NYT: Obama Made "Bad Call On Gay Rights ... Disturbing"

NY Times:

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

Read the whole story: NY Times

Comments

[GardenerNorCal]

I think this issue much as the Iranian election is being used as a distraction. In the case of the Defense of Marriage Act it's a hot button issue. The Justice department filed the brief not the President probably based on solely litigious reasons. In the case of Iran I don't live there and I see lots of people protesting more than protested Gore's loss I don't think either are a reason to question our President or jump to violent revolution or worse.

Don't be manipulated into taking your eye off the ball. Rove and his friends are good at that and we have major issues at hand.

[superstition]

Barney Frank throws us under the bus. Lauds incest brief. Says language was appropriate.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/barney-frank-throws-us-under-bus-lauds.html

They're lying about DOMA too
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/theyre-lying-about-doma-too.html

HRC's Solmonese attends Obama's benefits signing
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/hrcs-solmonese-attends-obamas-benefits.html

"Is it just me, or is terribly inappropriate for our leaders to be giving the president cover at this time, when just today his spokesman reaffirmed that the president stands behind the homophobic DOMA brief that equated our marriages with incest and pedophilia?"

My article in Salon
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/my-article-in-salon.html

Gibbs: President stands behind incest/pedophilia brief
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/gibbs-president-stands-behind.html

Is Obama giving federal agencies a right they already have?
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/is-obama-giving-federal-agencies-right.html

[superstition]

Is Obama giving federal agencies a right they already have? http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/is-obama-giving-federal-agencies-right.html

[Tanyars5]

Why are the comments of Black people being monitored and deleted? White people are being allowed to say anything and Black people are being silenced.

[diogenes1967]

I havent been silenced at all.

[Tanyars5]

well I know for a fact some Black people have had their commets not even show up

[LintLass]

Cause I've seen you before, and you simply claim to be a Black person who somehow claims 'Gays are all racists' among other nasty things that aren't relevant?

[Tanyars5]

you are lying

[LintLass]

I seem to recall on another thread that you were calling it 'racist' to not condemn shock-jocks for advocating armed battery against children perceived to be transgendered, Tanyars.

Wild guess. Something to do with that.

[Tanyars5]

You didn't see me on that thread stop lying

[LintLass]

I got an extra 'not' in my last one: it should read:

I seem to recall on another thread that you were calling it 'racist' to condemn shock-jocks for advocating armed battery against children perceived to be transgendered, Tanyars.

Wild guess. Something to do with that.

[LintLass]

I'm guessing if you're trying to divide LBGT people against African-Americans as elsewhere, Tanyars, it's not about you claiming to be black.

[Tanyars5]

LMAO yes I go around attacking Black peope and black churches.

[superstition]

"White House admits Obama "benefits" speech simply political ploy, plan still being created after it was already announced"
http://www.americablog.com/

"A rather blockbuster NYT story in tomorrow's paper about Obama's ploy to win back the gays by offering some federal employees some benefits (but not all, including no health coverage).

The White House actually admitted to the NYT that they were offering the benefits to help contain the 'growing furor among gay rights groups.'

How about doing it because it's the right thing to do? How about doing it because you were already planning to do it to help our community, because you recognize us as human beings? We kept being told, fret not, we have a secret plan for your civil rights - now it seems, not so much:

(read the blog)

This is simply more evidence that the White House never had a plan to act on our civil rights, to act on the president's promises (none of which have been fulfilled, or even addressed)­."

[LintLass]

Well, I take it as evidence that someone's *listening,* even to us making a case for *urgency.*

We didn't elect a king, we elected a President. Maybe it wasn't quite there in the *plan,* before we spoke up, but ...by the Gods, that's a sign someone's *responding* to our calls, rather than pretending it was always the 'Ultimate Will' that we should never get nothing.

Still would like the demeaning language addressed, but, that's what I, for one was asking, "Nice proclamation. Do something.­" It's something.

[LintLass]

Furthermore, if we can get over our habitual and well-justified anger on this, it's a sign that we do *not* have to make this about all-or-nothing or *panic.* Or let people divide 'liberals' about it.

We've shown the 'big stick,' so to speak. Now's the time to respect the process. We compromise nowhere, but we don't slap the 'hand' that for once bloody well listens for even trying.

It's *necessary* with Obama's governing style, that we keep the pressure on. 'Yes, we can,' involves *we.* That's the *point.* A change from the 'Imperial presidency­.' We have to keep demanding. This is expected. We needn't call the man a liar in the process, though.

[FearlessFreep]

Take and demand more. (That's how the Right does it.)

[josephRoehl]

And as one of the white boys who had the better grades and who stood up and got abused for agreeing that nonwhites were equals to whites, I note that I had to watch as nonwhite men and women jumped right over me in the lines for advancement, so those who did stand up for a rainbow America were either killed or driven away or ended up in northern ghettoes while the foxy ones who knew how to play the system took advantage and jumped over us openly gay white folks and then joined in the hooting and hollering to harm us so they themselves could join the new Elite. Screw us, they said, screw those 'q's and 'f's. All in the name of the gay Jesus of course, and using gay Leonardo D'Vinci to make JC a str8.
IMHO it's just Orwell's Animal Farm up there now except for a few New England states...t­he elite whites of course made heaps of money 'helping' the new nonwhite elites to exploit and carry on the same games of greed as the old ones, but now they could also open the border and lets 10s of millions of illegals move in and take the poor white folks jobs too, to help keep everyone stirred up into fancying themselves 'free' as long as they had someone else they could pee on.

[josephRoehl]

This 'leader' the new step and fetch it for the rightwing pretends to be a 'fierce advocate' for equality and then offers second class citizenship as his 'equality', so forget him. He'll pay more in lip service to the rights of the people of IRAN trying to legitimately overthrow the religious theocratic tyrants of Iran than to personally doing anything to overthrow the religious theocratic tyrants of America.

[wdw505]

i'm not religious and i agree with the doma

[kwinter]

I've never heard a valid argument against gay rights that didn't have a god belief at it's root.
You may not be religious, but I would bet you have a belief in a god.
Of coarse anyone who says FAUX news may be leaning too liberal is not someone I would trust to be honest anyway.

[NWBrunette]

sounds pretty much like a homophobe without an excuse.

[wdw505]

i'm not religious and i agree with the doj

[complice]

And I think the notion that you manage anything, much less a small business, is totally absurd.

*laughing*

[SamX]

Whoopty-do. Were you going to make a point?

[josephRoehl]

Time for a new civil war, in which the gay-friendly states decide that each person owns their own bodies, and the states that refuse to abide by that notion should be invaded by federal troops and defeated since they've abandoned the US Constitution anyway for the bible. No wonder they never mind the 70+ times their scrolls forbid seizing poor people's property and forbids charging interest rates on loans, forbids eating pork and bacon and ham as 'toevah' (yes the same 'toevah' as man lying with a man) and can ignore their own violations of biblical laws as long as they can abuse us still.
When America is free again, truly free, there won't be any of these neonazis parading their morals around, since they have neither morals nor ethics at all. Then the 10% who would then not worry about being counted as m/m and f/f families might dare to walk the streets of 'freedom' again. Otherwise the gay Jesus' ghost and Gay God ET will come down and eat all of you nazi's for a late night snack on the Judgment Day 2012 so you'll scream and suffer the way you've made so many millions suffer. Enjoy the karma coming.
Gay God ET will not be for sale, can't be bullied and will not suffer you nazis to live on Earth ever again, nor your inbred Pavlovian-­indoctrina­ted spawn.
Equal rights and protections now for all, or let the sorting out begin from higher beings.

[Rockwell]

Isn't it amazing that all evil in the world is always, always done under the banner of high morals? No one is ever honest enough to just say "I'm a bigot". No it's always "God hates gays so I hate gays too."

Of course as you so rightly point out, according to the Old Testament God hates pork just as much as he hates hot man on man action. But I don't believe anyone ever saw Jerry Fallwell recoil from a Christmas Ham or a porkchop platter.

People have their own hates and they just love to wrap them up in high moral packaging.

[Rockwell]

Isn't interesting that the "Justice" Department's argument is that Opposite Marriage must be favored because it is “traditional and universally recognized”

Given that knuckle dragging logic, we should reinstitute Slavery because it's was a 'traditional and universally recognized institution long long before the institution of marriage.

In fact we should go back to the "traditional and univerally recognized" definition of marriages that existed when I was a kid - remember those wonderful days when husbands were considered the owners of their wive's paychecks and the husband had to co-sign any loan applications the woman may need. There were any number of things the "little woman" couldn't do without hubby's permission.

If Tradtional and Universally Recognized is the standard, then we might as well stop all societal progress here and now. In other words we should have elected Republicans.

[jmpurser]

You know, that's exactly what I thought when I read that.

[NWBrunette]

Exactly right. Thank you. That doj brief reeks of insanity and the moral idiocy of the extreme right-wing.

[Coloradem]

From Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO):

"I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court, especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department's brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it. Comparing my loving relationship with my partner, Marlon, to incest was unconscionable coming from a president who has called for change.
Since this filing, I have called on the President to issue a statement or give any sign that would clarify his position and am disappointed in his lack of reply.

I am a proud Democrat, as are many in the GLBT community, and I believe we must hold our leaders accountable. The Obama Administration made a HUGE mistake in the DOMA brief. If they keep making mistakes like this, they risk losing the support of the GLBT community forever, although I do not believe we are at that point yet.

President Obama needs to honor his promise to repeal this law and end its needlessly divisive and harmful impact on our nation. I again call on him to work with us in Congress to help pass legislation, ending this hateful and divisive law.

As the New York Times editorialized yesterday, "busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights."

[wdw505]

i hope he does....i will love to see the backlash

laughing

[klandish]

This story has been out for a couple of days. I hope Obama plans to respond soon. He has managed to avoid any comment about this very important Civil Rights issue. If Obama thinks that by avoiding comment on this despicable brief that he allowed to go through HIS Justice Department will be met with silence he is making a big mistake. Fuel on the fire.

[wdw505]

only good can come from that......­..

[Michael Shanley]

And of course noone has mentioned the shocking irony that this is all happening in the newly created "gay" month. What again are we celebrating?

[progressiveconnie]

GOOD MORNING!!! MY FELLOW HOMO SAPIENS WHICH MEANS THE SPECIES WHO IS WISE.
It seems that America's U.S. Department of Obstruction of Justice is so busy defending unconstitutional laws like preventing Gays from getting married by stating or suggesting that gays are perverts, child abusers or mentally demented this department doesn"t have the time to prosecute America's war criminals, human rights abusers, war profiteers, Blackwater murderers and those in those financial corporations who stole trillions from people all over the planet.
Shutting down this Department with such insane priorities would be a great idea and start all over by hiring lawyers who know the difference between the really, really bad guys and unconstitutional laws!!!

[BringmeReason]

If Obama goes through with this fully, without rectifying it, I assure you I will not vote for him again. If we can't have a president that upholds individual liberty and basic rights for tax paying citizens of this country, then that president does not deserve to command nor lead us.

I would rather not vote at all than for a person like Obama that ran around spewing his rhetoric about civil rights and equal protection for all of America's citizens, all the while advancing means to suppress us further. No Thanks! ...

[smchp]

yea yea, armagaddon, pestilence, dogs and cats sleeping together. Your sounding like Republicans. Why don't you run off and teabag them.

[BringmeReason]

Trivialize our cause all you want, they did the same thing to African Americans during times of segregation, and look how far that got them.

[wdw505]

good don't vote i'm ok with that

[kewe]

we have far greater problems. if effective health care reform and economic reform fail, civil rights for all won't matter one bit

[CaliforniaLove]

Cosign

[smchp]

+1

[complice]

Oh, look, the truth-chall enged value voter has returned.

Back for more misre presentation and outright lie s?

It comes so naturally to you.

[Sepulchre]

Because our government is incapable of multi-tasking? This is a lame duck argument.

[oafishcad]

What's the matter can't Obama do two things at the same time?

[NWBrunette]

Really? Let's take away some of your equal rights and see how they don't matter in the face of other problems.

[josephRoehl]

Basically HUMAN RIGHTS are top priority now and always.
When human rights are universally prioritized, health care is one aspect of those rights that will also be universally available to all.

[kewe]

he hasn't flip-flopped on anything. its a question of priorities, and im sorry, but things like dont ask dont tell need to wait until ciritical legislation is passed around health care, the economy, and the environment.

the justice department made a huge mistake with the language in the brief - and even though Obama likely was not aware and certainly did not direct justice - its his problem now and he will likely have to fix it by raising the priority or tough it out like every other group that has issues they are expecting the president to resolve yesterday.

Howard Dean said it best last night on Rachel Maddow's show - and i basically paraphrased his comments above.

[kewe]

lastly - if you think this issue is worth giving up your support for Obama to a likely unelectable different democrat - consider this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/16/president_mccain/index.html

[jmpurser]

No, it's not a question of "priorities". He made a priority of defending a pretty bad law.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Obama

Unlike Republicans, Gays and Lesbians..­.when you slap US, we slap back...HAR­DER.


You'll be hearing "What Have You Done For Me Lately"...­....repeat­edly Coast to Coast
Pride marches, DNC fundraisers, Senate steps.

We'll show you how FIERCE is done.

[CaliforniaLove]

Bush kicked you in the ar$e repeatedly, and you did and said nothing.

[SamX]

Wow, you're still here Cali Love? Got plenty of food and water? Another 100 posts on this unimportant issue?

[CaliforniaLove]

Bush ki c ked you in the ar$e repeatedly, and you did and said nothing.

[klandish]

Many Gay groups were fighting Bush. But there was fear of reprisal and many Civil Rights groups were infiltrated by HLS. Those were terrible times. But our fight is not over just because we have a more moderate President - as you can see.