB, is there some place, a site that has run down the cases
we can expect between now and the midterms?

I stopped reading some of the sites Andy and I used to read together and am sort of lost now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. That I haven't seen
It would be interesting to know!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Maybe John knows. I'm going to email him. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #65
76. Well, I did mail him. Maybe he'll get back to me.
If you think of anyone else, lemme know. It would be nice not to be ambushed like this for the next year and a half. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. All these briefs seem to be filed at midnight, too!
:>(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #84
91. I know. It wouldn't be surprising if Holder is sitting up to his eyeballs
in the mess BushCo left. But even so, the way this is unfolding is stupid and destructive. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
konnichi wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #38
73. Yeah, the DOJ works for Martha Stewart...not for the President.
Got ya.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #38
75. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #38
93. he is the ultimate authority. he is the one who will carry the mark of
good or ill for all his government does. If it was so with Bush, it is so with Obama. I just expected better than this from him on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. Can you imagine if McCain's DOJ had issued this?
THEN it would be horrid for our weak allies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #96
104. truly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #38
103. Well yes, he is -- and HIS brief is sickening
It compares marriage equality to incest. A position I'm sure you agree with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #103
114. Now I read that a MORMON was tasked with writing the brief. Any more salt for the wound?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #114
119. Oh Dear God
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
37. Do you need to attack the gay community a little more this morning?
Get it out of your system please and let us continue the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. I'm not attacking the gay community. I support the gay community.
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 02:47 PM by county worker
I'm trying to make a point that dragging Obama into this is not helping the cause any. I feel the same as you do about the case.

Obama is not doing anything to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. "Dragging Obama into this"
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. You know, not one person can show where Obama did anything here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. So, your argument is that Obama is not in control of his government?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. the question is if a bush era DOJ lawyer disagrees with admin policy, can the president dictate to
them how to proceed. if the president is not allowed to do that, how can he be blamed. I don't think the president can do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I've answered that question and so have other posters.
If you need to believe that Obama is somehow above all of this, you also have to believe he's not paying attention AND that he's showing no leadership. Not very good choices. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. other people onthis thread indicate he can't just tell them what to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. This is a government, not a game of Mother, May I.
It's his government. He is in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. he's not a dictator. i don't believe he has the authority to dictate to government lawyers.
when bush acted like a dictator and (probably illegally) meddled with the DOJ, it caused an uproar here. you seem to think he can personally tell any government employee what to do. i don't think he has the authority to do so, but you do seem hell bent on blaming him personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #68
71. Well, when Obama is back in charge of his own administration, please let me know. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #71
94. if what you want him to do is against the law, he can't do it. why are you unable to accept that?
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 03:24 PM by dionysus
if he can do so and he didn't, bad on him. if he doesn't have the authority to do so and couldn't, then blaming him is childish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #94
101. It's not childish to expect the Executive to behave as an executive.
Trying to turn the blame back on me with a chorus line of straw men doesn't really further the conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam kane Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #94
125. red herring.
Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for Justice, Joe and I are both lawyers. We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #61
98. Matt Miller, Obama appointee, DOJ spokesperson
He's the one who sent the email to Politico. Not only excusing this bullshit but lying about it, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #98
107. Tony West, Obama appointee
Assistant Atty. General and "author" of the DOJ document to deny equal rights to the GLBQT community.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. ok, that's bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #49
58. So his own Justice department is a rogue operation beyond his control?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #58
74. Either way it's NOT GOOD. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #58
131. Or completely under his control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. You are not supporting the gay community this morning, no.
And insulting people is not an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #42
97. god, dragging? Last time I looked he was pres and thereby responsible.
if it isn't him, which flunky under him without as much authority as him is it in charge? How odd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Would you please stop with the vicious anti-semitism?
It's beneath you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. Really?
That's what pisses you off? Having the candidate I backed to a 'T' allow his administration to compare marriage equality with incest really pisses me off. And I used to consider myself rather moderate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. the question is, is it legal or even possible for him to prevent a bush-era hack in the doj from
doing this? i'm not clear on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #35
112. When Nixon wanted to stop the DOJ he had to fire the AJ.
Obama did nothing here. This whole thread is about Obama and not about the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wind Dancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
47. Pisses you off?
I think your remark is incredibly naive! Claiming those who disagree with you must lack "critical thinking" and be "far left" is simply ridiculous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
88. the buck stops with him. period. when Truman integrated the
military, he did it because it was justice, it was American and he took the heat because he was the leader of the country and ALL of its people. That is what leaders do. Or they used to. God, I can't recognize this country anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #88
138. Point of information:Truman did not integrate the military.The Army said "no" to his executive order
There have been several threads about this, laying out the timeline. The Army basically said it wouldn't follow his executive order, which was much more vague than everyone here seems to think it was anyway.

It's more correct to say Truman tried to establish equal opportunity in the military and failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
115. This thread is more about Obama then it is about the case before the DOJ.
And the Obama attackers haven't posted one thing that shows Obama did anything here. If you try to point that out you get slammed. That shows that this is more to do about how the feel about Obama then how they feel about DOMA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. self delete
Edited on Fri Jun-12-09 04:00 PM by county worker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #115
121. Poor Obama.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
22. John is right. The Obama DoJ is piling up ammunition for the wrong side.
Putting off DADT and even DOMA until the mid-terms isn't just a matter of delaying. It's also a problem of what WILL be done between now and then, like this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
87. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sensible321 Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-12-09 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
113. One More Group Obama Has Betrayed
So amongst groups who supported Obama who have been utterly betrayed we have:

1. Anti-War
2. Anti-Warrentless-Wiretapping / Privacy-Restoration
3. Anti-'Extrodinary Rendition' / Justice for Those Tortured
4. Anti-Corporate-Welfare / Bankster-Fraud
5. and now. GLBT folks.

Is there an organization where we can all work together to apply pressure to change the course of this administration?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
123. Someone please clear this up for me
Who made the law in the first place?

The DOJ doesn't make law right? The DOJ enforces established laws.

So should we be placing our focus on the spineless House and Senate Dems to change the law?

Where should the focus really be?

Obama can give a great speech on equality but isn't it up to Congress to get rid of this fucked up law?

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #123
124. Well, Obama's DOJ chose to compare it to incest & marrying children...
and said that gay marriage would be too "expensive", so yes, the law is fucked up, Congress is fucked up on this, but Obama's DOJ is SURELY fucked up on the defense of this~!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #124
132. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cagesoulman Donating Member (648 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
127. Can I just say Rick Warren?
I knew as soon as Obama's people picked this piece of shit for the inauguration where they stood on the gays.

I'll be honest, two guys kissing ain't my favorite thing, but if they want to get married, that's no skin off my ass. I just don't get Obama here. When his Irish-American momma met his Kenyan daddy, there were US states where it was fucking illegal for them to get married, and some states where Obama Sr. could have been hung from a fucking tree in the breeze for making a young little white girl pregnant. Good people confronted cops in riot gear to change this crap.

Obama, I love you, man, but you need to seriously rethink this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doc Martin Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
128. Please disregard... I cannot find way to delete my message
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 12:41 PM by Doc Martin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #128
134. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
torbird Donating Member (513 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
129. So...
I am supposed to take the word of John Aravosis, whose legal reasoning (not to mention spelling) is often highly dubious, over the President, who is an acclaimed constitutional lawyer? No. Simple.

Also, Aravosis frequently acts as though gay marriage is the most important thing that ever came up in American history. I'm sympathetic, but I am also a lot more concerned with issues that directly impact the majority of citizens. This isn't one. What Aravosis is asking is, essentially, for the POTUS to give special attention (and, if you want to get all Jacksonian, special privilege) to the issue of gay marriage -- special attention that no other minority group gets, has gotten, or is likely to get.

I get that John is gay. I get that he lives in DC and that it's a small world and can lead to a warped perception of what's crucially important. I get that the statutes on gay marriage are not fair, or even constitutional.

But I also get that Obama is in the fire right now and likely will be for months, if not years. This tantrum, this childish fucking tantrum, by a guy who has trouble seeing beyond his own hurts, is not going to energize people like me, who have our own major problems right now and yet are waiting, patiently, for the administration's attention.

So yeah, let me know how I can help -- as long as guys like Aravosis are going to sack up when my white, straight, married, Christian ass need his help for our issues. Let's have a political movement, let's change the laws, let's apply some pressure where it counts. But stamping your foot and calling Obama a traitor and a liar isn't going to get us anywhere. And petulantly demanding that the POTUS abuse his office, contravene a century-and-a-half of presidential precedent; hell, demanding that he act like a fucking REPUBLICAN -- these are the words of a child. An asshole child. I'm out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #129
133. >my white, straight, married, Christian ass need his help for our issues< You poor thing.
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 03:32 PM by Bluebear
I can imagine how tough it must be for you.

PS, to all the things you claim to "get", you don't "get" shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #129
135. You know what?
>This tantrum, this childish fucking tantrum, by a guy who has trouble seeing beyond his own hurts, is not going to energize people like me, who have our own major problems right now and yet are waiting, patiently, for the administration's attention.<

"A guy who has trouble seeing beyond his own hurts", huh? This chaps my white, straight, married, fat, lapsed Catholic/born again Christian, seven-months-unemployed ass. What hurts anyone else hurts me, too.

I can't even imagine what it must be like on a daily basis for the millions of LGBT's who'd like to have their partner (and their families) legally recognized. They'd like to get through a day without dealing with the rampant discrimination about them in every area of their lives. They'd like to think the rest of us cared enough about them and their situation to get off our asses and give a little help. Those who are currently working for affordable health care for all, education, employment, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- they're willing to work on the things I care about. Why the hell should any of us think we're too busy to help them out as well?

Our issues aren't mutually exclusive. It seems to me there's 24 hours in each day. There's plenty of time to get the things done that need to be addressed, and one of them is the fact that those in the LGBT community are being oppressed. It's WRONG. It needs to end!

President Obama had no problem calling on LGBT's when it was time to vote, and time to write some checks. The least he can do is to make sure every consenting adult in our society has the ability to marry, and to have their family recognized as such. If he's just too busy, one must ask why. Filing this brief is nothing but a slap in the face. To ALL of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #135
140. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
137. The feds are always striking down state laws as discriminatory, esp voting laws.
Did someone really say that they have to defend a state law just because there was no federal law against it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC