Human Rights Campaign Knocks Obama For Defending DOMA

AMERICAblog:

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay civil rights lobby, just sent a letter to President Obama in response to the homophobic brief Obama's DOJ filed last Thursday night. It's a good letter, but more important than its content is its existence. In politics, sending a letter chastising a friend is a far more significant act than what the letter actually says. It's just not done unless something very big and very bad happens. Usually things happen quietly, behind closed doors (especially with friends). When they go public like this, it means serious trouble is brewing. (I'd also add that HRC is known as the "nice" gay group. They don't get angry at Democrats, and they don't send letters chastising Democratic presidents. When they do, it means something.)

Read the whole story: AMERICAblog

Comments

[superstition]

John Aravosis:

"I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles).

He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).

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



http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

[carsntrucks]

Meanwhile, the rest of the country firmly stands with Obama on this. He's upholding his oath to this country and defending the interests of most Americans. Good job, President Obama.

[BringmeReason]

If only that was the case back when slavery and segregation was still legal. If past Presidents thought that they would rather uphold the interest of the majority instead of fighting racism and sexism, just imaging how interesting our country would have been.

No, the interest of the majority doesn't matter when it comes to Civil rights issues. People seem to think that the GLBTQ community is simply crying about some special privilege which couldn't be farther from the truth. The point is that we deserve ever bit the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy, they aren't special simply because they are the majority. Fighting for Gay Marriage means that finally people will have to acknowledge our existence as more than just sexual creatures which I believe is what this country wants to label us forever as. Marriage is more than just a bond and mutual union however, it also has a more significant meaning such as hospital right, burial rights and associations with certain tax privileges as well. We deserve all the same benefits because the country has not deemed us illegal; if being a homosexual isn't illegal, then what is stopping our constituents from giving us all the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy?

[JackNasty]

There you go again. Lots of people are disgusted by the Obama Administration filing a brief that compares gay relationships to incest and pedophilia. You claim their concern is based on lies and that they are hysterical. Here are the facts:

The Obama brief claims that DOMA "infringes on no one's rights."

DOMA explicitly denies same sex couple the same rights that hetero sexual couples have.

The Obama brief equates same sex marriages to incest and pedophilia:

"...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[at] 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”)."

Americans should be outraged at Obama's betrayal. Denying it is just more of the same,

[JackNasty]

This was supposed to be a reply to another comment. Sorry about any confusion.

[JackNasty]

HuffPo's software /censors still won't allow me to post the above comment as a reply to someone else's.

[elmundo6]

Obama has his hands full. But I still believe he wants to pass hate crime legislation and ENDA. It will take time. Most likely, he wants to wait until after the mid-terms when the Repubs can't use the gay issue against Dems.

And for those of you who think that Repubs are now all for gay rights, I think Dean set Maddow straight. Repubs have used gay marriage (and all other gay issues) to divide the country and win elections for years. I think it would be foolish to think the Repubs and the arch-conservative judiciary that Bush left in place will start siding with gay rights issues.

I shudder to think of the result of the recent lawsuit out of Ca if it goes before the current Supreme Court. The fight must continue but it also must be tempered with common sense.

[LynnW49]

"Obama has his hands full. But I still believe he wants to pass hate crime legislation and ENDA. It will take time. Most likely, he wants to wait until after the mid-terms when the Repubs can't use the gay issue against Dems."

If he waits for political expediency to suggest that unconstitutional legislation should be overturned, or for affordable health insurance for that matter, then we are in a sorry place. And he is a weak leader, one whose values put political campaigning ahead of doing the right thing. It would not take much time or political capital for him to chastise the DOJ for the reprehensible brief, to offer a few teachable moments on civil rights, or to do just one little public thing to give the tiniest bit of merit to his "fierce advocate" claim.

And, as a NYTimes op-ed put it today: ""But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights."

[Whinger]

Gay's are entitled to equality under the law, anything less is unacceptable!

However, their cause does not have priority over more urgent pending issues!

Walk a mile in the Presidents shoes and have patience, all is not what it seems!

[jmpurser]

We actually elected a black president and it turns out he's for separate but equal AND justice delayed.

Gays should not wait quietly and obediently in the closet for Obama to get ready to recognize their civil rights. What an abhorrently un-American thing to say.

[LynnW49]

Exactly right.

[Paulied]

OK, to those who don't understand where all the anger is coming from, here's why:

http://www.365gay.com/news/fresno-hospital-bars-lesbian-from-visiting-partner/

[DrDemon]

P A T H E T I C !

[DrDemon]

I, as well as so many others, have put in countless hours during the campaign days supporting, defending and working for Obama... I thought I could believe and trust what he has promised and I also thought that he was "a different kind of politician."

Now, I am totally convinced that he is a typical, full of $-hit, politician... no different from the rest of those dingleberries!

[jmpurser]

Sad to say but that is the direction he took shortly after the oath of office.

[Manx]

I'm beginning to think that Eric Holder is incompetent.

So far, what I've seen from Obama: The audacity of hype.

[TJCole]

Imagine the DOJ using hate speech and speech that is meant to demean and incite others against an entire group thats worse than this terrible law....and in a brief in Federal Court it's clear our Constitution is in abeyance and nothing more than a porp for this president and his attorney general...

We're a quasi Constitutional nation at best...if that even...

[M1]

Yes, it is a horrible stain on this Administration.

[mrh3]

The first thing Obama needs to do is apologize. In fact we should demand it. P.S. I'm just an old strait guy who is tired of bigotry.

[PlaceboStudman]

After the Howard Dean interview with Rachel Maddow tonight, he may not have much of a choice. If he has any respect for Dean's opinion and position as former head of the DNC, then Obama may be forced to bend to the pressure.

[Tanyars5]

Apologize? Why doesn't the gay community apologize to President Barack Obama and all AA about the treatment received from the gay community after prop 8? Remember the bogus poll that gay people were all upset about. There are alot of apologies that need to be done if you want an apology from Obama. Don't start that bullcrap.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

If Obama respected and valued Dean, Dean would be in the cabinet. He is not.

Did you notice all the information missing? Rachel Maddow continues her biased reporting. Shame!

[Tanyars5]

Watched Howard Dean on RM show. I guess he set her straight when she was trying to say that repubs were coming out for gay people. He told her wait a minute. The repubs used gay marriage to win elections for 30 years. He also stated that to much was going on right now like health care to put gay rights at the top of the list. He also stated that the Pres was probably not aware of the report.

[PlaceboStudman]

Yes, he did say those things.

He also said that it was inexcuseable for anyone to use the kind of language that the brief did, and that President Obama needs to get together with his advisers and re-order their priorities, and perhaps even make a statement addressing the horrible way the issue was mishandled

[SD Indy]

Just don't hold your breath too long. We don't want to lose you PlaceboStudman! :)

[joemondo]

And Rachel didn't say GLBT issues should be top of the list. In fact, no one has said that, except for use in strawman arguments by apologists and liars.

Dr Dean also said that what the Obama team said was unacceptable and wrong, and that Obama will have to do something to make up for it.

[Tanyars5]

No, he doesn't have to do anything.

[PlaceboStudman]

I interpreted it more as "he should" more than "he has to" but I'll have to watch the interview again at the 11PM hour

[M1]

Just like the Air force one fly over in New York. Obama did not know about it. May not have even wanted it. Yet, when it happened there was an investigation and the responsible party was fired.

[wolverine442]

We'd really like to know what 'list' we are on right about now? things to do? things to not do? people to help? people to betray? people to ask for money? people not to ask for money? Which one is it? I need to know before i pick up a finger to help any more. Maybe those of us in the GBLT community might have other things to do with our "TIME" when they come knocking on the door again for help with this that and the other thing.

[S1m0n]

You absolutely correct. Americans are entitled to demand that the president spell out where he stands, what he intends to do, and when.

[PlaceboStudman]

Well, 2 of 3 isnt bad, I suppose...we know where he stands, we know what he intends to do, we just have no clue when

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Have you read the Proclamation? It may help you figure out where this President stands.

[TiredandPragmatic]

The Proclamation is lip service. Have you read the brief?

[PJay1]

Again with that ridiculous proclamation?
It's meaningless. In fact, it's WORSE than meaningless when the actions(brief) and lack thereof are so egregious.

[PlaceboStudman]

Rachel Maddow is having Howard Dean on her show to discuss this

We all KNEW we could count on her to report this when no one else would. Sadly, she's mostly preaching to the choir

[We-Are-The-Ones]

She is also providing misinformation and lies by omission. she is starting to sound like Fox.

[M1]

I salute Rachel Maddow's courage and unbending commitment to the truth. BRAVO!

[joemondo]

The Libertarians are looking better all the time.

[PlaceboStudman]

The party, sure, but considering that the Libertarian candidate is the one who introduced DOMA in the first place, back when he identified as a Republican, they (we) need better leadership than Barr

[SD Indy]

Although this is true, Barr HAS called for the repeal of DOMA and DADT, both of them.

[Kaila]

Ok for a moment, strip away all of the rhetoric about gay marriage, I think we can all agree that religious doctrine shouldn't even come into play. What are you left with?

Two kinds of people that's what, some want to members of their sex, some want to be with members of the opposite sex.

They are ALL capable of raising children, they are all capable of HAVING children, so "family" shouldn't be a factor either.

What is the difference between them?

There are many more of one, than the other.

If we lived in a society that was 50% homosexual this wouldn't even be an issue, but certain bullies who believe they are superior to gays and believe they have some "god-given" right to tell other people what to do take advantage of a small community that they perceive as weak to impose their will over, just to fuel their own ego and smuggery.

This is the bottom line: Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are equal citizens, they pay the same taxes, they have the same responsibilities. It is NOT FAIR that their government should favor (with privileges and tax breaks) heterosexual relationships over their own.

Their is no non-religious argument that can defend withholding their rights, NOT ONE. The only way to make a case is to invoke a supernatural fairy tale.

[PlaceboStudman]

Sadly, people who hold strong religious opinions/beliefs are the people with the most money, and therefore the loudest voices in the political arena. I give the country 20-30 years before the US reaches the levels of religious enlightenment that has been seen in Europe...Notice I said "has been seen", there are areas where the religious enlightenment in Europe has not progressed and even taken a few enormous steps backward, sadly

Although they do generally laugh at the whole marriage equality issues, as does Canada

[TJCole]

That's why simply it is, "favoring one group over another" which is the definition of Discrimination...!

Thus violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act...and the 14th Amendment...