Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  excommunicated

Obama’s Civil Rights Czar Promised to Protect Gays. By Deporting Them?!

whitehouse

When we hear this tried crap about Obama being too busy for gay rights, and how he’s got bigger things to deal with, it helps, but remains unfortunate, that we have stories like Genesio “Junior” Oliveira and Joe Smith (a fake name) — two men forced to leave the United States because this nation endorses discrimination.

Wasn’t assistant attorney general Tom Perez — Obama’s “civil rights czar” — just saying how he was going to stick up for queers? Yes, he was: “We must fight for fairness and basic equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters who so frequently are being left in the shadows [and to] ensure that there’s a level playing field in which our LGBT brothers and sisters are judged by the content of their character.”

Gay Marriage Asylum

So how come it’s Perez’s own Justice Department that just let expire an asylum claim from Oliveira, who was raped in his native Brazil and fled to the U.S. seeking safety from homophobic attacks. The application was denied, but before being forced to return to Brazil in 2007, he and partner Tim Coco legally married in Massachusetts in 2005.

Except, guess what, the Defense of Marriage Act means the federal government doesn’t recognize that marriage — so without an asylum claim, Oliveira has no legal standing to remain in the U.S. (The AP notes “Oliveira was denied a visa to return to Massachusetts last year for the funeral of Coco’s mother.” The pair haven’t seen each other since January, though they web chat every night.) Even with Massachusetts’ U.S. Sen. John Kerry lobbying Attorney General Eric Holder on his behalf, Oliveira is out of options. And $250,000 in legal fees.

Oh, there is this option: Suing the government in federal court, claiming DOMA is unconstitutional. Even Obama agrees it is! And yet, he refuses to instruct his underlings to see the law’s faults and reconcile how keeping Oliveira in the U.S. would be a human rights WIN.

And then there’s the case of D.C.’s Steve Orner and his foreign partner, identified only as “Joe Smith,” who testified before Congress on Friday about binational gay couples, two days after he said goodbye to Smith, who was forced to return to his native Indonesia. Smith, who holds a PhD from an American school, had been approved for a green card, but lost his job before his visa came through. But there’s no such thing as the Uniting American Families Act yet, which means Smith returns to his closeted life in Indonesia, where being gay can get you arrested.

gen2-250x250

But hey, what else can you expect from AG Holder? While he was busy reciting Obama’s gay talking points on Friday at a University of Maine lecture — DOMA bad! DADT bad! — he reminded everyone that he must still uphold those laws on the books. And as for his prescient arrival in a state whose same-sex marriage fate is about to be decided? “[The president and I] are of the view it is for states to make these decisions. That federal law [DOMA] is not necessarily a good piece of legislation, and we are going to work to repeal it.”

You know, whenever.

By:           editor editor
On:           Oct 27, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 59 Comments
    • Keith Kimmel
      Keith Kimmel

      Oh come on! Most of the stuff written here is spot on, but this misses the mark. Fact of the matter is, gay marriage is not – yet – recognized federally here.

      I am 210% in support of getting rid of ALL the illegal immigrants without delay (yes, even the gay ones too – whats good for the goose is good for the gander) and this practice of dashing across the border and getting married to become US Citizens is no more legitimate when gay people do it than when straight people do it. Writing about cases like this as though there has been wrong doing on the part of officals when there hasnt costs us support and credibility. They followed the law as its on the books. The problem is the law and the people making or not making the law, not the people enforcing it.

      Is it sad that these people have been forced to return to places where they may be in danger? Yes. But as much as I dislike Obama and the whole state of affairs this country finds itself in, its unfair to bash immigration and justice officals for following the law as its on the books today. Shots at Obama for the traitor to gay rights that he is are always fair game. If you dont like the law, then change the law. But you cant fault low-level officals who follow it.

      In this case, the problem is still the damned Defense of Marriage Act et al.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 11:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete
      Pete

      I think that Obama needs to appoint a Gay Czar.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 11:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Orpheus_lost
      Orpheus_lost

      Let me see if I have this “straight”…

      Obama can’t tell the DOJ to ignore DOMA because the Whitehouse can’t interfere with the Justice Dept, however, he can tell them to ignore federal drug laws with regards to medical marijuana…

      At the same time, Holder MUST uphold DOMA and argue for it in court because it is a federal law passed by congress, but can selectively refuse to enforce federal drug laws enacted by congress…

      Anyone else see a double standard here?

      Oct 27, 2009 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      Yeah, the Obama administration is moving painfully slow on gay issues. We are living our lives now. As a former international couple, this bullshit from the guy that said you gotta be able to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time really pisses me off.

      A while ago you guys ran an article saying that marriage was only wanted by white privileged males. Please remember that marriage inequality has life-and-death consequences to thousands of undocumented LGBT immigrants and their partners.

      Also, why not a call to action on the Uniting American Families Act?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_American_Families_Act

      Oct 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DelphKC
      DelphKC

      It doesn’t matter, the bottom line is, you can’t let anyone into your country just because they are gay. In Brazil, like in most of the rest of Latin America, most gay people are left alone, and the government certainly doesn’t come after you.

      Now your neighbors are another matter, but it’s not like gay people in Brazil are being rounded up by the government and hanged as they do in the Middle East, which would be another story entirely. If he is being persecuted just by his fellow civilians, even if he has been raped, those are not grounds for political asylum.

      And like someone implied earlier, if this man is really married to an American via Massachusetts, he is just going to have to wait it out like everyone else until gay marriage is federally recognized in this country, which will probably not be until Obama’s second term when re-elections are no longer a concern.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 12:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 1 · Keith Kimmel said…
      Oh come on! Most of the stuff written here is spot on, but this misses the mark. Fact of the matter is, gay marriage is not – yet – recognized federally here.
      ____________________________-

      It isn’t that they aren’t recognized federally, it is that they are specifically NOT recognized federally. Obama campaigned against that, and has time to take trips overseas to try to get Chicago the Olympics but no time to worry about his campaign promises.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 12:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Orpheus_lost
      Orpheus_lost

      @DelphKC

      Thanks for putting this into perspective. I had no idea that once Obama won re-election that all other elections would cease forever. Here I was, thinking that there would be another presidential race in 2016 as well as congressional races in 2014 and 2016, but you’ve set me right there. Once Obama wins again, he will become the supreme dictator of America and ban all future elections. THEN he can finally get things going on our human rights.

      That is what you were saying, wasn’t it? If not, your comments are really stupid since there will always be elections and there will always be cynical politicians who use the threat/hope of future elections as a way to mollify less astute voters. Of course, if you WERE saying that, then either you’re twice as stupid or you think the rest of us must be in order to swallow your bullshit.

      We’ve seen GLBT equality pushed back until “the next election” for far too long to believe anyone who makes such vague promises, now. There will always be another election, there will always be excuses falling from the lips of weak politicians, and there will always be star-struck morons who want to believe them despite all proof to the contrary.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James P. P.
      James P. P.

      This is ONE example of a SPECIFIC case where there is a PARTICULAR exploit of how the Federal Government has failed the gay gay community. This is a general governmental problems not an Obama-sepecific issue and frankly, and the article above is… well it just IS.

      We just can’t have presidential decrees thrown out… that’s how we got DADT and DOA in the first place. Also, anything gay-oriented cannot be solved with the simple Obama-waving-a-magic-wand technique since whoever the next president is can revoke it all with a strike of a pen. We want permanent change… not something that will be debated in 10 years.

      in this case (and everyone is going to gripe at me for saying this) the guy is just shit out of luck. If he wanted “gay asylum” then he needed to head to The Netherlands… NOT America. This is NOT the place to come for gay protection. And anyone knows that gay marriage is only on a state level… it is not protected FEDERALLY – and that will not prevent you from being deported, or from paying the IRS taxes when your lover dies (ask Annie Leibovitz), and it will not help you out with your federal taxes.

      This is not new information, people. This is how the law currently is, and you can’t expect the president to side-step the law for one current circumstance… that’s what Bush did, and look where it got us.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rudy
      rudy

      While I sympathize with guys, it’s hard to make a political refugee case when Brazil recognizes same-sex unions.
      But again, Holder interprets his job incorrectly. He has to defend the laws, but his argument should be limited by ethics and honesty.
      The Constitution does not expect him to use bigotry and distortions like some Mafia lawyer trying anything to beat a rap.
      That DOMA defense was a disgrace.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James P. P.
      James P. P.

      BTW DOA=DOMA

      LOL.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Morons write queerty posts
      Morons write queerty posts

      The chief of the civil rights division has no role in immigration decisions. Its not a “czar” position, but the person in charge of a section of the department of justice.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 2:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul
      Paul

      Two comments.
      First, Brazil has one of the highest recorded per capita rate of anti-gay killings anywhere in the world. It may not be Saudi Arabia but it’s not Amsterdam either. This year, a bomb was detonated at the Sao Paolo pride parade, and several people were beaten up, mostly by gangs of neo-Nazi skinheads neo-Nazi. Eligibility for asylum doesn’t depend on one issue such as whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed. The issue is whether or not the government is willing and able to protect people from homophobic violence. The Brazilian government may be willing but it clearly isn’t able. Many African countries have outlawed female genital mutilation, but that doesn’t mean that it ceases to be a problem.
      Second, the issue in this case is that if the couple’s marriage were legally recognized for immigration purposes, like a straight person’s marriage is, then the foreign-born partner wouldn’t be facing deportation – and wouldn’t have had to assert an asylum claim in order to live with his husband in the US. While some commenters here seem to think that all foreigners should be banished from the US, the issue is not really immigration, the issue is one of homophobia. If you want to live in a country that forbids non-citizens to enter, try moving to the very enlightened North Korea.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 2:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      This is why we need to repeal DOMA and include the Uniting American Families Act into any type of Comprehensive Immigration
      Reform.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Orpheus_lost wrote, “Let me see if I have this “straight”…
      Obama can’t tell the DOJ to ignore DOMA because the Whitehouse can’t interfere with the Justice Dept, however, he can tell them to ignore federal drug laws with regards to medical marijuana…”

      http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/19/local/me-medpot19 has the details. Eric Holder (U.S. Attorney General) made the statement, and since he is in the Obama administration, the newspapers put “Obama Administration” in some headlines, and some shortened that to Obama. And what Holder said was that they were not going to devote resources to cases involving medical uses of marijuana in accordance with state law, but would go after drug dealers masquerading as medical marijuana dispensers. It’s simply resource allocation. The “zero tolerance” “war on drugs” is an obvious failure, so I guess someone decided to use a bit of common sense and see if we could do better by using limited resources more effectively.

      If you have some articles from credible sources showing that Obama micromanaged the medical marijuana policy, please provide some URLs, and a credible source is not a rant by Rush L. or Bill O’Reilly.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      No. 9 • rudy “it’s hard to make a political refugee case when Brazil recognizes same-sex unions”.

      The central reason for the appeal is not SSM but “an asylum claim from Oliveira, who was raped in his native Brazil and fled to the U.S. seeking safety from homophobic attacks.

      “In that light the Obama administrations denial of asylum is inhumane and typically bigoted. The judge who denied asylum, Francis Cramer, was a political appointment who had minimal experience with immigration law and was so blatantly unqualified that government watchdog groups were astonished at his selection. It was later discovered that federal judicial candidates had been screened for their views on gay marriage before they were appointed.”

      http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/

      Cramer, a Republican and bigot was illegally given a lifetime appointment by the Bush Administration, which like the Obama Administration has a disgusting racist attitude towards immigrant and imported workers.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      No. 1 • Keith Kimmel ”I am 210% in support of getting rid of ALL the illegal immigrants without delay (yes, even the gay ones too…”

      No. 5 • DelphKC It doesn’t matter, the bottom line is, you can’t let anyone into your country just because they are gay. In Brazil, like in most of the rest of Latin America, most gay people are left alone…”

      What mindless, racist bullshit.

      “In 2008, an LGBT person was murdered every two days because of their sexual orientation. The Brazilian group Grupo Gay da Bahia even went so far as to call the anti-LGBT violence phenomenon in Brazil a “homocaust,” noting that since 1980, nearly 3,000 people in Brazil have been killed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

      http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/with_2016_olympics_maybe_now_brazil_can_improve_lgbt_rights_record

      We should demand that US embassies and consulates around the world be opened to LGBT folks in danger of being murdered, beaten, tortured and jailed and that the USAF and chartered civilian aircraft be used to ferry them to the US and that asylum, social services, medical care be provided as long as needed.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      B sounds very much like a paid shill for Obama. Tell us B, are you in the East Wing or the West Wing?.

      More likely they keep him in a subcellar over at the DNC and let him out from time to time to be petted, or slapped around, depending on their mood.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Republican
      Republican

      B,

      As I said in the other thread, a decision like the medical marijuana one would not have been made without Obama’s approval. To look at it as just a shift in resources is to be blind to DC reality. Major decisions are not just those that involve a major change in policy, but are also those that are smaller that receive significant media attention. (In fact, it’s the headline-receiving decisions that a President is often most worried about.)

      Bill,

      I agree. I’d be much more impressed if B would criticize Obama at least once every now and then. Hell, say he wore the wrong tie, I don’t care, but the fact that he seems to find nothing wrong with the man is quite disturbing.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 5:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Orpheus_lost
      Orpheus_lost

      @B

      You are claiming one of two things here.

      1). The Obama administration believes that defending DOMA is a good use of tax dollars and government resources, or;

      2). The Obama administration is willing to play politics with the legal system by favoring some laws over others. Which is it?

      As for your asinine statement that the president doesn’t tell the DOJ what to do, I can only say that your belief has been proved wrong repeatedly through the years. Its no different than believing that sexual orientation is a choice, which you probably do.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      Obamabots only require that Obama put gays last on his to do list, then come up with procedural excuses for why civil rights are not on the very top of the list.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 6:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      To those of you who think ALL bi-national couples sneak across the boarder to find a boyfriend and be illegal???

      My partner lived in Los Angels for 15 years as an entertainment journalist and was sponsored for his visa by his employer. Four years ago his employer decided to close so there was no way to renew his work visa. We had no choice but to move to France. The cost of me (American) to immigrate to France with legal fees, travel and so on was about $40,000.00. These discriminatory laws have destroyed the life we built in LA as well as my career and separated us from our friends and family. We just hope the laws change so we can move back home. Our life remains on hold permanently, waiting.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 7:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      The bottom line, is that when the democrats want to take action, action happens. And not on simple procedural repeals like DADT and DOMA — they are able to get complex NEW AND COMPLEX AND COSTLY legislation through. But Obama has his Cinderella army to always clean up after his negligence and delay. His Bartleby bitches keeps any late night hour so that his step-sisters can go to the ball.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 7:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Bill Perdue, trying to shoot the messenger, wrote, “B sounds very much like a paid shill for Obama.” Look guys, it is not my fault that, when I check the claims you guys make, I invariably find that you value the truth so highly that you use it sparingly.

      It is quite frankly childish to expect President Obama to fix all of our problems instantaneously, and he’s only been in office 9 months. We have the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, health care, all the damage the Bush administration did to our international relations, and that is just for starters. The insurance/health-care industry is spending at a rate of over 500,000,000 dollars per year to kill any chance of reform. The Republicans are looking for any opportunity to sabotage whatever the Democrats would like to do. And you guys complain that he is not doing everything instantly? Get a grip. There are only 24 hours in a day.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 9:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Orpheus_lost dishonestly said, “@B You are claiming one of two things here.”

      (Which is a lie as I was claiming neither of those two things).

      “1). The Obama administration believes that defending DOMA is a good use of tax dollars and government resources, or;

      2). The Obama administration is willing to play politics with the legal system by favoring some laws over others. Which is it?”

      And the answer is none of the above and that playing rhetorical games like you are is intellectually dishonest.

      The Department of Justice is defending DOMA in court because someone filed a lawsuit and representing the government in such cases is the Department of Justice’s responsibility.

      The Obama administration is not playing politics with any law. All they indicated is where enforcement efforts would be directed. They are going to go after real drug dealers, not 85 year old cancer patients using marijuana to alleviate some of the side effects of chemotherapy in states that have passed medical marijuana laws. When you have a finite budget, you have to set priorities. Would you rather have them go after people who commit hate crimes against gays that a homophobic police department is ignoring or would you rather have them staking out geriatric cancer patients? Or reduce other programs (e.g., financial support for impoverished AIDS victims) to pay for staking out those cancer patients? If you want them to go after those cancer patients, tell me what they should cut to pay for it. Or to you want to just push the deficit up even higher?

      Oct 27, 2009 at 9:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Republican, wrote “B, As I said in the other thread, a decision like the medical marijuana one would not have been made without Obama’s approval.” Only a Republican would be that stupid. In fact, Obama stated his doubts about going after medical marijuana users when he was a senator. Why would the Attorney General bother to ask Obama to approve a minor change in resource allocation when Obama’s previous statements, before taking office, indicated that he would not object?

      Then this “Republican” says, “I agree. I’d be much more impressed if B would criticize Obama at least once every now and then. Hell, say he wore the wrong tie”. Sorry, but I don’t give a damn how the president dresses. What I care about is job performance, and 9 months, barring a completely disaster, is too short a time frame for a meaningful evaluation.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 9:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      Obama is working, it is just that he has is dumping gay vets on his watch. You may think that is acceptable. I don’t. He can say “I just sign the bills, I don’t write them,” but that is not acceptable leadership on a civil rights issue. It is not time consuming to make sure that the repeals have sponsors and hearings. He is just not doing that — he is busy on things he thinks are more important that our oppression. That’s fine for you. It is not fine for me. Democrats control the entire legislative process and there is just no movement on the repeals. That is because it is a low priority. TWO SIMPLE BILLS TO TAKE TWO OLD LAWS OFF THE BOOKS. He can sign bills for billion dollar bailouts, and reorganization of the medical services sector, but he can’t get two laws repealed. WHY?

      Oct 27, 2009 at 9:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      It has become very clear that Obama is “slow walking” gay issues. Each time the gay lobby turns up the heat, he consults with his political advisers about what is the smallest step he can take, and he takes that smallest step. Then, of course, he stops, and takes a step backward if he feels like he can get away with it.

      It is clear to me that we won’t get anything from this administration. If we can get something through Congress, he might sign it. But we won’t get any executive orders, or any leadership, until and unless it is politically impossible for him to avoid. So, we need to make it impossible to avoid.

      The thing to do is to continue the “full court press”. Continue the lobbying, the letters, the demonstrations, the state-level political. A little civil disobedience might help.

      Most importantly, we should support “Progressive” candidates. The Democrats know that if they lose the “left”, they cannot win elections. They NEED the “left”. But, the only way they will do anything for us is if we might support and vote for someone else. So, lets make it clear that we WILL support and vote for someone else, unless they do.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 10:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Orpheus_lost
      Orpheus_lost

      @B

      I set out your position exactly as you presented it, twice now. You say the Obama administration (you interchange this with DOJ rather randomly showing that even you don’t believe there is a real separation) is using the resources of its finite budget to defend DOMA, a federal law, but not to prosecute those who take drugs, also a federal law. It is doing this because they “have to set priorities” – your words, not mine. You then throw in a bunch of idiotic arguments that try to play to heartstrings and guilt.

      Personally, I don’t want the Obama administration to prioritize the enforcement of EITHER medical marijuana users OR DOMA. You are trying to suggest that it has to be one or the other, which is of course a lie. There is no reason whatsoever for Obama’s DOJ to enforce either law since it believes them both unconstitutional.

      So why don’t you drop the false equivalencies and the strawman arguments about choosing between non-choices? Let’s debate this truthfully, something you seem to have a problem with. I believe the DOJ should stop the enforcement of both DOMA and laws against medical marijuana. You believe the Obama administration should enforce DOMA (this is according to your own slimy words so don’t try to deny it). Explain to everyone here why you feel our human rights should be shoved aside.

      Oct 27, 2009 at 10:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Orpheus_lost (really lost) wrote, “@B I set out your position exactly as you presented it, twice now. You say the Obama administration (you interchange this with DOJ rather randomly showing that even you don’t believe there is a real separation) is using the resources of its finite budget to defend DOMA, a federal law, but not to prosecute those who take drugs, also a federal law.”

      Obviously you don’t see it or understand it, or are just dissembling. I clearly stated that the DOJ has an obligation to represent the U.S. government when it is sued. That includes a lawsuit regarding DOMA. If someone sues you, appearing in court is not discretionary. Deciding whether you have the resources to try to catch people violating specific laws under specific circumstances is discretionary – there are finite resources and you have to try to manage those as efficiently as you can.

      I might add as an aside that you’d look like less of an idiot if you would refrain from calling a truthful and accurate description of the issue a “lie”. If you merely don’t like the priorities, run for office and see if you can convince the American public that you can do a better job.

      Also, in case you actually don’t know, the DOJ is part of the executive branch. The AG reports to the president, but can make independent decisions – otherwise the president would have to micromanage everything, which is a waste of time. If you have a president who is an asshole and orders the AG to do something unethical, the AG can simply resign. It’s happened in the past. Read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/102173-2.htm if you need a refresher on American history.

      Normally, however, the AG runs the Department of Justice with the president only being involved if there is a serious problem or conflict between departments. If it gets to the point that an Attorney General resigns rather than do something outrageous that a president wants, it is a serious matter. The last time it happened, the only thing that stopped an impeachment was a president’s resignation, and that president’s party was so mad about it that it subsequently impeached another president over fibs about a blow job, waiting over 20 years for revenge.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 1:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Steve wrote, “It has become very clear that Obama is ‘slow walking’ gay issues. Each time the gay lobby turns up the heat, he consults with his political advisers about what is the smallest step he can take, and he takes that smallest step. Then, of course, he stops, and takes a step backward if he feels like he can get away with it.”

      What is far more believable is that, with vested interests paying out at a rate of 1/2 billion per year to kill health-care reform, getting that passed is time-critical. When you have time-critical tasks to complete, you have to set priorities as to what gets done first.

      One guy claims that a repeal of DOMA is DOA in the Senate. Republicans are far more heavily against a repeal than Democrats, so if you want DOMA to go, you better get as many Democrats elected as possible. The best way to do that is for the American public to see the Democrats making positive changes that help the average person, and in that respect, fixing health care is critical, and it effects all of us.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 1:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SoylentDiva
      SoylentDiva

      Yay, “Fierce Advocate”. Not.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 2:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      B wrote: “What is far more believable is that, with vested interests paying out at a rate of 1/2 billion per year to kill health-care reform, getting that passed is time-critical. When you have time-critical tasks to complete, you have to set priorities as to what gets done first.”

      Nonsense. During the months that house and senate committees have been working on health reform, Obama has found time to play golf, take vacations, and even lobby for the Chicago Olympic committee. He had plenty of time to send up a bill. He has chosen not to do so. He had plenty of time to make policy directing Justice not to defend DOMA in court. He has chosen not to do so. Either of those would only take a few minutes of his time. Reading the recent speech for HRC took longer than that.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 3:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      It is not true that Obama is just too busy to get two simple repeals on his desk. He is not single tasking, he working on energy policy, health policy, foreign policy: he is putting off the repeals for political reasons, not because he is too busy.
      Democrats control the entire legislative process, they set their priority list, and the repeals went to the bottom of the list.

      They are gambling with our civil rights that they will be returned to office, and they will get to it when they get to it. It is outrageous, because the repeals can be done while they are doing other things: no NEW policy is required, just the elimination of OLD law.

      And civil rights should not be intentionally placed in the realm of politics by the Obama administration, they are properly in the realm of courageous leadership. Civil rights are a problem BECAUSE the affected group is given short shrift by the majority, so political consensus may NEVER be possible. You would think Obama would get that, but he is just too stupid or selfish to see it.

      The house armed services committee is holding hearings on improving educational opportunities for soldiers. But there is no hearing on whether to dump vets on the street if they are gay. Priorities.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 8:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      Obama is heading for a failed presidency. I feel sorry for him. Here is the sad story. Obama was treated so well by the gay community, he took their support for granted, and put repealing Bill Clinton’s hillbilly hatchet job on gay rights to the bottom of his to do list. He so badly underestimated the power of the gay vote and support, and the support they generated from friends, family and associates, and straight supporters, that democrats lost the midterm elections. Then, when he tried to make up for lost time, DADT and DOMA could not be repealed because democrats lost the Senate. Obama lost re-election due to this bad political miscalculation.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 9:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mike Kilpatrick
      mike Kilpatrick

      So let’s see their not prosecuting marijuana users but they are persecuting gays. Obviously they can pick and choose which laws to defend and they choose this one.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 10:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mike Kilpatrick
      mike Kilpatrick

      Keith Kimmel what is wrong with you? Obama’s said he’s directing his justice department NOT to prosecute medical marijuana cases, (even though it’s still against federal law). So obviously your “law” argument is crap. Why do you jump to the conclusion that these are sham marriages when you have no facts to back that up? Your a tool.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mike Kilpatrick
      mike Kilpatrick

      James P. P. you are a self loathing asshole. Not have gays come here for asylum? What is wrong with you?

      Oct 28, 2009 at 10:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      The procedural legal excuses for the Federal attacks on us in this post are erroneous, because it is clear that the Attorney general does IN FACT POSSESSES discretion not to enforce laws it does not think should be enforced on a a particular group, as in a number of instances, including the case of the marijuana laws. hE ALSO HAS THE DISCRETION not to prosecute laws he believes are unconstitutional. He does not need any court decision to decide that – the constitution is already the controlling law, and the agency issues advisory opinions all the time on constitutional legality. When you look at his discretion as a whole, he permits his agency to violate our civil right to the equal protection of the law and to the benefits of the full faith and credit clause.

      The assertion that the Federal Government is obligated to enforce unconstitutional laws is INCORRECT. Doing so, actually VIOLATES the law.

      In his discretion, Holder believes that gay vets are properly discriminated against under DADT and the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not stop the operation of DOMA. He is just wrong in both cases, and his decisions to press the law against us is a CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION and the prosecutions are illegal. So don’t believe the Federal governments flying monkeys on this blog, we are being played.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      A mistake I commonly read in this post is that a court decision is required to render DADT and DOMA unconstitutional. That is wrong. Courts do not DETERMINE the constitutionality of a law, they RECOGNIZE the constitutionality of a law. The constitutional itself is law. As the law of the laws, it controls whether or not a lesser law is legal. Holder is bound to obey the constitution itself, not a court opinion that may or may not ever come. The constitutional provision were there before the decision; courts just RESOLVE a dispute when one party says a law is constitutional, and the other says it is not.

      It is irrelevant, in any event. Lower courts have already ruled that DADT and DOMA ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Holder does not need any ADDITIONAL opinions on this, or an opinion by the Supreme Court. He can recognize that the laws are unconstitutional himself, but stubbornly refuses to do so.

      Holder and Obama swore an Oath to uphold that constitution, and do not need any court decisions to do that.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      Holder clearly crapped out on us. He filed a brief that tried to advance the position that DADT was constitutional, arguing that the State had a strong interest in military discipline and cohesion. He did not need to put his name to a brief that give false information to the court. He could had stated that “the State concedes that by permitting gays an lesbians to serve, there is no evidence that military discipline and cohesion would be appreciably effected.” Instead, he mislead the court — something he is not required to do. Obama himself said he thinks the law is not necessary! Why does he permit his lawyers to make arguments he does not believe? Crazy, and NOT REQUIRED.

      Holder’s agency did the same lying in a recent brief to uphold the constitutionality of DOMA. The brief said that the government has a state interest in saving money by stopping gays from paying less taxes because they were married. The Obama administration did not need to made that argument. It could have written HONESTLY. A zealous defense does not mean Obama should permit his attorneys to make specious arguments. The government must be truthful, and concede to the other side when it is wrong.

      Most importantly, Holder could have conceded outright the unconstitutionality of the laws, and settled the cases by admitting that the laws are illegal under the constitution.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 11:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Steve wrote, “Nonsense. During the months that house and senate committees have been working on health reform, Obama has found time to play golf, take vacations, and even lobby for the Chicago Olympic committee. He had plenty of time to send up a bill.”

      Wrong – the House and Senate are the ones on the critical path. Obama justifiably would want to keep them focused on health care reform for the reason I mentioned – the 1/2 billion per year being spent to kill it. The Republicans would love to have DOMA (for example) raised as an issue right now – as an excuse to get the legislature arguing about that rather than health care, just to slow it down. Then the propaganda campaign against health care reform would have a better chance of working.

      That’s the reality. If you don’t think the Republicans would try to use gays as pawns in their attempts to kill off something, you might want to check our recent history – like the attempt to hardwire DOMA as a constitutional amendment. They knew it had little chance of passing, but they figured it would help get them the homophobe vote. Basically, they were running an anti-LGBT hate campaign to gain a political advantage. Don’t think they won’t try it again if the opportunity arises – the only thing that will stop them is the thought that it might backfire given that there is now a track record of it always seeming to be around election time.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      @B

      I am glad you are conceding that the delay is political, and not substantive. I don’t know why you just could not have said that in the first place and saved us all that trouble.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 1:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Brian NJ wrote, “Holder clearly crapped out on us. He filed a brief that tried to advance the position that DADT was constitutional, arguing that the State had a strong interest in military discipline and cohesion.” Well, it is probably a legally valid argument – assuming that the motivation for the law is the legal issue and not the actual effect on “military discipline and cohesion.” After all, we have laws in some states that it is illegal to hold a cell phone up to your ear while driving, on the grounds of preventing accidents even though research has shown that drivers using a headset are equally distracted.

      Brian NJ also wrote, “Holder’s agency did the same lying in a recent brief to uphold the constitutionality of DOMA. The brief said that the government has a state interest in saving money by stopping gays from paying less taxes because they were married.”
      The truth is that Holder’s agency is not lying – that is in fact a valid state interest, even if it is very bad public policy. There are also. of course, valid state interests in allowing gays to be married. Deciding how to balance such competing interests is typically left to the legislature, not the courts, unless one of those interests is constitutionally mandated.

      Furthermore, when acting as the government’s lawyer, the AG’s office is expected to provide the best arguments it can in the government’s favor, just as a lawyer representing a murderer is supposed to do the same thing, and is not supposed to argue in favor of the other side of the dispute – in this case, that is the plaintiff’s job.

      Basically, you are claiming some sort of anti-gay conspiracy when there is none to be found.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Brian NJ wrote, “It is irrelevant, in any event. Lower courts have already ruled that DADT and DOMA ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”

      Really? A court in Texas ruled that a Texas law was unconstitutional under the state constitution, but that does not apply at the federal level. But in any case, any lower court ruling would be appealed and it would be the AG’s responsibility to act as the government’s lawyer in that appeal.

      Care to produce some citations? No such rulings about DADT and DOMA have been reported in the press around here.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      B, trying in vain to defend the sick bigotry of the Obama administration, tries to give us the impression that the blame for DOMA and its use to galvanize the bigot vote is solely the Republicans. That’s one of the many lies he’s paid to promote.

      Here’s the truth. Like DADT, DOMA was championed by Bill Clinton. DOMA was passed by overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans. They included anti-consumer rightist Joe Biden and someone who should know better, Barbara Mikulski.

      Clinton got on the DOMA bigotwagon because he’d lost so much union support when he betrayed working people championing NAFTA, a union busting, job exporting environmental nightmare.

      During the 1996 campaign Time Magazine wrote By the time Clinton arrived in Chicago for his party’s convention in August, nothing that hinted at liberalism was left hanging on him. When the President, who had begun his term advocating the rights of gays in the military, came around to supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition for gay and lesbian unions, Dole was wide-eyed. “Is there anything we’re for that he won’t jump on?” Dole asked. The answer, essentially, was nothing… .

      DOMA and DADT are government policy. The Democrats, with a little help from the Republicans, are to blame for the creation of the two worst anti gay bills ever passed.

      The extent of Obama’s bigotry became clear when he deliberately and callously torpedoed our chances for same sex marriage in California by emboldening and galvanizing the bigot vote, saying that the abrahamic thunder gawd opposed equality – “gawds in the mix.” We lost by roughly the same margin the Bigot in Chief won by.

      Ya know, B, if you don’t learn to spin more creatively the DNC will fire your ass and even stop beating you. Then you’ll have to hire some one to smack you around again and I imagine that gets expensive.

      Oct 28, 2009 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith Kimmel
      Keith Kimmel

      No. 16 · Bill Perdue

      “What mindless, racist bullshit.” quoting me saying “I am 210% in support of getting rid of ALL the illegal immigrants without delay (yes, even the gay ones too…”

      So because I oppose illegal immigration, that makes me a racist? Excuse you? Not everyone who wants the illegals out is some backwoods, racist redneck and it really pisses me off when I get branded as such just because I happen to agree with them on one subject.

      I think that the United States should be open to anyone who wants to live here AND FOLLOW OUR LAWS. This includes, among other things, entering the country in a lawful manner, paying taxes and speaking English. Things that illegal immigrants DO NOT DO. Its not about race because I don’t care if they are black, white, pink, purple or brown. And I support deporting people equally, and no, I do not support ignoring the law because this one happened to be gay. That would be a double standard.

      I don’t think marriage is a legitimate reason for anyone to gain citizenship. Nor are anchor babies. Gay, straight or otherwise. I don’t think anyone should be granted citizenship automatically unless they were born here to parents who are already citizens. I feel this way because such loopholes, if left open, can and will be abused by profiteers. I know two people, one of them a member of our community, who have married overseas people over here in exchange for money and helped them become citizens while they were here on student visas. It wasnt about love, it was about greed.

      Folks desiring entrace should be made to apply and wait their turn. Just like every other country does to citizens from the United States wanting to immigrate there. Not everyone can live here, we only have so much space and resources (both of which are getting stretched exceedingly thin) and that makes it necessary to tell some people “I’m sorry, but no.” I do support legitimate asylum claims, but being gay is not a legitimate asylum claim unless you are from somewhere that being queer is a crime. The fact that queers may have been killed at some point in the past at the hands of bigots does not qualify.

      You then go on to rail about how Brazil is not a safe place for LGBTs. Bullshit. Its just as safe as the United States, maybe moreso. Show me some legitimate research. You posted links to blogs and fringe media, including one piece which is originally from some outfit calling itself “New America Media” (anyone ever heard of them?), under a headline of “Forget the Hype – Brazil Is No Gay Paradise” which is clearly marked as the commentary of a one Luke McLeod-Roberts. Commentary ? reliable news. It is therefore not cite able as a fact. This is something most people learn in High School when they write papers.

      As someone who has been to Brazil more than once (and also nearby Argentina – oh how I love thee, the Paris of the South) I can speak with some intelligence on the matter. Are there incidents of violence there against queers? Yes. Same as here. The main fact that seems to be relied upon is “since 1980, nearly 3,000 people in Brazil have been killed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” No one keeps count here in the United States, but I am willing to bet that an equal if not greater number have been killed here, since 1980… hell, thats a span of time of 29 years, or about 103.44 people a year. And thats assuming, for the sake of argument, that such numbers are accurate and not inflated by someone with an agenda.

      No. 36 · mike Kilpatrick

      “Keith Kimmel what is wrong with you? Obama’s said he’s directing his justice department NOT to prosecute medical marijuana cases, (even though it’s still against federal law). So obviously your “law” argument is crap. Why do you jump to the conclusion that these are sham marriages when you have no facts to back that up? Your a tool.”

      Where did I say I supported that? I don’t. But I do support decriminalization of pot. I don’t support any president claiming for himself the right to ignore federal law at his discretion. Thats one hell of a slippery slope. Unfortunately, the cat is already out of the bag and it will eventually lead to a dictatorship getting established here. Watch and see.

      I didn’t say they are sham marriages, either. You are jumping to conclusions and/or trying to add words to my mouth. I don’t care if they are legitimate or not. I don’t think marriage is a legitimate grounds for citizenship. In this case, my belief is irrelevant. Just because Obama ignored federal law once do you think he should do it again? If Obama is not bound by federal law, isn’t he in fact the dictator, since he can do whatever he wants?

      Oct 28, 2009 at 3:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      No. 46 · Keith Kimmel

      “So because I oppose illegal immigration, that makes me a racist?” In a word, yes. And the fact that you’re not a southern redneck but a racist from some other part of the country is immaterial.

      Imported and immigrant workers flock to the US and Canada because their economies are distorted by US domination and wrecked by NAFTA treaties. Working people have an absolute right to emigrate wherever living conditions are best and to be treated well.

      But this thread is not about your racism, it’s about the plight of GLBT folks seeking asylum. You deny the danger facing our folks in Brazil, claiming that “Its just as safe as the United States, maybe moreso…” But the Brazilians say otherwise, as I quoted, so who’s lying, them or racist you.

      In your ignorance you claim that no one keeps track of the murders of GLBT folks in the US. If you had half a brain you ‘d have heard of Link to the NCAVP, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs at http://www.ncavp.org/ who estimate that about 25 of us are killed each year. You do the math.

      You’re a racist, a liar and ignorant. Why don’t you run for Congress, you seem well qualified?

      Oct 28, 2009 at 9:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith Kimmel
      Keith Kimmel

      LOL @ Bill.

      Your thought process is defective. I’m actually surprised that you would make such a bold statement that anyone who supports ridding the country of illegal immigrants is a racist. I think in the eyes of anyone other than an unapologetic, bleeding heart liberal (which are known for irrationality), you just shot your credibility all to hell. Most reasonable people capable of thinking for themselves recognize such wholesale statements for the rantings of a lunatic that they are.

      And actually, I currently reside in Oklahoma. So I do live in the south (depending on who you listen to, Oklahoma is often included in the South due to its insane), originally born near Chicago. Have lived in half a dozen states.

      Actually, I *am* considering running in the primary next year. Anybody with $250 and the ability to fill out forms can run in the primaries on the Democratic ticket. If my constituents are on your level, hell, I am very hopeful about my chances of winning.

      Oct 29, 2009 at 9:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • extrabatteries
      extrabatteries

      @keith, you are an idiot. i hope a law is passed to keep you from leaving your hick town. further more i hope you fall in love with an illegal so you can gain some perspective. but thats improbable, the prevalence of douchebaggery might be too large for you to overcome.

      Oct 29, 2009 at 9:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Brian NJ (playing spinmeister) wrote, “@B I am glad you are conceding that the delay is political, and not substantive. I don’t know why you just could not have said that in the first place and saved us all that trouble.”

      I’m not “conceding” anything.

      The truth – I stated quite a few times previously that the Obama administration (like any other administration) has to set priorities to get things done effectively, and that includes a number of political considerations about opposition to particular programs, and the scheduling of when you do what can be critical for the outcome.

      Brian NJ’s problem is a failure to understand what I actually wrote even though it was clearly expressed. The only “trouble” that might have been “saved” was due to Brian NH’s inability to read, and that is solely his personal problem.

      Oct 29, 2009 at 5:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Bill Perdue wrote, “B, trying in vain to defend the sick bigotry of the Obama administration, tries to give us the impression that the blame for DOMA and its use to galvanize the bigot vote is solely the Republicans. That’s one of the many lies he’s paid to promote. Here’s the truth. Like DADT, DOMA was championed by Bill Clinton. DOMA was passed by overwhelming majorities of Democrats and Republicans.”

      (Having trouble posting a reply so sorry for any duplication). Perdue’s claims about being “paid” are simply not true.

      His claims about DOMA are similarly false or at least very misleading. DOMA was written by a Republican (Bob Barr). For cynical account of Clinton’s actions, one that does not accuse him in the least of “championing” DOMA), there is http://prideagenda.blogspot.com/2008/03/our-two-cents-on-bill-clintons-doma.html which states, “o recap 1996, President Clinton was facing a hostile Republican Congress and a re-election challenge by the well-respected but way behind-in-the-polls Senator Bob Dole. Trying to find some issue that would give Dole traction with the electorate, the Republican Congress passed DOMA and sent it to Clinton, essentially daring him not to sign it so that it could be turned into a campaign issue. But he did sign it in what was widely viewed at the time as a cold calculated political decision to make the issue go away in the ’96 campaign. And indeed it did. . .for him. . .in his election.”

      Oct 29, 2009 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      What’s little known to U.S gays is that US Immigration Policy classifies us as “Deviants” and also deny HIV-positive prisoners their life-saving medications and legal representation, do too bad if you missed your flight out of here. Makes Gitmo look like a Day Camp!

      Oct 29, 2009 at 8:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      What’s little known to U.S gays is that US Immigration Policy classifies us as “Deviants” and also deny HIV-positive prisoners their life-saving medications and legal representation, so too bad if you missed your flight out of here. Makes Gitmo look like a Day Camp!

      I re-posted this with grammatical correction.

      Oct 29, 2009 at 8:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      dontblamemeivotedforhillary wrote, “What’s little known to U.S gays is that US Immigration Policy classifies us as “Deviants” and also deny HIV-positive prisoners their life-saving medications and legal representation, so too bad if you missed your flight out of here. Makes Gitmo look like a Day Camp!”

      Do you have a citation for that? What I found was http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0115-sridharan.shtm which indicates that your claim is nearly 20 years out of date: “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals have been subject to long-standing and stringent restrictions against entry into the United States. In fact, they were prohibited from entering the country altogether under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1917, which excluded the ‘mentally or physically defective.’

      “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 contained similar language, barring the entry of “aliens afflicted with psychopathic personality, epilepsy, or mental defect,” a category that, as confirmed by the US Public Health Service, included LGBT immigrants.

      “A 1965 amendment contained more explicit language, excluding ‘sexually deviant’ foreign nationals from the United States. This ‘sexually deviant’ ban was overturned when Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990.”

      BTW, read http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=25636 which describes U.S. Senate hearings on legislation called “the Uniting American Families Act”, which will stop the government from deporting the partners of gays and lesbians.

      Oct 30, 2009 at 3:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      B wrote, “Wrong – the House and Senate are the ones on the critical path. Obama justifiably would want to keep them focused on health care reform for the reason I mentioned – the 1/2 billion per year being spent to kill it. The Republicans would love to have DOMA (for example) raised as an issue right now – as an excuse to get the legislature arguing about that rather than health care, just to slow it down. Then the propaganda campaign against health care reform would have a better chance of working.”

      Again, that is pure unadulterated nonsense. For Justice to file a brief saying that DOMA is unconstitutional would not take even one minute of time from any congressman. For a court to strike down DOMA would not take even one minute of time from any congressman. Some Republicans might want to talk about it, but the Democrats could continue working on health care. If it has any effect on the health care debate, it would only distract the Republican propaganda purveyors.

      Oct 30, 2009 at 7:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Steve, failing civics, wrote “Again, that is pure unadulterated nonsense. For Justice to file a brief saying that DOMA is unconstitutional would not take even one minute of time from any congressman.”

      http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/8/18/1614/73135 states, “According to Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler: ‘The department’s filing in this case upholds the rule of law in keeping with our obligation to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court,’ Schmaler said. ‘The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration’s policy preferences.’”

      This is standard policy at multiple levels of government. Read http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/22/SAMESEX.TMP for an article, dated 2004, about California’s Attorney General Bill Lockyer having to defend Proposition 22, which he personally opposed. That article points out a similar case in which the duty to defend a law was used against a former attorney general John Van de Kamp when he ran for governor against Dianne Feinstein (in the primary, not the general election):
      “As attorney general, Van de Kamp recalled, he had to defend the Legislature’s annual attempt to ban most Medi-Cal abortions for poor women, a prohibition that was routinely struck down by the state Supreme Court. Finally, he said, he told then-Gov. George Deukmejian that he could no longer present a good-faith argument for the ban, and Deukmejian hired an outside lawyer, who was equally unsuccessful.

      “Van de Kamp said former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, now a U.S. senator, used his dilemma to her advantage in their race for the Democratic nomination for governor in 1990. Feinstein won the primary but lost the election to Republican Pete Wilson.”

      Feinstein, feigning naivety, “kept saying, ‘How could he be against what he’s for?’”, which Van de Kamp thought was a clever ploy.

      Oct 30, 2009 at 2:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      Steve wrote, “Again, that is pure unadulterated nonsense. For Justice to file a brief saying that DOMA is unconstitutional would not take even one minute of time from any congressman. For a court to strike down DOMA would not take even one minute of time from any congressman.”

      Steve apparently doesn’t understand the fact that the DoJ has a duty to defend existing U.S. laws. Representatives of the DoJ have stated that. The same requirement appears at the state level too, and you can read about a similar issue regarding California Attorney General Bill Lockyer having a legal responsibility to defend Proposition 22 in 2004, a law Lockyer personally opposed, in a San Francisco Chronicle article available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/22/SAMESEX.TMP and that article in turn gives a similar case involving abortion in which a former attorney general, John Van de Kamp had to defend laws that he personally opposed and that the legislature continued to pass in spite of the California Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional. Van de Kamp’s duty to defend the law was used against him by Diane Feinstein in a primary race for governor (Feinstein lost to Pete Wilson in the general election).

      Oct 30, 2009 at 2:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Captain Slappy
      Captain Slappy

      Well, if it comes to shipping your happy (gay) ass elsewhere to let you be abnormally deviant, I am all for it.

      In fact, I would trade you for every illegal immigrant coming across the border right now being drug mules.

      After all, the illegals just want to fuck me out of money, you just want to FUCK me.

      It isn’t discrimination when you are the minority, and I am the majority. See how that works? Trust me, I do.

      Rules of the Road- Stop being retarded and devoluted, and nobody will “discriminate” against you. That is just common sense. Evidently, this is a lacking quality that disappears when good fashion sense and a taste for cornholes and cardigans appear.

      Seriously, THIS is what you got to bitch about?
      Only circuses and carnivals want freaks, you geniuses…..

      Oct 31, 2009 at 9:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blenden
      Blenden

      Hey Captain Slappy aka Captain Crappy:

      I think I hear your mother calling you from her bedroom for her way overdue mother/son carpet munch. We don’t want to “FUCK” you, but if you bring a strap on, I’m sure mama will give it to you just the way you like it.

      PS. Don’t forget to moan. (We hear she likes that best).

      Oct 31, 2009 at 10:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.