Hate & Marriage

Obama’s Minions Admirably Defend the Sanctity of DOMA in Federal Court


The Dept. of Justice, led by Eric Holder, is Barack Obama‘s personal litigation arm. So it should come as no surprise that, just as the Obama administration lobbied the Supreme Court not to hear a case regarding Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it’s also trying to get the first same-sex marriage case thrown out of federal court.

AP: “The U.S. Justice Department has moved to dismiss the first gay marriage case filed in federal court, saying it is not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by a couple already married in California. The motion, filed late Thursday, argued the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage. ‘This case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment … on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married,’ the motion states. ‘Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) poses a different set of questions.’”

What you’re seeing here is not (on its face) the federal government arguing against gay marriage — they just want to make sure it remains a state issue. And what they’re tacitly doing as well? Defending the Defense of Marriage Act, by asking the federal court to toss the case because DOMA, as it stands, should keep these matters limited to state courts.

Either this means Obama has an awesome plan to repeal DOMA through Congress (and doesn’t want the courts involved), or once again he’s using taxpayer dollars to infringe upon our rights.

UPDATE: Upon further review by the smart folks at Americablog, it’s clear Team Obama isn’t just hoping to keep DOMA alive, but they’ve taken the position that gays=incest, DOMA is good for the nation (and neutral, not anti-gay!), DOMA is a good fiscal policy, gays have less of a right to privacy, and — here’s the kicker — “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.”

This is the president we voted for?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #barackobama #doma(defenseofmarriageact) stories and more


  • ask ena

    Or perhaps he doesn’t have a plan YET.

  • timncguy

    Obama, our fierce advocate who campaigned to repeal DOMA. Now goes out of his way to defend it.

    Waiting for the Obama apologists to show up in 4, 3, 2, 1…

  • John

    Keep fighting Obama is no friend just another suit.

    Vote Ron Paul next time! He was the only one that didn’t care if we got married.

  • AlanInSLC

    Yet another attack on Obama within the first 6 months of his term during one of the most difficult presidential experiences known to the history of the USA. I think its pretty sad to constantly attack the president for his lack of action, when EVERYONE knows that any president puts the most controversial changes at the end of their term or in their second term as president. We all know how controversial gay marriage is to the rest of the country. Its not the best answer for giving us our rights, but its what we all should expect. Patience is necessary, even if you don’t feel you want to have some.

  • andy

    I will vote Green before I vote Paul or any other Libertarian. I’m voting my interests as a gay person next time whether it means the dems lose or not, it’s not my problem. I used to feel guilty that I helped Bush win by voting for Nader in 2000, but honestly, I don’t feel so bad anymore considering the two parties have had little impact on my life, democrat or republican seem to mean the same thing in regard to my issues.

  • tmmoney

    Politics is a game. Obama didn’t get to where he is at without playing that game really well. You also don’t raise the amount of money that he did without owing someone something.

    He’s doing what he has to do to possibly get a second term. In his second term, he’ll have nothing to lose then he will move forward with his agenda more decisively.

    Right now, he needs everyone he can get on his side to deal with our economy and health care… unfortunately, that means taking no stance on same-sex marriage. And for me, I think he’s right that our economy, health care and an end to the war is more important.

    It’s the one thing, my partner and I differ on. But, that’s a good thing to have differences. But he can’t keep ignoring stories like this couple (http://ourscenetv.com/main/2009/06/09/gay-marriage-before-after-prop-8-one-couple-s-story) forever.

    “I have little patience with scientists who take a board of wood, look for its thinnest part, and drill a great number of holes where drilling is easy.” ~Einstien

    We are far from finding the thinnest part, but like Einstien our patience and persistence will get us there.

  • Mrs. Bukkake

    Obama is simply following the teachings of his Xtian faith.

    Rev. Warren: “Define marriage.”

    Sen. Obama: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. You know, God’s in the mix.”

  • sampson

    reap what you sow, alot of gay blogs jumped on the Obama bandwagon before the primaries were even over despite troubling signs (Mclurkin, God’s in the mix). I could tell he wasn’t going to do much, but who knows maybe I’m wrong. I still wish Hillary had won honestly, at least she’d be more tactful about it…

  • Sceth

    Will Obama/Holder be able to touch Perry v Schwarzenegger?

  • Elizabeth]

    Alan and Timmony: the problem in this case isn’t just his silence and inaction like the past six months. This time he is actively arguing against our equal rights. Read the brief here:


    It actually defends DOMA on grounds that it saves the government money! Ridiculous.

  • Mark in Colorado

    @tmmoney: You’re assuming a lot:
    That he’ll get a second term and that both houses of Congress will still be in control by Democrats by large margins.
    You clearly haven’t read excerpts from the DOJ brief–it’s vulgar in the extreme (even invoking incest and people marrying children). The Fierce Advocate has taken a clear stand against gay rights on this matter. The arguments used in the brief will be difficult to refute later if he indeed has some bizarre plan to repeal DOMA–as many of you Obama apologists believe.

  • andy_d

    @sampson: Yeah, right. Hillary? She’s just as opposed to gay marriage as Obama is.

  • galefan2004

    There are 30 states with anti-gay marriage measures even if you removed DOMA. The basic tone right now is that gay marriage will NOT be determined on the national level because it is a state’s rights issue (which just goes to make you ask why a certain march has any point at all but I digress). The federal government is very unlikely to ever get involved in the marriage area again. DADT repeal and ENDA are issues that are on the national radar.

  • galefan2004

    Honestly, I can’t read that brief in its entirety. I got about half way through the excerpts and got sick to my stomach. Obama can’t be behind this and claim to be a friend to the gays. He really needs to pick and chose, or perhaps he already has, and everything else is just lip service.

  • Scott

    @andy_d: AND, wasn’t it her husband who created both of the policies (DOMA & DADT) that we’re trying to get rid of!! She would have been worse!

  • M Shane

    “on it’s face” sounds like an intelligent way of saying lessthan nothing. If the Federal court hears the matter you can be certain they will turn it down, since there really is nothing but an imagnary reason for there being a constitutional reason. Count your blessings.
    Besides, I don’t know why you are saying”on it’s face” something other than what they actually say.

    Next time promote a Nazi if they let you get married. The extreme Right wing sentiment hat this kind of talk exolves into is disgusting on the part of Queerty.

  • Lance Rockland

    Face it folks:Obama fucked us again!

  • Chitown Kev

    I wish Professor Guadard was here.

    Either the Obama Justice Department would have had to defend this or the Congress would have had to do this.

    Take your pick.

    The executive branch has been enforcing DOMA for 12 years. Serious separation of powers issues here.

  • Jerry Priori

    Obama = Same old, same old. Of course he’s an asshole. It’s the number one quality you must have if you want to be President of the US. Nobody who isn’t a complete schmuck has the slightest chance of being president.

  • Gayalltheway

    For a constitutional law professor, Obama should know this better than anyone else. Under the US Constitution, Article 4-Section 1 (better known as the Full Faith and Credit clause) clearly addresses the duties that each state in the US has to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” (laws) of other states. DOMA thus is clearly unconstitutional because it states otherwise and that one state can decide not to recognize another state’s law in terms of same-sex marriage. You cannot change the US Constitution by legislative measure (passing a law through Congress) because you need all 50 states to vote on it and it requires 2/3 votes to pass an amendment to the US Constitution. Look at it this way, if DOMA is legal, then it means that Congress can pass a law such as Defense of Criminal Act which allows one state to not recognize another state’s criminal laws which basically means that if a person is convicted of a crime in California, this person can go to Texas and he won’t be prosecuted. Does this even make sense?? NO! Then why are they throwing out a case which has a very good chance of getting DOMA overturned?

    Obama is starting to act like Clinton in his first term. If there’s something we learned from the Clinton years, it’s not being passive. We need to do something. We have passively waited for 16 years to get to this point and like many of you have said, the wait is over. I think in terms of priorities, DADT and ENDA shouldn’t be on top of the list. They are equally important but DOMA is the one that will open the flood gate for more states to challenge the constitutional amendment that have already been in placed. I disagree with people who try to defend Obama’s action, or inaction, on the same-sex marriage issue. I think we are making it to be such a big issue. Look at what we’ve achieved so far just this year, 6 states have legalized same-sex marriage and a few more have legalized domestic partnership all because they think “change is gonna come”. Honestly, where’s the change? I feel duped and stupid at this very moment and I hope Obama won’t make me feel regret for voting for him.

  • Chitown Kev


    But if Obama hadn’t done this, then the Congress would have had to it. And the federal government has been enforcing DOMA for 12 years.

    Look, DOMA is one lemon that you can’t make lemonade out of.

  • Sam

    @andy: Unless you lived in Florida, you didn’t help Bush win by voting for Nader in 2000. And even then, there were about a million other issues that fucked that up.

  • InExile

    @tmmoney: If he does not keep his promises THIS TERM, most of us will work VERY hard to make sure whoever runs against him wins!

  • InExile

    @Webster: That article is the most disturbing thing I have ever read about President Obama! I am not surprised, anyone who courts the religious right is not our friend!


  • Brent

    What a disgusting betrayal.

  • edgyguy1426

    @sampson: I think it’s easier to fight this kind of injustice when it’s done in a not-so-tactful manner. Hillary might have been more tactful- god knows she has more experience with political spin, but I’d rather have all that ugliness out there in the sunlight. The better to lump Obama with the Bryan Browns of this world and shine a light on this ridiculousness.

  • hardmannyc

    I sifted thorugh the argument & didn’t see anything linking faggotry & incest. There was a reference to a previous law that invoked incest as preventing a certain type of marriage.

    I think Obama isn’t doing enough to fight DOMA, but America Blog is way off on this one.

  • galefan2004

    @Gayalltheway: Change is here. When I graduated high school in 1997, my gay/gay friendly friends and I used to discuss gay marriage. None of us thought we would even get this far in our life time (we are from OH its not exactly progressive). We didn’t think that same-sex marriage would be legal in any state. We were wrong.

  • galefan2004

    @InExile: Working against Obama in 2012? Can you say President Palin? I sure the hell hope you can.

  • InExile

    @galefan2004: If he breaks his promises, he is no better than Palin. At least Palin is upfront with bigotry.

    Hillary NEVER would have betrayed us like this!

  • Gayalltheway

    @Chitown Kev: I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you implying that Obama had done this so that it forces the Congress to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA? If he has stated his strong support (in such a convincing tone)in this brief, basically saying that DOMA is a “good fiscal policy” and that it is “rational” and “not anti-gay”, do you think he WILL SIGN it into law if the bill passes and reaches his table? I seriously doubt it. If that is what you meant, then you are making a false distinction of power between the Oval Office and the Congress. Both entities need each other to “survive” and operate. I don’t think anyone can defend some of the things mentioned in the brief. It’s appalling.

    On the other hand, I suspect that this has to do with Sotomayor’s hearing next month. With the difficulties that they are expecting from the Senate, I hope that the DOJ is doing this to prevent further distraction and is trying to convince the Republicans that Sotomayor is not going to be an activist judge and won’t have any huge impact on the rulings of upcoming controversial cases such as same-sex marriage. That is my guess anyways. I have to convince myself that I did not vote for a 2-face liar.

  • emb

    @InExile: Oh please. Hillary and Bill brought us DOMA and DADT in the first place, remember??

  • sampson

    @andy_d: But she doesn’t cite religion as why. She wouldn’t use incest comparisons in her DOJ’s brief. She’s done more for gays as a Cabinet member than Obama has as president. HRC would have been better IMO, a better President all around I don’t care if she couldn’t have made the Cairo speech becuase guess what? It didn’t amount to ANYTHING but hype.

  • emb

    @Gayalltheway: “I have to convince myself that I did not vote for a 2-face liar.” I know!! It’s getting harder and harder for me to keep on defending him, apologizing for him, and holding on to the myth that he’s somehow playing chess while we’re all engrossed in checkers. At some point (and I think that point’s getting closer), those of us who continue to hold out hope for Obama being something other than a left-leaning republican are going to start to give up.

  • michael

    @Gayalltheway: Thank you for the intelligent post. I voted for the man too and I have been hoping that I won’t regret it. It just seems to get harder with each passing day.

  • InExile

    @emb: I remember Hillary having a plan for gays way before Obama did. In fact her plan is what he used to get our support.

  • boytroy

    We are in the middle of the greatest lesson this country and the world will ever learn, that opposites are not opposites! What appears to be completely different is actually the same. Bush was the first half of the lesson, Obama is the second! This man is just as manipulative, dishonest and power hungry than the last one. He just wears a different mask. But people are usually opposite of what their masks are. So grab some pop-corn and stay tuned, cause its going to get very entertaining, and its not just in the area of gay rights, its in it all.

  • benwa

    I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM OR McCain, and yet I still voted for a president that was on the ballet. If you stop acting like there are only two candidates to vote for we will never move forward.

  • Robert, NYC

    If DADT and DOMA aren’t repealed by November 2012….who in their right mind would want to continue voting for Obama? Even if the economy and health care “reform” weren’t the issues, are we that naive to even think that DADT and DOMA would be priorities?

    Single payer is now off the table for health care reform, something he campaigned for and he excludes experts on the single payer system but includes health insurance industries,the ones who’ve been gouging and reaping huge profits while denying coverage and benefits to people who need care. All of a sudden they want to be part of the solution?

    Then there’s Chris Dodd’s wife among many others, an unelected official sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical industries receiving $300,000+ in fees for services rendered while her husband has a say in health care reform. Its immoral and repugnant to think that even Dems are on the take. No wonder they dont want the single payer system, there’s no profit to be made. The Dems are no different than the republicans, equally as bad in fact. I’m sick of them, their lies and their self-serving attitude. We the people count for nothing, we’re secondary while they pursue their careers and wealth.

    And we’re surprised Eric Holder throws out a same-sex marriage case? Obama has a lot to answer for come 2012. This is NOT what I voted for.

  • Chitown Kev

    “On the other hand, I suspect that this has to do with Sotomayor’s hearing next month. With the difficulties that they are expecting from the Senate, I hope that the DOJ is doing this to prevent further distraction and is trying to convince the Republicans that Sotomayor is not going to be an activist judge and won’t have any huge impact on the rulings of upcoming controversial cases such as same-sex marriage. That is my guess anyways. I have to convince myself that I did not vote for a 2-face liar.”

    There you go. Obama had the option of punting this to the Congress. With those Sotomayor hearings coming up AND health care…that’s a lot!

    Those briefs mention the applicable federal law, as disgusting as they are. But don’t you think that if this was a Republican Congress, Obama would have no problem punting this to them? Of course he wouldn’t.

    Yes, Obama needs to use the bully pulppit a helluva lot more but we also need to put much, much more pressure on Nancy pelosi and Harry Reid. Jon Conyers, the Judicary Chairman, has already said that he has the votes to get DOMA out of committee.

  • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com

    @Chitown Kev:

    I simply can’t believe that someone as reasonable as you’ve shown yourself to be would make such transparently irrelevant arguments.

    SO WHAT if they left it to Congress to defend? HOW would the result have been any different? The worst Congress would have done is reaffirm the law.

    What WOULD have been different is that we would not have had OBAMA INC. defending it, and with points [SEE BELOW] that should SICKEN anyone who ever believed in him. Cynic that I was, I NEVER imagined it would be this bad, this viscious, this HOMOPHOBIC.

    Patience??? He’ll fix it in his 2nd term??? Don’t you brainwashed Queer Quislings get it? How could he go back to the courts in a year or three years on either DADT or DOMA and say, “Ooops, we didn’t mean it. Can we get a do-over?”

    And how could he go to Congress and say, “Yes, I defended DADT & DOMA in court for the very same excuses that you used to make them law, but, I didn’t mean it, please repeal them now”?

    He has simply AND NEEDLESSLY because he COULD have chosen NOT to defend either DESTROYED any chance of judicial overturn or legislative repeal for as long as he’s President. Even I thought the worst he would do is not do anything. I NEVER expected him to attack us and there is NO way of spinning it into anything else.

    Ameriblog [who fought tooth and nail to get him the nomination] summarized Obama Inc’s. claims paragraph by paragraph:

    ” – they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional

    – DOMA is good because it saves the feds money

    – DOMA is constitutional (thus screwing us on any future lawsuits)

    – “DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles.”

    – Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states

    – Praises DOMA as “cautiously limited”

    – Sounds to me like Obama just came out against the Loving v. VA case that ensured that people like his parents could marry

    – Gays don’t deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities get

    – Argues Republican position on how judges should review cases

    – The twisted logic of this paragraph is sickening. Pat Robertson could have written this

    – DOMA is a good thing

    – DOMA is rational and constitutional

    – Provides legal argument against gays’ right to privacy

    – It’s reasonable and rational for Congress to defend “traditional” marriage – in fact, DOMA was actual a very “neutral” law, rather than anti-gay

    – Again, Obama seems to states have the right to ban blacks from marrying whites

    – DOMA is entirely rational

    – DOMA wasn’t motivated by a dislike of gays, silly.

    – Please don’t confuse the gays with the blacks, and other “real” marriages

    – DOMA infringes on nobody’s rights

    – DOMA doesn’t discriminate against gays – all they have to do to get the benefits is get married… to someone of the opposite sex! (This is an argument Obama stole verbatim from the religious right.)

    – Please don’t compare gay marriages to inter-racial marriages”


  • DuttyBarb

    All of you are whining like a bunch of school kids….

    “Obama betrayed us”

    “Obama is defending DOMA”

    “Its Obama’s fault, im gay and am expressing prejudice at work, on the street and in my marriage…

    WHINE! WHINE! WHINE! What i dont get is why u dont blame Obama that majority of Americans dont want you to put your “so called marriage rights” on the same level as normal(man and woman) marriage. No really blame him.

    NEWSFLASH: Please listen as it is most important..Gay marriage is not, will never be, can never be, on the same level as normal marriage. That is why we are calling it “gay marriage” so pple can recognise it as a deviation from the norm. Get that through your heads and accept it.

    Do civil union and domestic partnerships…maybe then you will finally get some of the rights that we can take pity and give you

  • Lightpond Blogger


    Alan, Alan, Alan. Listen to yourself. I made a few FIXES for you. Here you go –

    Yet another attack on THE LGBT COMMUNITY within the first 6 months of his term during one of the most difficult presidential experiences known to the history of the USA DUE TO THE FACT THAT REAL DEMOCRATS ARE TOTALLY ENRAGED THAT HE BOUGHT THE NOMINATION INSTEAD OF WINNING IT. I think its pretty OUTRAGEOUS THAT the president TOOK THIS action, … We all know how controversial gay marriage is to the rest of the country. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE HE THREW US UNDER BUS EVEN BEFORE HE WAS SWORN IN, WHEN HE CHOSE THAT HOMOPHOBE RICK WARREN TO GIVE HIS INAUGURAL INVOCATION. WE SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED THIS. Patience is FOR BEGGARS.

  • InExile

    @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: I agree with your post 100%. Politically with all these various arguments he used, he has nailed the door shut on DOMA and DADT. If he would go back and challenge his OWN arguments, the republicans would eat him for lunch. This must be his gift to the religious right, they have more voters than we do so he really does not need us now that he is in office.

  • caro

    lets vote for a epublican in 4 years

  • cindy

    I am also impatient with omama on gay issues but must we call him names? just askin.

  • Chitown Kev

    @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com:

    If Bill Clinton had not actually SIGNED DOMA, Obama might have a moral leg to stand on. The law needs to be repealed, period. That the man cannot do. He can only execute and enforce the laws. Let we continually REFUSE to look at the Congressional Democrats who CAN repeal this.

    Don’t ascribe to Obama any more power than he actually has. The executive branch has been enforcing DOMA for 12 years (and through 2 presidencies).

    Tell me, do you really want Congress defending this?

    Now I DO think that Obama needs to stop covering for the Congress, which he is so obviously doing here.

  • dgz

    the doj ias req’d to defend all laws on the books that aren’t facially unconstitutional. doma isn’t… although it should be.

  • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com


    The issue here is NOT “marriage equality.”

    It IS that the plaintiffs simply asked for the two rights OBAMA HIMSELF PROMISED TO FIGHT FOR in this campaign [with one caveat].

    1. They want their relationship recognized in every state. Herein is the Obama Caveat…aka political magic trick so many fell for.

    He claimed over and over…and gays too lazy to look behind the curtain wet themselves in glee…that he was “better than Hillary on DOMA” because he wanted to repeal “all of DOMA” while she hesitated on DOMA Section 2 which is nothing more but a reaffirmation of “states rights” to do what they want. Which, note, was EXACTLY his position [reiterated in his limp statement about the Iowa Supremes marriage decision], too.

    DOMA was such a scalding hot buzz word that by even PRETENDING he was against the substance of Section 2 he “sounded” better. But the contradictory positions [NO on S-2; YES on “states rights] was there all the time for anyone who bothered to look.

    2. The plaintiffs also want the same federal benefits as married straight couples. NOT to be declared “married” by the government simply the rights of others…the EXACT same promise Obama made and many of his defenders always applauded saying the substance of the benefits is more important than the label on the relationship.

    NOW, Obama Inc. is echoing virtually every RIGHT WING homophobic legal argument against universal state recognition and simple equality benefits such as those administered by the IRS and Social Security.

    With “fierce advocates” like this who needs Fred Phelps?

  • Gaylltheway

    @DuttyBarb: “What i dont get is why u dont blame Obama that majority of Americans dont want you to put your “so called marriage rights” on the same level as normal(man and woman) marriage” –> Not majority of Americans.. just a bunch of hateful, bigoted ones who are so narrow-minded and keep spreading lies and hatred about the LGBT community and discriminate against others because they have the guts to express their sexuality. And you called your kind of marriage “normal” – with a 50% divorce rates in the US and 70% of all reported civil crime are domestic violence and spouse abuse cases (you know, where the wife get beaten half-dead and the husband gets sent to jail) And you called that normal? I am not sure what’s abnormal for you. Also not to mention, 60%-70% of all married men cheat on their spouses (the number is much conservative for married women) and you want to call your marriage normal. Give me a f%&king break!

    NEWSFLASH: We don’t need your pity to give us our rights because they are ours to begin with. We are simply taking them back now , a little at a time. And you know what? Fucking fix your own TROUBLED marriage and DEVIATED life before trying to tell others how to live their lives. And you know what, because of people like you that I am more eager to GO ALL OUT AND PROUD ON THE UPCOMING PRIDE! Just to show that we are here and we are queer and we ain’t going ANYWHERE, my dear!!!!!

  • Jim

    @AlanInSLC: Dude – he is working aGAINST us. Not too busy to help us. He is another bush.

  • sampson

    I’m not apologizing for Bill Clinton because he was atrocious in sisgning this, but REMEMBER this was a different time. believe it or not, the 90’s weren’t nearly as tolerant as today and back then marriage equality hardly seemed like a reality. Plus those who say Bill and Hillary are the same in every decision and action are just simple minded.

  • rick

    idiots. they are giving you legal grounds. they are laying the groundwork for you.

  • CJ

    @Chitown Kev

    All three of the last sitting presidents have had no trouble file friend of court briefs with SCOTUS that encouraged decisions againt legislation that they did not support. The Obama Admin had no obligation to argue for DOMA, and certainly no obligation to advance the stunningly homophobic arguments that are in this particular brief. This can’t be blamed on Clinton, on the republicans, or on Obama’s legislative agenda.

  • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com

    @Chitown Kev:

    Has fair, intelligent, analytical you been body snatched? You’re not misrepresenting what I’m saying, distracting by bringing up points [at least] I’m not making just like the Obambots.

    This is NOT about him REPEALING the law. I never said that and it to me you addressed your retort.

    This IS about him having the power to CHOOSE NOT to DEFEND the law in court which HE HAS.

    It has NOTHING to do with Clinton signing it or his admin or Bush admin enforcing it, regardless of the number of years. [That reference and the “it’s Clinton’s fault” nonsense are what most makes me think someone has hijacked the nom de Net “Chitown Kev.”]

    FDR sent Japanese Americans to arm-guarded, barbwired camps in the desert. Bush Inc. waterboarded and worse prisoners. “It’s been done before” is a justification???????????

    So the fuck WHAT if Congress chose to defend it in court if he had not. Would they have used arguments any WORSE than HIS? Would the law itself have become worse somehow?

    What IS worse is that HE has made the case against BOTH judicial overturn AND Congressional repeal of BOTH DADT and DOMA.

    I have never defended Congress’s inaction. I have only repeated what OBAMA MADE his selling point for the nomination: without an aggressive champion in the President Congress was unlikey to act upon its own to repeal either law.

    INSTEAD he has become THEIR champion…both in inaction and in justifying the perpetuation of both laws FOR THE VERY REASONS the homohating previous sessions of Congress used to justify passing them in the first place.

    Cynic that I am I NEVER imagined he would make a bad situation worse. But that is EXACTLY what he has done both judicially and legislatively, and, yes, MORALLY. He’s told not just the courts and Congress that the Antigay Industry is right but emerging gay youth, too.

    Schools better install those metal detectors and parents hide their own guns and anything the next 11-yr. old might hang himself with.

  • CJ

    @ DGZ

    The DoJ is not required to advance particular arguments. Those arguments are set forth because the administration chooses to do so.

    They could have filed a Brief that pretty much said, “Ummm, because the last guy here said this was good law. We dunno.” It’s been done before.

    This brief is a double barreled, full throated attack on gay rights, not in particvular, but in general. It:

    – Categorically denies homosexuals minority, or class, status.
    – Categorical denial that DOMA withholds rights from an identifiable group of citizens
    – Denies homosexuals the Constitutional right to privacy
    – Advocates Rational-Review as the level of scrutiny for GLBT issues

    If any of these points are enshrined into law, they will set back gay rights, in general, by about 3 decades, irrespective of whether Obama has a plan to get DOMA repealed or not.

  • Bill Perdue

    In spite of the claims of the Obama Administration this isn’t a legal question or one that depends on constitutional duties.

    That’s a smokescreen used by the DoJ and the Obama Administration in general to cover their increasingly hostile attacks on our agenda and their now much more open bigotry.

    This is above all a political question and one which conclusively places the Obama Administration and the Democrats as a whole in the enemy camp. They can no longer pretend to be ‘fierce defenders’. Like the more honestly bigoted Republicans, the Democrats, not just Obama but the Democrats in his Cabinet and in Congress are now open fierce enemies.

    Describing backstabbers like Obama a poster at Queerty once said ”Democrats on the other hand are like pet snakes, feed em, keep em warm, but dont trust em that much because just when you think they’re your friends…”


  • Chitown Kev

    @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com:

    Then we have to get the laws changed, it’s simple. Obama does not have that power, that is my only point all along.

    I am actually more in agreement with Bill Perdue on this, as he use the same phrase “Obama and the Democrats” that I often use.

  • Bill Perdue

    @emb: To be politically precise, EMB, Obama and the Democrat leadership as a whole, like the Republicans, are right centrists. I’m not speaking of people like you who blundered and voted for them but the owners and leaders of that party.

    They were right centrist before the election. Ironically, since the election it’s the Republicans who are (trying) to move toward the center and the Democrats who are moving to the right.

    People who voted for Obama got McCain anyway. With Democrats like Obama, Biden and the Clintons who really needs Republicans?

  • Chitown Kev

    And of course, people don’t have to vote for Obama or any other Democrat that supports this shit in 2010/2012. Do you think I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996? I did not.

  • CJ

    @ Chitown Kev

    You are missing, completely and obtusely, the point. If this brief serves some political purpose for Obama, and if he actually has some grand plan to have DOMA repealed in the legislature, then we are still screwed.

    The language in this brief will, if enacted, have direct consequences on the constitutionality of hightened scrutiny decisions for GLBTs, on class status recognition, and on GLBT right to privacy issues. It argues that we have no standing in any of those instances. Even if it does not get enshrined in case law, it is a clear signal and is a line in the sand that the administration cannot now back away from.

  • CJ

    @ Bill

    When or where have you seen the Republicans moving toward the center on any issue? Energy? Stimulous? Climate? Health?

    I got nothing.

  • Robert, NYC


    Right on, I totally agree. The biggest threat to marriage are the fucking heterosexual adulterers, philanderers, wife beaters, child abusers,unwed mothers, teen pregnancy and divorce. That’s been going on since marriage existed. Many of the right wing religious psychos even blame same sex marriage on that and that it will lead to polygamy….another straight phenomenon as old as the world. You name it, we’re the cause, even long before marriage equality was a reality.

  • Robert, NYC

    @Bill Perdue:

    Bill, you’re absolutely right, Obama is far away from the left. The democrats are nothing more than moderate conservatives dressed in fake liberal clothing. Obama, Clinton, Biden…none of them are what I’d call progressive. The only one running for the highest office was Dennis Kucinich, a true progressive. He brought 35 articles of impeachment against Bush/Cheney and what did Nancy Pelosi do? She shelved it and that’s where it remains.

  • Bill Perdue

    @tmmoney: says “Politics is a game” and that’s true for sleazy hustlers like the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama and McCain.

    But it’s not a game for us. We need a tough hate crimes bill to help deter hate crimes and punisher the christer thugs who commit them. In 2007 and the Democrats, gleefully supported by the GOP dumped the hate crimes bill so they could both pander to christer religious bigots with impunity during the election. They had same goal in mind when they assigned Quisling Frank to gut ENDA and then dumped it too. It motivates their refusal to repeal the Clinton legacy of DOMA and DADT.

    Our agenda for equality on the job, in housing, for same sex marriage and for an all out effort to defeat AIDS/HIV are not a game. Implementing them would save lives and make it easier to sue bigoted bosses and landlords.

    If you think our agenda is a game you need to get out of Dodge. People who voted for Obama got McCain anyway. With Democrats like Obama, Biden and the Clintons who really needs Republicans?

  • Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com

    @Chitown Kev:

    “we have to get the laws changed”

    And exactly how are we going to do that now that OBAMA has AGREED WITH every excuse used to pass them in the first place?

    Please suggest ONE argument he has left to use even IF he chose to fulfill his promises to “throw the full weight of my administration behind” such legislation?

    Please suggest ONE argument the sponsors of the DOMA repeal bill might use to try to resurrect it from the grave he buried it in this week.

    Please suggest ONE argument ANYONE in Congress might have for finally even submitting a DOMA repeal bill now that he’s locked DOMA up and thrown away the Constitutional key.

    Maybe we should all move to Iraq. Sure, we might get killed there, but in the meantime at least the Obama administration would still be verbally defending rather than attacking us.

  • Chitown Kev

    By Todd A. Heywood 5/19/09 10:39 AM
    DETROIT — U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, said Saturday in an interview with Michigan Messenger that the votes are in place in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Gay rights advocates have been working to get the law repealed as more states pass laws allowing same-sex couples to get married.

    “Well in my committee, yes, but in the House and Senate, that’s a different question,” Conyers said in terms of a DOMA repeal passing.

    Asked if he supported marriage equality for the gay community, the congressman replied, “Sure. I always have.”

    A repeal of DOMA would open the door to allowing marriages of same-sex partners performed in others states to be recognized throughout the state, as well as the federal government.

  • sue

    Sorry but Hillary does support gay rights and is working at State to insure benefits to partners- everyone knows Obama is just another politician who will say anything to get votes- and all of these gullible people really thought he was going to do things differently-
    Don’t look at me- I voted for Hillary and I DID NOT vote for Obama and never would- I didn’t trust him then and I don’t trust him now and I never will.
    Face it- the country was duped but hopefully the kool-aide well will dry up and the Obots will come out of their stupor and realize Obie doesn’t care a lick about anything but forwarding his own agenda.

  • Bertie

    3 WORDS to describe Obama: COCKSUCKER COWARD BIGOT

  • Bill Perdue

    @CJ: ,keep in mind that the GOP, like their Democrat counterparts don’t run on anything as binding and clear as an actual political program, they posture and give impressions, use smoke an mirrors and make things as vague as possible.

    I based my comment on press items like this from GOP political guru Mike Murphy in the latest issue of Time magazine:

    “Despairing Republican friends have been asking me what I think we should do to rebuild the GOP and begin our certain and inevitable comeback. My answer disappoints them: ‘Build an ark.’ I say this because I’ve made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today… Young voters need to see a GOP that is more socially libertarian, particularly toward gay rights. With changing demographics come changing attitudes, and aping the grim town elders from Footloose is not the path back to a Republican White House. The pro-life movement can still be a central part of the GOP — it has support among all ages (and a slim majority of Latino voters) — but the overall GOP view on abortion must aggressively embrace the big tent.”

    (From today’s Political Wire.)

    CJ if you tell me that’s 99.99% USDA Grade A bullshit I won’t argue with you. It is. But I hope you’ll agree that the Democrats ‘promises’ are of the same high quality.

  • TANK

    Wow, I just read the key parts of the brief… Mccain would have been openly hostile, too. Well, I’m not voting for him again.

  • Bill Perdue

    @Robert, NYC: Kucinich was the bait, Obama is the reality.

    The Democrats are as hopeless as their Republican cousing on the questions of the war, economic chaos and takikng real measures to supress bigotry.

  • CJ

    @ Bill

    The numbers agree with the statement you post, but they agree in that they show a wholesale flight of moderates from teh Republican party right now. I agree that a viable Republican party will have to be more centrist, but I don’t see that trend in the current elected federal republicans. If anything, they are a symptom, and not a cure for that particular problem. The moderates lost in their races, leaving the right wing base in power.

    More generally, I believe that the current Democratic party is a much better run political machine, and that there are both progressive and centrist democrats that are living up to their more substantive campaign promises.

    I’m starting to believe that Obama’s promises to our community were pandering though.

  • Vickey

    Well, we tried to tell everyone in the primaries. No one listened! Women betrayed Hillary, blacks betrayed Hillary and gays betrayed Hillary.

    NOW LOOK…..is that HopeyChangey Thing Working out for you?

    We need a Third Party. If you want to join some people that will help you change American Politics, go to pumapac.org

    Everyone’s welcome!

  • Bill Perdue

    @CJ: CJ, the Democrats do have a much better machine but it’s based on sleaze and lies.

    Obama’s Minister of Pandering, Rev. Josh Dubois, an ordained pentecostal bigot like Rev. Leah Daughtry at DNC, organized the bigot vote for Obama from day one with exgay scum like Donnie McClurkin to the inaugural feathering anti-LGBT scum like Warren. “gawd’s in the mix” galvanized that bigot vote, mostly Euroamerican christer who elected Obama and simultaneously put Prop 8 over the top.

    You say that “ there are both progressive and centrist democrats that are living up to their more substantive campaign promises. As i said above, they’re the bait. Obama and bigotry are the reality, happily supported by Republicans and Democrats of all stripes.

  • TheBigotBasher

    @Vickey: What gays do not need is a race hate PAC trying to spam this board, saying Hillary would have done things differently.

    It is clear from her interview she gave to New Hampshire Radio she “moderated” her views on gay rights to appeal to the Christian Right. http://www.nhpr.org/audio/audio/ex-2007-10-11.wax

    We also do not need a PAC that has consistently failed to file its FEC returns and that provides its members with no explanation of what it has done with its money.

    This is a bad law, it is awful legislation passed by a dumb arse “third way” President, whose “third way” fostered the creation of Bush / Blair politics. Look where that has left us all.

    It is a lawyers job to argue their best case, no matter how awful it is. It is for Congress to chaange the law, look how pissed off people where when Bush over used Executive Privilege.

    When will this despicable legislation, which places the US on the same footing in terms of gays in the Military as China, end? Do not just shout at the President, shout at Congress and especially the 15 “third way blu dawg” Clinton Democrats that get elected on the Democratic ticket and then sign up to oppose it.

    More importantly, the President still has a good chunk of his 4 to 8 years left. Congress critters will need your votes and money for Primaries and for next year. Use power the way Republicans do.

  • The Gay Numbers

    There is no defense for this brief.

  • TheBigotBasher


    I find it concerning that a PAC that has failed to submit FEC returns is now spamming this board claiming to be pro gay rights.

    This “PUMA PAC” was never set up as a voice for gays, it has not changed its registration. An organisation whose supporters have continually called Michelle Obama, Meechelle, scoopmouth and worse is not one gay people need to be associated with, especially when it recently attacked the leading Women’s Rights activist in Iran and its Leader only a few days ago stated that we should bomb Mecca.

    Before listening to them or “donating” to their mooney like cause, ask where the money goes.

    This is awful legislation, passed by a second rate President who gave us the “Third Way”, which led to the creation of Bush Blair politics. Look where that got us. As for those saying what would Clinton have done, as soon as she was in New Hampshire, she went soft on gay rights and started happy clapping with the bible thumpers.

    It is the job of a lawyer to argue their best case. This the Whitehouse lawyer did. Disgraceful as that case may be, that is the official position of the United States until the law is changed.

    We should not just be shouting at the President about this. He has at least 3 1/2 years left. Congress critters will be needing votes and money soon for Mid Terms. The 15 “Blue Dawg” Clinton Democrats, elected on the Democratic Party platform, but who then immediately signed up against it will also need money and feet.

    Use power the way the Republicans do.

  • SFNative

    @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com:


  • TheBigotBasher

    @SFNative: To be fair marching achieves sweet FA in reality. Money rules. Especially in Congressional races.

  • Chitown Kev



  • ExpressedGestures

    I was planning on voting for an democrat who won the primaries although I was rooting for Obama the whole time. I voted for him on election day. My friends know me as a big Obama supporter.

    But just done. I’m embarrassed I supported him. I really am.

    My advice, how about not beating the people who supported him? We were tricked. Of course Hillary would have done the same but we really should have gave the libertarians or the green party or the democratic socialists our vote.

    No more defending him guys. No more.

  • Dave

    Everyone Should be SAYING FUCK BILL CLINTON and then OBAMA.

  • edgyguy1426

    @sue: but I thought she was only for a PARTIAL repeal of DOMA and against gay marriage- how can you call that a blanket statement as being ‘for’ gay rights? She falls right in with Obama as far as gay rights goes. Hillary did her fair share in pandering for votes.

  • TheBigotBasher

    @Dave: That is probably for Hillary and Michelle respectively.

    As I said before, now is the time when vote lobbying is just as important to Congress Critters as money lobbying. We remain the demographic with teh largest levels of disposable income (which means donation $$$s) or not. Use that power to put pressure on Congress, which is where law is supposed to come from anyway.

    As for “fucking” Obama, in that particular fantasy, I would prefer to be bottom. ;-)

  • SM

    Obama does not have a choice….until Congress changes the LAW OF THE LAND.

    You people crack me up at the fact you think Obama can so easily make laws on his own.

    Obama never supported same sex marriage during the campaign. He was at Rick Warrens Church two months before the election stating his views…where were the thousands of gays fighting for equality then? SURE NOT THERE WHERE IT COUNTED!

  • DuttyBarb

    @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com et al,

    Im just coming from the Americablog website( I’m glad someone posted that stuff).

    That has to be the most honest, right back at ya and downright reasonable piece of legalese i have read in a long time. Guys they have a frigging point or should i say points.

    1.Gays are not denied any right that was theirs before they got married
    2.DOMA protects the rights that are accorded to normal marriages. Any variance from straight marriage is not theirs to protect or ensure that these rights are enjoyed. So if you want it please marry correctly.
    3.There is no and i repeat no similarity between Loving Vs Virginia and Gay marriage. I am so glad the federal courts have finally sorted this “convenient case study” out. I thot this was a load of crap when i first heard it. I mean really..Loving was a man and a woman case that was an issue because of race..duh. How desperate can u guys be to use this? Well in your face!!!
    4.The federal court is not a marriage registry and is not under any obligation to pass any moral judgment on the basis for two people to get married. I have been saying this forever and i am glad to be right
    5.Why the hell should any state recognize a marriage they consider to be an abomination. No really? Why? States have a right to recognize or in your case not recognize unnatural unions within its laws…IN.YOUR.FACE.

    So gays et al and by et al.. i mean incest, bestiality and pedophiles..IN.YOUR.FACE.

    I am soooo eager to see how ur irrelevant march in Washington would trump this victory for morality. Maybe now u will compare your battle to South Africa apartheid era..hmm..i am biting my nails waiting for another ridiculous retaliation

  • Jim

    @DuttyBarb: You stupid cunt. Aparthied ENDED because people protested. Just like the bigotry you are so proud of will end and the people like you who supported it will be histories laughing stock just like the bigots who supported segregation are.

    Enjoy it while you can bitch – our time is coming.

  • DuttyBarb


    I am still legally able to get married Jimmy anywhere and get all the rights i deserve. I can work down the streets of any state in the world and kiss me boyf and hold his hand without being concerned for my personal safety. I can adopt a child from any org religious or otherwise.

    Hmm smells like freedom and acceptance Jimmy. Something u dont and will never have..see im not considered a freak or an abomination like u. I dont have to sweat too much just to get the Federal Govt to recognize me.


  • Jim

    @DuttyBarb: Go back to your third husband with 3 kids each with a differnt father and enjoy your bigotry while you can. You breeders have so tainted the word “marriage” I am suprised upstanding moral people like us even want anything to do with it.

    Progress is coming and will show you for what you are. A sub-human waste of skin and the reason that abortion was invented. I pity any child you would adopt or have.

  • TheBigotBasher

    Duttybarb – go dance round a burning cross you stupid red neck freak. Your trolling makes you an inadequate little attention whore. What is the matter, your boyfriend not around to give you any?

    Anyway, DuttyBarb, you have rights because people fought fr them. They campaigned, donated and organised. For example the Suffragette movement secured the right of women to vote, even for bigots like you.

    Only the ignorant would say anything to a gay couple holding hands walking down the street, and very few of those would say it to me.

    So if you want an abomination, go stuff some shell fish up your fanny.

  • DuttyBarb


    Bitter much…not married at all. But i can be.

    Pray my dear and ask God to turn u right. Just because u prefer boys doesnt mean He cant save u.

  • DuttyBarb


    Yeah sure..im so bleeding out right now. Trolling really?


  • edgyguy1426

    @DuttyBarb: and yet here you are on the gay site day after day, always threatening to leave but never makin good on that promise. And if you’re workin down the streets? Then you’re lucky to be workin’ the oldest profession. S’ok Jim, she knows she’s gonna be on the losing side of history, doomed to take her place with Nazi’s, the Klan, White Supremecists, etc. and when her lord sticks his finger in her face and says: “What part of ‘Judge not….’ didn’t you understand?” then she 9might) get it.

    I know I shouldn’t ever respond to her, but it just so damned much fun.

  • Jim

    @DuttyBarb: Bitch I am already saved — saved from pus filled whores like you with your nasty disease producing gash.

    If there was a God he would most likely find you as disgusting as we do.

    Go fuck off and die.

  • galefan2004


    Don’t tease the spoiled stupid whore homo-hating forum trolling bigot. It just makes them keep talking. As far as walking down the street, the guys I’m into normally look like if you messed with them you might not live to tell about it, so I am just fine walking down the streets holding hands. Actually, the people that would say something to us might just want to worry, because chances are the dude I’m with has a gun and isn’t afraid to use it. Also, I’m not bitter about not being married. I am just fine with it. Although, I support all basic human rights. Oh, and btw, if your god does exist, one of his things was not judging others less you be judged. Its amazing how you religious freaks forget that part of the bible though.

  • InExile


  • gayalltheway

    @DuttyBarb: Well I can go to Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire or Maine to get married to a guy, cuz I’m gay and then go to another state like Florida or Wisconsin and get married to a woman just because the laws permit me to do it. Now I can married twice and to two different people and the government can’t do anything about it since some states don’t recognize my same-sex marriage from another state. Thus, I am married in some states and single in others. Notice the flaw and inconsistency in the current laws at the moment. Honestly, I wouldn’t expect you to understand cuz from what you’ve said in previous comments, you don’t sound like a very intelligent person and are one-sided with your bigoted views on life. There’s only one thing I certainly hope for to happen to people like you, and it’s not something bad and malevolent, is that someday if you do have children, one of them will be gay/lesbian/trans and see how you feel then. The remorse over the things you did that would eventually affect your own children will just eat you alive. I do wish for that.

    ps – please stop using words like “normal” and “unnatural” and “abomination” if you don’t fully understand what the meanings are. You do know that Queerty is for homosexuals right? Now go back to whichever cave, or underground sewer you’re from and watch your favorite FOX NEWS to get your daily dose of bigotry!

  • TANK

    And yet obama’s giving ammo to trash like dutty. Never again. What a mistake…a terrible mistake.

  • Jim

    @TANK: yeah. I am pissed but not suprised.

  • galefan2004

    @gayalltheway: I don’t wish that on her because I feel sorry for the kid and Miss Bigot Bitch would probably disown the poor kid and kick him out of the house at 14 when he started to explore his sexuality and she learned that her deprogramming camp of choice is just about as effective at curing homosexuality as she is at proving a point.

  • Republican

    Dutty, go join some third party and leave us conservatives alone. You’re a hateful, vile creep.

  • Jim

    @galefan2004: They think the bible is like a cafeteria. Get what you want – ignore the rest. Now let them enjoy their shell fish while wearing ugly polyester pantsuits and let them work up what excuses they will give their “god” when he puts them on the spot.

  • edgyguy1426

    It’s ok, the last time I looked, Dutty still thought we had 52 states. Too much ganja and reggae warps the mind.

  • TheBigotBasher

    Slutty Barbie,

    Why don’t you and the rest of the Christian Right go and hide in some cave to prepare for the rapture. We can provide you food if you want, as long as you promise not to return until it is over. Then we can go live our depraved lives in peace.

    In the mean time the only Jesus I know of, pronounced it Hesus, he gave very good head, was very well developed and certainly nailed me. I still feel him after a week, is that stigmata?

  • InExile

    @Jim: I am not surprised at all! In fact this is what I expected from him, just not so soon!

  • DuttyBarb

    Really Guys,

    I love coming here. Its like weed u know. Its just so irresistible.

    DOJ has made me so happy…so happy.

  • edgyguy1426

    warp the mind, too. *stubs out roach*

  • edgyguy1426

    she should click the muslim.com box at the bottom and see how real religion works for women’s rights

  • Jim

    @DuttyBarb: Then please join the military. IRAQ is calling for you. Lots of str8 dick for you too so even your greasy gash would be happy. Oh by the way – while you are there look for roadside bombs – they make great souvineers.

  • Synnerman

    So much drama, so little political thinking. It’s called sabotaging your case so that by the time DOMA reaches the supreme court, the weight of precedent stands against it.

    Seriously, all this pearl clutching is tiresome. And all this hope for a genie in a lamp is stupid.

  • edgyguy1426

    I can’t wait to see what Rachel, Anderson, do with this over the weekend.

  • DuttyBarb

    Oh yeah..

    I m not republican though..no way. Ewwwwwwww. If God gives me a gay child.. i will love him as God loves the sinner and not the sin. I will pray that he makes him see the light and lose his sinful urges.

    That’s what ur mothers should have done for u people. But they let u wallow in sin and here u are. But i will not judge u as it is not my place..that God’s job.

  • edgyguy1426

    so you’re sayin God makes gay children and it’s not a choice?

  • Tom

    All you suckers voted for him. You pretty much are getting what you deserve

  • Bill Perdue

    @TheBigotBasher: @Chitown Kev:

    @SFNative: To be fair marching achieves sweet FA in reality. Money rules. Especially in Congressional races.

    Chitown Kev


    What’s your point. Congressional elecitons simply increase the number of biogots from both right centrist bigoted parties. A persistent campaign of mass marches with a clear cut militant program compels those same bigots bigots to act on our agenda.

    1) Passage of an omnibus anti-discrimination bill that would make it easy to win awards from bigots who discriminate in housing, education, employment and access to social services and medical care.

    (2) Passage of a law mandating harsh prison terms for bigots who discriminate or who call for or endorse violence.

    3) Demanding that the White House order the dismissal and courts marshal of any military officers guilty of bigotry.

    4) Demanding that the White House and State Department open US Embassies and Consulates to GLBT folks fleeing death, torture or imprisonment at the hands of homobigoted governments like the US puppet governments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Central America.

    5) A Manhattan Project to fund research, treatment and social services for those affected by HIV/AIDS and other killer diseases.

    6) An end to bailouts and welfare for the looter rich until every American has a good job, good housing, good nutrition, good medical care and good education

  • Steve

    Does this mean I should put down my crayons and stop working on my:

    Obama 2012

    Poster? Yes We Can.

  • PrettyBoy

    Obama, “We can’t keep sending the same people back to Washington and expect different results”

    Obama is a fraud! He could puck up a pen today and strike down DADT. How difficult is that for a man who ran offering change but has proven himself to be more of the same.

  • SM

    This is not something Obama did….get your facts straight…you all hurt your own cause over and over by lashing out at the most civil rights President you all have had in years!

    This is something the Justice Department did…a Justice Department appointed by the Bush Administration.


  • Jim

    @SM: Eric Hoilder – the guy defending this – is appointed by Obama. They have choices on how much to fight or not at all. They have chosen to side against us. Position noted and will be remembered by my money and my vote.

    Obama’s slogan in 2012 Yes We Can – We are just too bigoted to do what we promise.

  • edgyguy1426

    How can you say the most civil rights President…you meant to say the most civil rights MINDED President..it’s just still in his own mind.

  • MikeY

    Just love the lame posts about Obama doing this in his second term. Standing up and doing what is right doesn’t take time, it takes balls.

    For me, Obama is a fraud. I have not seen him keep any campaign promises. Lies and more lies.

    Who cares about Clinton. Obama ran as the anti-Clinton and with his continued wars and ignoring our rights, he is Jimmy Carter with Bush’s policies. Who needs that shit?

  • TheBigotBasher

    @Bill Perdue: Marches do not compel anyone to do anything. Look how well the Iraq War marches went.

    Use of political power compels Politicians to do what you want. That means turning out to boring Primaries to select your local Candidate. That means donating or not when an issue is wrong and letting them know. Greater bang for your buck can be had at Senate and House level, even below. Look how short of funds City Councillor elections are.

    Gays are demographic with the largest level of disposable income. Use that power.

  • hephaestion

    This story is not on the evening news.

    Is there ever going to be a day when a gay news story will ever make the evening news that doesn’t involve a busty blonde bombo or a rightwing minister?

  • SM


    I’m not even gay…I’m straight…I have fought harder for equality for your community in areas where it MATTERED than gay people have.

    I campaigned for No On Prop 8 in Orange County in areas where it MATTERED…they gay community stayed up in West Hollywood and the Castro while me a a few others were dodging flying bottles.

    I knew Prop 8 would pass before the vote….and it had nothing to do with Obama.

    By the way…I changed MANY minds in my community because I DID THE WORK and helped people understand equality and step out of their comfort zone towrads an issue many have never been exposed too.

    Good luck with your tactics~

  • Jim

    @SM: We apprecaiate your help. I have protested as well and was at the Moron – sorry – Mormon protests. I didn’t vote for Obama – I couldn’t because I didn’t trust him – with apparent good reason.

    Now I am withholding donations and votes to all candidates who don’t pubically and loudly proclaim they support my rights.

  • stevenelliot

    I will NEVER vote or give money to that man again.

  • SM


    Like I said good luck with your tactics…

    I myself looked at who filed the DOMA brief….it was a BUSH leftover and a MORMON. DUH~

    I’m not a one issue voter and I think the campaigns running your equalitly issues and how easily you all lash are just as much to blame. Even the students at Notre Dame welcomed Obama with cheers and supported him when they have HUGE disagreements on certain issues.

    You can still support your President while pushing forward with your issues….someone else did it he was called Martin Luther King.

  • Bill Perdue

    @TheBigotBasher: Marches do not compel anyone to do anything. Look how well the Iraq War marches went. It took 12 longs years to end the Vietnam war but Nixon and the US military command scurried back the San Diego in utter humiliating defeat.

    Use of political power compels Politicians to do what you want. Any use of the meaningless forms of political ‘power’ in the two party system is a total waste. It ends up electing the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger, the lesser hand puppet for the rich. We don’t need any more lesser evils, thank you very much.

    Every major advance in US history from kicking George III out to building unions has been accomplished outside the two party shell game.

  • Jim

    @SM: He is no more my President then the shrub was. Obama just sounds better but so far the actions are too close to tell them apart.

    Holder (supposedly) runs the DOJ and Obama (supposedly) runs Holder. Do you really think the ex-bushie and the moron are operating in a vacuum?

    MLK also protested and led marches – he didn’t just take what he got and say “thanks masssa” and I don’t intend to either.

  • ben

    Fuck you Obama. I voted for you because I believed in you and you’ve done nothing but stab me and other gay people in the back time and time again. You are no friend to the gay community and I’m sorry I was duped by your lies.

  • InExile

    Update from Americablog.com

    Obama DOJ lies to Politico in defending hate brief against gays
    by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/12/2009 01:26:00 PM
    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?

    Link to full article:

  • Jim

    Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team’s Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:

    “You don’t hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it’s ‘Yes.’ ”


    So, this must be that “Yes”, no?

  • Steie

    gay marriage = incest

    Yes We Can
    Go Obama
    Obama ’08

  • Brian Miller

    Somehow, the words “I told you so” seem inadequate in this situation.

    The sycophantic defense of Obama’s latest outrages aren’t very surprising… just sad.

  • TrulyGay.com

    Please remember there is only one thing in life that is certain; if a politicians mouth is moving you can be sure that what is coming out is a lie.
    Today in politics there is only one agenda and that is the agenda of how to best keep control of the government. The politicians will say what you want to hear and then they will do what they want, once elected, to keep the large contributers happy and to hell with the voters till next election time.
    Truly Gay

  • TheBigotBasher

    Are you saying a President should not uphold a law passed by Congress and signed off by his predecessor?

  • Brian Miller


    Not if, like DOMA, it’s an unconstitutional law.

    The prior four administrations have all sided with plaintiffs who challenge unconstitutional laws. The President is not under an obligation to defend an unconstitutional law — in fact, he’s under an obligation by oath to oppose them (i.e. “protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.”)

  • TheBigotBasher

    One of those obligations within the Constitution is protecting the right of States. DOMA does and for all those running round saying Cheney is more progressive all he was saying is hw agrees with DOMA, it is a State issue.

    I personally do not believe it. And as I said earlier, it is the duty of a lawyer to put forward their best case. For those getting inflamed by he compares gay marriage to pedos and incest, he does not. The brief recognises that States have different rules about who can marry (ie how closely related) and at what age. The case in question quoted was that of a 16 year old girl, hardly paedophilia.

    This law must be repealed. Unlied 1996 – 2008 there is a President who will not veto a bill that comes out of the Senate. While I agree that there is a possibility that he could (and therefore I believe he should) use USC 10, to suspend operation of DADT, he holds no power to simply overturn legislation directed towards protecting State “rights” and I would not wish him to do so.

    This is a matter for Congress. They have mid terms coming next year and Primaries even sooner. Get them to work for your money, support and vote.

  • Brian Miller

    States don’t have a “right” to violate the 14th amendment rights of citizens. That was clearly established in a number of different cases including Loving vs. Virginia and Lawrence vs. Texas.

    Further, DOMA violates the rights of states that do recognize equal marriage by refusing to treat their state certifications as valid and creating a federal standard for “marriage” that is imposed upon those states.

  • Brian Miller

    One of the DOMA challenges in question challenges “section 3” of DOMA, which forbids the federal government from recognizing licensed marriages in states like Massachusetts and Vermont based solely upon the gender of their participants.

    Attempting to play the “states’ rights” card doesn’t support DOMA, since DOMA itself is a law that attempts to impose a federal standard on the certifications and activities of state governments.

  • TheBigotBasher

    Brian, t is a bad law. However target the right people. WTF are 59 Senators doing about it? To be fair to the House there is a draft bill for repeal there, so Senators what are you doing?

  • Brian Miller

    @TheBigotBasher: You’re right. Clearly the Senate forced President Obama to compare LGBT married people to child rapists and incestuous people.

  • Brian Miller


    Yeah, you’re right.

    I mean, the Constitution isn’t law. Only statute is.

  • SM

    @Brian Miller:

    its not my fault gays are lazy…Ive fought more for their equality than most gay people…stupid idiot I was…I can always spend my straight dollars somewhere else.

    I swear the gay community does more harm to their equality issues than anyone else.

    Go after PELOSI and REID…

  • TheBigotBasher

    @SM: America blog is being disingenuous. The deposition confirms the rights of States to decide how closely one can marry and the age of consent of that marriage. Cousins marrying cousins is not in reality incest, nor does it say it is, someone marrying a 16 year old is not paedophilia and the deposition does not state that either.

    People like to use headlines to push an agenda. One I agree with, but it was still disingenuous.

  • TheBigotBasher

    Sorry that was to Brian Miller

  • Brian Miller


    its not my fault gays are lazy…Ive fought more for their equality than most gay people…stupid idiot I was…I can always spend my straight dollars somewhere else.

    Well, you’ve made the decision to put your party ahead of the constitutional rights of individuals. Republicans made the same decision you did when they supported the Patriot Act and the Guantanamo prison camp… as a non-major-party voter, I find both of you to be identical, putting your own power above the rights of others.


    Cousins marrying cousins is not in reality incest, nor does it say it is, someone marrying a 16 year old is not paedophilia and the deposition does not state that either.

    It actually does say both things, and it also argues that LGBT Americans have no 14th Amendment rights.

    Just to be clear, my earlier post in this thread summed up my position perfectly:

    The sycophantic defense of Obama’s latest outrages aren’t very surprising… just sad.

    If you and your cohorts would like to return to a discussion that doesn’t involve sycophantic defenses of Obama, seeking to blame the Senate, gay Americans, or Bill O’Reilly for Obama’s decision to place this homophobic writ down as official Administration policy, please do so.

    If, on the other hand, you’re going to persist in said sycophancy, please save yourself (and the rest of us) the electrons — we’ve read all that crap before.

  • TANK

    @Brian Miller:

    Nicely stated.

  • Chef Mojo

    As much as I despise this, or any, defense of DOMA, I’m chortling at the reaction of the LGBT community to all of this. The full throated howls of outrage on this come across as empty.

    Ironically, this may turn out to be one of the few instances when Obama actually told the truth. Perhaps he really does mean it when he says that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. And Obama, with the stroke of a pen, could do away with DADT anytime he wishes. Just like Truman integrated the armed forces by executive order over the screams of protest from the JCS. Paper. Signature. DONE. That’s all Obama needs to do. It wouldn’t take more than 5 minutes away from his monumental tasks.

    In the words of John Lydon: “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”

    And once again, LGBT is left hoeing the fields with the rest of the minorities on the Democrat Plantation, all the while muttering, “Next time… Next time, they’ll do the right thing. If we just keep totin’ that barge and liftin’ that bale, they’ll take care of us.”

    Damn fools.

    I’m a straight. I’m conservative/libertarian. I support, wholeheartedly and without caveat, full equal rights for every citizen of the United States. That means that I support, once again, wholeheartedly and without caveat, gay marriage.

    And it continues to amaze and baffle me why the LGBT community keeps voting for the same liars and hucksters time and time again, only to be fooled again.

    Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

  • Jim

    @Chef Mojo: Democrats suck at nominating. If Libertarian wasn’t quite so into anarchy it would be an attractive alternative to me.

  • TheBigotBasher

    Brian, I guess from your comment that you have not read the paper.

    The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

    This is not some “sycophantic defense of Obama’s latest outrage”.

    On DADT, he can in 5 minutes effectively rule it inoperative, I agree. On DOMA he can not.

  • Daniel

    The real question is what group on Earth would maintain the rule of law under constitutions that not only exclude them but also violate their basic human rights.

    If Obama and Congress are not going to uphold the spirit of the constitution – freedom of religion and equal protection under law – two fundamental things currently denied to tens of millions of gay Americans and their families, then why should anyone do so.

  • Sceth

    @Daniel: We should encourage revolt.

  • JasonT

    This case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment, however, on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married. Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to
    certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be

    Obama ’08
    Yes We Can

  • MarkOZ

    In explaining why Congress chose to limit federal marital benefits to opposite-sex couples, the
    Committee acknowledged that “[t]here are relations of deep, abiding love” between persons of all
    kinds, “brothers and sisters, parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren,” that “cannot be
    diminished as loves [just] because they are not . . . expressed in marriage.”

    Incest = Gay Marriage

  • Nietzsche

    “What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you.” Nietzsche.

  • Rob

    @DuttyBarb: “I can work down the streets of any state in the world … without being concerned for my personal safety.”

    Not anymore.

  • DuttyBarb


    What will happen? You and the Gay mafia will attack me with your poodles and eyeliner???

    Gimme a break

  • Robert, NYC


    You’re an idiot. Incest is as old as the world not a recent phenomenon with the advent of same sex marriage in seven countries. Thus far, there has not been ONE reported case of incest among gay married couples, can you produce any evidence?

    Per capita, there are more incestuous crimes and even marriages between straights than there are among gays Check out the incest statistics pal, it occurs far more among non-married straight brothers and sisters and in many instance with the parents.

    A brilliant example of an incestuous marriage is former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani who married his first blood cousin, cheated on her, divorced her, married again, had two children, cheated on her and married again.

    If you recall, there was a recent Austrian case in which a father continuously raped and fathered a child with his own daughter whom he kept locked up in his basement for 20 years plus, sexually abusing her throughout…just another example of this overwhelmingly straight phenomenon. Adress that, moron and get your own house in order before you start spreading lies and other forms of hate against us.

  • Robert, NYC

    @Brian Miller:

    Incest is defined thus:

    FYI: The law defines incest as being committed by a person who has sexual intercourse with another who is related in any of the following ways:

    •where the offender and the victim are directly descended from the other (that is father/daughter)

    •where the perpetrator is the adoptive parent, adoptive grand parent, and the victim is the adopted child or adopted grand child of the other

    •the female, who is the victim, is the sister of the male by full or half blood or by adoption

    •the female is a descendant from either of them

    •where the male is the brother of the female either by full or half blood or by adoption

    •where the male is the son of the victim’s brother or sister (that is the nephew) by full or half blood or by adoption or is a descendant from either of them

    •where the male is the son of her husband by another mother (that is a step son)

    •where the male is, or is her deceased daughter’s or grand daughter’s or mother’s or grand mother’s husband.

    Even when the marriage or adoption is not legal due to a legal problem, still it is an offense if the relationships exist.

    The laws regulating incest in different states:

    Incest in this country is regulated through two parallel sets of laws: marriage regulations and criminal prohibitions. Marriage laws prohibit unions of parties within certain relationships of consanguinity (by blood) or affinity (by marriage). They declare such marriages void from the start.

    Criminal laws prohibit marriage and sexual relationships based on the same ties (with the necessary consanguinity and affinity usually defined the same way as in the marriage laws). They penalize those who disobey with fines or imprisonment.

    Every state today has a statute defining eligibility for marriage, and each and every one prohibits marriages between parents and children, sisters and brothers, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews. Some prohibit all ancestor/descendant marriages, regardless of degree. Four states extend the prohibition to marriages between parents and their adopted children.

    Twenty-four states prohibit marriages between first cousins, and another seven permit them only under special circumstances. Utah, for example, permits first cousins to marry only provided both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility. North Carolina permits first cousins to marry unless they are “double first cousins” (cousins through more than one line). Maine permits first cousins to marry only upon presentation of a certificate of genetic counseling. The remaining nineteen states and the District of Columbia permit first-cousin marriages without restriction.

    The origins of incest laws

    Incest laws in this country have largely religious origins. In England, incest was punishable only in ecclesiastical courts, which ostensibly applied the law of Leviticus prohibiting persons more closely related than fourth cousins to marry. This ban applied equally to relations by blood and by marriage, based on the canonical maxim that husband and wife were one, and therefore equally related to each other’s kin.

    American jurisdictions departed from English law by declaring incest a crime, as well as a basis for invalidating marriage. However, many states only punished relationships between first cousins and closer, and others only punished relationships of consanguinity, but not affinity.

    The modern justifications for incest laws:

    Today, the justifications given for retaining statutory prohibitions on cousin marriage (and even debating the passage of new ones) are largely based on the fear that such unions will cause genetic problems for the children they produce.

    The states that permit cousin marriage only under certain circumstances make this underlying justification clear – since a common thread runs through all their laws. Each requires a showing that the couple will not reproduce (because of age or sterility) or, at the very least, that they have undergone counseling to understand the risks of reproduction.

    There are other justifications for incest laws that might be more compelling. Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss both wrote convincingly in defense of the “incest taboo.” Mead characterized the widely held belief that incest is wrong as “among the essential mechanisms of human society.”

  • glennmcgahee

    Oh Scott, #15. How old were you when Clinton declared Gay people could serve openly in the military. It was his very 1st action as President and it was a statement of his support for us. A promise fulfilled. DADT was the result of pushback from right wingers and the military that brought about a majority for the Republicans in Congress that fought Clinton for the next 8 years. Clintn stood by his convictions and got the best he could for us under the circumstances. The public has come a long way since then. Stop reading progressive sites that spew the right wing talking points to defeat Hillary and learn a little history. Obama only cares about the next election as he always has done. I think those on the DL can relate to his thinking.

  • schlukitz


    Nuttybarb obviously does not have a TV set in the dark, dank cave that she lives in a yet undiscovered part of the world

  • Brent Cox

    “Clintn stood by his convictions and got the best he could for us under the circumstances.”

    Signing DADT was a much worse betrayal than if Clinton had vetoed it. *That* would have been integrity. We won nothing with DADT and we lost plenty. Discharges increased after DADT was signed, and it codified the position that it’s okay to be gay if you just shut up and stay in the closet.



  • Rain

    He used us for political gain.

    Now let’s get over this man like a bad one-night stand.

  • schlukitz


    It’s hard to get over this man when he has given us a dose of crabs and a case of the clap. ;P

    We’re still waiting for the syphilis and HIV tests to come back from the lab.

  • TheBigotBasher

    OK – for a start AmericaBlog now recognises that this is a throwback deposition form a Bush lawyer.

    The DOJ once appointed has nothing to do with the President.

    Repealing DADT and DOMA has very little to do with the President -although I do accept he can suspend DADT. Where is Congress on this? They have Primaries soon for the Mid Terms. Why are people not fighting them?

    Once a bill is presented to President Obama that calls for the repeal of DADT and DOMA, then I will get reactionary if he vetoes it. Until then, no bill, how can he be blamed?

  • mike

    MARCH !

  • TheBigotBasher

    @mike: No – Go to the boring non Presidential Primaries, where only old granny and a couple of farts turn up and get the candidate who supports gay rights the nomination. It is not difficult. Screw marches (in a not nice way).

  • Prof. Donald Gaudard

    The complaint in this case is so poorly written that it is going to be thrown out of court anyway. The DOJ only had to attack the pleadings; they didn’t have to defend DOMA in order to get it thrown out.

    The DOJ has a number of holdovers from the Bush administration and the attorney who wrote this brief is one of the Bush holdovers. Moreover, he’s also a fucking MORMON. What in fuck is the DOJ doing having a MORMON writing a brief dealing with gay marriage.

    How stupid are the DOJ attorneys? Or did they think we would never find out??!!!

    Professor of Law Emeritus Donald Gaudard

  • TheBigotBasher

    Hey it is the quality of lawyer that justified torture.

  • ObamaNerd

    BO and his little buddy Eric are typical heterosexual homophobic black men. Obama is a prime example of what happens when you let white trash women like his mother reproduce.

  • Brian Miller

    @Chef Mojo: And it continues to amaze and baffle me why the LGBT community keeps voting for the same liars and hucksters time and time again, only to be fooled again.

    I’m a Libertarian too, and before you get too “amazed and baffled” over the stupid voting records of queer Americans, I’d urge you not to get too cocky. The Libertarian Party nominated the author of the DOMA as its presidential candidate (despite many Libertarians’ efforts to stop that), and the Republican “libertarian god” Ron Paul has a long history of supporting homophobic bigotry, including proposing a law that would overturn the Supreme Court ruling that nullified “sodomy laws.”

    Neither was a particularly compelling candidate for the LGBT community either.

    If you want to create alternatives and gather support from a disillusioned LGBT community, you have to start by offering candidates of your own who aren’t raving bigots like Barr and Paul.

    Do that, and then you have a bit more of a platform to express befuddlement at why voters would choose a slick-talking politician over the author of DOMA or the author of the “Marriage Protection Amendment.”

  • Brian Miller


    LOL! The spin continues.

    Do you honestly believe the Administration would be incompetent enough to allow a “Bush era policy to slip through” on this issue?

    Give me a friggin’ break. You sycophants are hilarious.

    What next, will the “Bush-era appointees” be able to overturn “Roe v Wade” or “Brown vs. Board of Education” because of an “Obama administration oversight?”

    Turkeys! Keep gobble-gobbling to cover for your homophobic master.

  • TheBigotBasher

    I am hardly being a sycophant on this, I have called DOMA and DADT bad law. I’m just pointing out that the role of Congress in getting rid of this. Now if President Obama vetoes any bill to repeal DOMA and or DADT, then yes there is reason to be angry with him.

    Also – just to add the President does not run the DofJ.

  • Robert, NYC


    The problem with Congressional action on this is that if anything happens before 2012 which I doubt, the republicans will filibuster if Arlen Spector votes with his former party of not and hate and Al Franken isn’t seated. Same predictable crap we put up with every four years.

  • Robert, NYC

    @Brian Miller:

    The only party worth supporting is the Green party of which I’m a member. I don’t hear the two major parties declaring support for FULL equality. At least the Greens are unabashedly supportive of that but are never taken seriously. That will remain unchanged sadly, unless the LGBT voting bloc grows a pair and stops supporting political careerists in both parties who take our votes and our money for granted then give us the shaft once they’re elected, the democrats in particular. THAT has to stop and the time is NOW! Of course, its an oxymoron to believe that the GOP will author any piece of legislation favoring our rights. I can’t name one, can you?

  • Brian Miller

    @Robert, NYC:

    None of the parties (including the Greens and Libertarians) are perfect on LGBT rights. The major third parties are certainly better than the Democrats, but that’s a low bar… and the third party guys have also sold LGBT Americans out for power (see Ralph Nader’s “gonadal politics” comments and the LP’s Bob Barr candidacy).

    The best course of action is for LGBT people to declare our independence and affiliate strategically with those who make us the best offer. If it’s the Dems or Reps or Greens or Libs or whoever else, so be it.

    The key is not to get entangled inextricably with any of them. The present situation underscores the dangers of that approach!

Comments are closed.