The Atlantic: Obama's Gratuitous Insult To Gay Couples

[Bluebear]

John Aravosis gets ahold of the government's brief in a California DOMA case. He writes:

It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.

The full brief is below. Make your own mind up. David Link agrees with John:

(1) It is gratuitously insulting to lesbians and gay men, referring (unnecessarily) to same-sex marriage as a “form” of marriage, approving of congressional comparisons between same-sex marriages and loving relationships between siblings, or grandparents and grandchildren, and arguing (with a straight face, I can only assume) that discrimination against same-sex couples is rational because it saves the federal government money. There are some respectable arguments in this motion, and this kind of disrespect is offensive.

The DOJ explains:

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.

When you consider the Berry speech, it is clear that the Obama administration has a gay problem. It is currently an incoherent mess - sending signals on all sides, and doing nothing. Someone needs to be running interference on these matters - coordinating between DOJ and the White House so that this kind of offensive attack on gay equality, which goes beyond pro forma defense, is avoided.

But the best response to this latest disappointment is simply to ask when Obama intends to treat my civil marriage as equal to all the other civil marriages in Massachusetts, as he promised.

When, Mr President and Madam Speaker. When?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/obamas-dadt-betrayal.html

[TheWraith]

1. Did it occur to anyone that it probably WAS written by a Bush appointee?

Does anyone but me remember the fact that hundreds of Bush political hires were placed in civil service jobs to make sure they couldn't be fired when the next administration took over?

[struggle4progress]

9. Probably written by W. Scott Simpson, who has been handling such cases for years

[nichomachus]

14. Not only that, the guy is a huge Mormon

He even has a Web page bragging about his Mormonism and pushing all kinds of links to the LDS cult.

Next up: White supremacist to be lead counsel on affirmative action case.

[Ms. Toad]

15. The top name on the brief is Tony West

Handpicked by Obama.

Scott Simpson is only the signatory. No real way to determine who wrote it, but Obama's hand picked AAG concurred with filing it.

[Bluebear]

18. Absolutely

[Why Syzygy]

2. Can you explain where this brief was filed

and under what circumstances? Some of us are not current.

[Bluebear]

3. Aye...

A married gay couple in California filed the case saying other states that haven't yet legalized gay marriage should be required to recognize same-sex nuptials performed in states that have marriage equality...

The brief in the case, Smelt v. the United States of America, was filed at the federal district court level last year and the Justice Department argues that the claim should be thrown out because the plaintiffs have no legal basis for their case. The arguments do not address the right of same-sex couples to marry, but rather whether those marriages should be recognized by other states and, indeed, the federal government.

To read the brief as an LGBT person is to be disheartened. John Aravosis at Americablog has a nice point-by-point breakdown of the arguments. But chief among them are two that strike at the heart of the marriage dilemma at the federal level:

1) Federal benefits are not automatic or guaranteed and, since gays are not deemed a protected class of citizen, as such, they are undeserving of the same level of considerations that other minorities might get if they were similarly situated.

According to the brief: “...the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental -- in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.”

2) As it pertains to same-sex marriage, Justice argues that it's completely constitutional for Congress to take a go-slow approach to recognizing certain kinds of marriages, thereby excluding certain people from the federal rights that others enjoy.

The brief states: "...Congress has long extended certain federal benefits and protections on the basis of just one (type of relationship) -- that between a husband and wife (and their minor children). Congress is entitled under the Constitution to address issues of social reform on a piecemeal, or incremental, basis. It was therefore permitted to maintain the unique privileges it has afforded to this one relationship without immediately extending the same privileges, and scarce government resources, to new forms of marriage that States have only recently begun to recognize. Its cautious decision simply to maintain the federal status quo while preserving the ability of States to experiment with new definitions of marriage is entirely rational. Congress may subsequently decide to extend federal benefits to same-sex marriages, but its decision to reserve judgment on the question does not render any differences in the availability of federal benefits irrational or unconstitutional."

Overall, the brief takes a kitchen-sink approach to defending DOMA, presenting a vast number of reasons to deny the claim but no one coherent line of thinking.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid89851.asp

[gratuitous]

4. I had nothing to do with the brief!

Gotta protect my good name.

[Indydem]

5. That's lol funny.... you know, if you ignore the inequality part of all this... n/t

[gratuitous]

6. Well, I don't mean to make light of a bad situation

I have some questions, though, about the author of the brief, whether this was an Obama appointee or some troll left over from the Bush administration. It's hateful and hurtful to read about some of the justifications included in the brief for denying equal protection under the law to citizens. Justifications such as how it will cost the government money to grant legal marital status to same sex couples who may pay lower taxes. Or the hare-brained idea that just because heterosexuals are entitled to certain rights and privileges upon getting married that are denied to same-sex couples, it's really all right, because the rights that homosexual individuals have without getting married aren't infringed or damaged, and are pretty much the same as single heterosexual individuals.

The brief seems chock full of the most backward, regressive talking points that the Repressive Right can come up with. Which makes me wonder about the authorship, and whether it's an actual Obama appointee or a holdover.

I hope the court squashes the government arguments flat.

[Indydem]

7. I wasn't accusing you of making light... I just thought it was funny... conditionally.

[nichomachus]

13. Does that excuse it?

Would they let a white supremacist be in charge of an affirmative action case? Is Obama in charge of his own administration or not?

I have a sneaking feeling Rahm Emmanuel is the new Dick Cheney -- or at least Karl Rove.

[Ms. Toad]

17. The top name on the brief is Tony West

who was hand picked by Obama. It would not have been filed unless he agreed with it (or someone's gonna lose their job.)

Generally there is only one signature on briefs - regardless of how many authors there are and it may or may not have any relation to its primary author (to the extent there is one) - but it is unethical to file a brief with someone else's name on it without their consent.

[Bluebear]

19. indeed,

[Bluebear]

8. :)

:toast:

you're off the hook!

[TornadoTN]

10. But doesn't the buck stop on Obama's desk?

Did he not have to sign off on this, since it is, in fact, written on behalf of his Justice Department?

[Dragonfli]

12. I believe it does, he is the boss, he needs must embrace or withdraw what is done in the gov'ts name

[Dragonfli]

11. K&R - This needs to be looked into carefully and thoroughly n/t

[Mari333]

16. k and r