White House Plans Meeting With Gay Leaders To Smooth Over DOMA Tensions

The Plumline:

The Obama Justice Department has reached out to major gay rights organizations and scheduled a private meeting for next week with the groups, in an apparent effort to smooth over tensions in the wake of the controversy over the administration's defense in court of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Read the whole story: The Plumline

Comments

[superstition]

Obama deputy campaign manager abandons DOMA & DADT as priorities
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/obama-deputy-campaign-manager-abandons.html

"After two weeks of the Obama White House reeling over the gay backlash caused by the anti-gay DOMA brief, which compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, we now have...

First, that the burden for doing anything pro-gay in the remaining three and a half years of the Obama administration is now shifted to Congress. Obama has no role whatsoever, and no power to influence anything, even though he's still the leader of the free world.

Second, the three big gay rights priorities that Congress should be focusing on do not even include what have organically become the community's top two priorities: repealing DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. They're not even mentioned in the Obama deputy's essay."

[cminca]

I don't want to be cynical, but it seems to me that it BENEFITS Democratic fundraising to keep these issues alive.

Every day I get solicitations telling me that I need to contribute to keep the bad Republicans at bay.

It wasn't until the boycott of the DNC fundraiser that anyone within the Administration even paid attention.

Make sure that you only contribue to invidividuals and groups that actively support LGBTQ equality. I do not include general lobbying groups because I see more political positioning than pushing.

Keep the ATM closed--that will keep their attention.

[PhilipB]

For those of you who would silence me and my family:
We see through your attempt to discredit those who speak out for equality:
Attacks on posters on this blog are noticed.
I want equality for my family. That should not be difficult to understand, and I resent those who try by coercion to silence those who have been vocal.

[PhilipB]

Yikey! I do sound mad.in my last comment.
I actually do have a big sense of humor.
This situation is all so absurd.

[CigarGod]

It is okay to be mad at injustice and the absurd ignorance of people who think they are defending America, by persecuting American's.

Have a cigar!

[GlennInVenice]

Well I am very glad that you caught yourself. When others try and tell us that we are, well, loosing our grip a little bit, we usually go off on them rather than take a breath, take a step back, and regain our equilibrium.

It will be a long fight. You need to keep up your energy and not be drawn too much into the fray.

[ez duz it]

President Obama’s Justice Department staunchly supports DOMA in all its defamatory, bigoted legalese against LGBT persons and their families.

Read the full text at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

P. 46: It says . . .
“Thus, in order to adopt a measured response of federal neutrality, Congress had to draw lines and distinctions between different types of State-recognized marriage.”

I read . . .
Congress decided only heterosexual marriage will be federally recognized. Please, there was NO neutrality involved.

P. 46: It says . . .
“[T]he fact [that] the line might have been drawn differently at some points is a matter for legislative, rather than judicial, consideration.”

I read . . .
Congress says LGBT persons can only change DOMA in the U.S. Congress, not the courts. With tax exempt churches as political clearinghouses, generous lobbies and big business bankrolling politicians’ fiscal solvency, good luck winning that one, my LGBT sisters and brothers!

P. 46: It says . . .
“[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because it “is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.””

I read . . .
The U.S. Congress refuses to include “sexual orientation” as a protected classification of persons. Because of this, just because you feel you are being discriminated against, does not mean you legally are.

The LGBT community has to figure out how to harness AND mobilize our political power if we intend to overturn DOMA. Any ideas?

[superstition]

We need to march sooner than October. We need a surprise march that will prevent some sort of distraction from being introduced that will cause the media focus to switch away from us (like the announcement of Sotomayor the day of the Prop 8 decision which had been delayed so it wouldn't coincide with the Harvey Milk killer's verdict).

The questions:

1. How can we get a large enough impromptu march?
2. How can we prevent such manipulations of the press so our voice isn't ignored again?

[M1]

Tough questions. What about a more flexible use of protest. Meaning....showing up to protest at certain events (shadowing the media cycle) that would place pressure on the Administration to keep it promises in addition to large protests.

Didn't women who fought for the right to vote (many gay) stand at the gates of the White House protesting day after day for the right to vote. Not a large amount but enough to make the point everyday?

[PhilipB]

Well, I do appreciate you laying it all out.
Thanks
Ok
"U.S. Congress refuses to include "sexual orientation" as a protected classification of persons. Because of this, just because you feel you are being discriminated against, does not mean you legally are."
Thank you for clarifying things.

[CigarGod]

If those poll numbers that have been floated are true, then about 70% of both public and military support full equality. Am I reading that right?

Does that mean only 30% are opposed?

I'd rather work on getting the "friendly" 70% to become active supporters than I would try to change the minds of the 30% hard core opposition.

In any case, LGBT needs to preserve that 70% and deepen the sympathetic support.

As "we are the ones" constantly posts, it seems the congress and military leadership is not divided along the 70/30 split. So, more effort there.

here is a substantial proportion of minorties who are opposed to Gay Rights. They also are unable to see the parallel's with the Johnson era CRM...and are offended by the linkage. Work to change those conditions is needed.

Big march: If anyone recognizes the power of being supported by and marching shoulder to shoulder with the AA's who are in solidarity, then something needs to be done to bridge this divide.
Personally, and even though the CRM has not yet had 100% success, I think the progress has been stunning. The AA's might welcome an opportunity to stand with another group who is struggling in many of the same ways they did.

Those are just observations and thoughts. I'm not a team player. In the military I had individual duty assignments and my career has been the same. So, I'm not a trained organizer and not good at it.

[BringmeReason]

I wonder about it all. I am still deeply hurt that Obama allowed his DOJ to release such a brief, and his neglecting to even lay out a plan on our behalf before last week was more than discouraging. However it seems as though he is deeply trying to please both sides of the ail here, (Republicans and Democrats) and though the Dems have congress, where votes are concern he is still trying to reach for bi-partisan non-the-less. It seems as though the Universal Health Care plan is his big push for this year and he doesn't want anything to come in between that.

I for one want health care, of course, to be available to everyone, but that doesn't excuse the fact. Basic civil brings should never be pushed aside even to please the majority. What good is health care if in the GLBTQ community our loves ones may not be fully eligible. Anyways I do hope that Obama holds honor to his words this time, and tries to come to an agreement which will alleviate the tension of this brief and further push our agenda forward. I will have to see, but I will give credit when credit is due.

[superstition]

"Basic civil brings should never be pushed aside even to please the majority."

69-75% of the public want DADT ended, including majorities of conservatives and church-goers.

[hapiday]

CORRECTION:

Supertition,

I think that you are sincere in your diatribe for gay rights and equality. I think many people posting want to see everyone have equal rights. However, the nastiness and arrogance that exudes from your posts makes some people NOT see the information that you are trying to give to prove your points.
If the gay community keeps attacking you may get some of what you want passed, which is good. But, in the future the Democratic party will make it their business not to need the gay community's support to win. It's not good to fall into a false sense of thinking that your money makes the man. Change is happening before our eyes, just ask the Republican base who will be staging another one of their lame tea parties. Right now they are complaining and bashing the president for everything but the gay issues.
When the president tackles DADT I hope the gay community will fight them instead of the president.

[superstition]

I haven't called you names, but you just called me nasty and arrogant. This and the continued "gays are throwing hissy fits" ad hominem fails to ameliorate the DOMA brief. It fails to save the careers of those fired soldiers. Et cetera.

The President's job is to uphold the Constitution. Take a look at my four part post just below this one. Nowhere is there any arrogance or nastiness. Nowhere is there any "bashing".

Instead, what is there are the facts placed in an airtight logical framework. If you disagree with any of those posts, please do so clearly and in adequate detail.

[superstition]

(points, not posts.)

You can add "diatribe" to my point about ad hominem as well.

[superstition]

I have been reflecting on the "Queen Bees are Stinging Mad" newspaper headline back from the time of Stonewall or earlier.

It seems little has changed since then. Every time we're victimized and are justifiably angry, people post diminutive victim blaming ad hominem things like "gays are throwing hissy fits".

"Hissy fit" and "drama queen" are today's "Queen Bees are Stinging Mad". Yes, those men were angry because they didn't like the raids on gay bars. They didn't like being arrested for socializing with their fellow gay people and having their names published in the papers to shame them.

Yes, we're angry, justifiably, as well. We're not "bees". We're not "hissy". We're people who have more than emotion to guide us. We have truth, and the truth is shown in my four point post below.

[PhilipB]

"diatribe for gay rights and equality"
Diatribe?
Words have meaning.
No, there is nothing unreasonable here.
That word you used is among many other words uses to trivialize a real grievance for LGBT.
A reasonable and coherent response to an attack on my family and others is not as you insultingly describe; being an official second class citizen is a serious matter and causes real harm.
Frankly, the DNC has taken our money with a wink and a nod that they never intend to do anything to produce results.
There is no "bashing"
There is a real outrage over the recent DOMA brief, and the mess of benefits without benefits.
It is a precipitating incident to move people like me to speak out, stand up stand say my families in-equality is wrong AND CAUSES HARM.
I will certainly support any person in the Congress and Senate who will overturn DOMA and DADT, I will not give to any organization who says they will be a fierce advocate for me then causes my family harm.
Thank you.

[hapiday]

Supertition I think that you are sincere in your diatribe for gay rights and equality. I think many people posting want to see everyone have equal rights. However, the nastiness and arrogance that exudes from your posts makes some people see the information that you are trying to give to prove your points.
If the gay community keeps attacking you may get some of what you want passed, which is good. But, in the future the Democratic party will make it their business not to need the gay community's support to win. It's not good to fall into a false sense of thinking that your money makes the man. Change is happening before our eyes, just ask the Republican base who will be staging another one of their lame tea parties. Right now they are complaining and bashing the president for everything but the gay issues.
When the president tackles DADT I hope the gay community will fight them instead of the president.

[superstition]

1. Gays are gay, are equal, and equal is equal.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation that isn't a disorder. This is a scientific fact that shows that gays are equal to heteros. We've known this since 1956 and it's been a matter of consensus since 1973. It means everything about gays -- their relationships, their parenting, their job performance -- everything, is equal, not inferior, to heterosexuals'.

2. The 1st Amendment is a firewall against theocracy.

It prevents unscientific/religious attitudes from becoming law. Its existence means marriage is a secular legal institution. We can see that from the fact that atheists can get married in courthouses. It makes civil union unconstitutional so long as heterosexual marriage exists legally.

3. The 14th Amendment provides the same rights for gays as it does for heterosexuals.

It prohibits the idea of hierarchical citizenship wherein the rights people are afforded is not a universal matter but an arbitrary one. The 14th Amendment gives gays the same rights, including the right to get married, as those conferred to heterosexuals. No state can rescind those rights, and neither can any politician or judge.

4. In summation:

We have the same rights already. Our marriages exist and must be fully recognized. Our citizenship is full and must be recognized. This is not an option. This is a constitutional requirement. It's the responsibility of everyone in each branch of government to uphold the Constitution.

[HesDanTheMan]

Fanned & Faved!

[hapiday]

"I would like to see more action. You can't escape that BO has moved swiftly and concretely on things he really cares about. It just doesn't seem like he cares that much about this."

I believe President Obama does care and wants to bring equality for the gay community. He is trying to tackle the things that don't take a vote from the Congress first. He also is trying to get as much public opinion generated before going into DADT and DOMA which is going to be a fight. He needs the votes from Congress and he needs to prepare for the backlash from the military. People are being naive if they think repealing DADT and DOMA is going to be easy or smooth sailing.

I saw President Obama's expression when he was signing the memo for Federal health care for gays and he wasn't happy and smiling like he usually is when he signs something he's proud of. I got the feeling he knew some wouldn't be satisfied. I don't think he expected the gay community to voice the insults and hated they are screaming within 5 months into his presidency. The neo-cons, yes, the gay community no. I hope the meeting will be successful for the Gay community and President Obama. I do however, think President Obama now knows the gay community is not his friend and he's not going to forget it. He's a fast learner.

[superstition]

"I believe President Obama does care and wants to bring equality for the gay community."

No one can say this any longer. Right now, the balance is very much on the negative side.

Take a look at the 9 item list I posted a few posts down. That's not the entire list than can be made.

He doesn't need a single vote to stop the firings and hasn't needed one from day one. The public, including most conservatives/church-goers, want the policy ended right now.

"I don't think he expected the gay community to voice the insults and hated they are screaming within 5 months into his presidency."

Not this again. Where is the brief filed by a gay president that compared his marriage with his wife to marriage to his daughter?

[HesDanTheMan]

I think the DNC got hit with a mass "contact us" from our community, myself included. I also sent back Barbara Boxer's latest soliticitation for money, saying NO MORE ATM - no more money until we start getting something! I think the fact that within 2 days of contacting DNC, has caused the administration to start to meet with our leaders of our community.
It seems "Money DOES TALK and BS walks"
So keep up the contacts to the DNC and get your friends and loved ones to do it too.
And "Superstition" THANK YOU, thank you for your posts!!! I appreciate them immensly!

[superstition]

You too, and everyone else here who is willing to fight for our rights. They're not going to be given to us on a silver platter of "I believe he's got our back" posts. "I believe" doesn't cut it anymore.

[norepublicanleftbehind]

Wow, we have leaders!!! Great. Since Obama is a great Constitutional "scholar" maybe he'll spend a half hour telling us about why the seperate but equal doctrine applies just to us. Or maybe we could give the president a dictionay and he can look up the word "EQUAL" and note that the word seperate is not in the definition.

Maybe President Obama can just note that marriage is marriage, be it a same sex marriage or an opposite sex marriage. There is really no such thing as "gay marriage or straight marriage", it's just marriage. Marriage is a legal contract (pesky legal fact). The RELIGIOUS UNION is not a legal contract. Maybe people who want to have religious unions should have them. However, marriage is the legal part of the contract, not the religious union.

Remember if you call marriage something else....it is.

[superstition]

Thank you.

[Gretel1or2]

Yes, President Obama is a constitutional scholar - have a problem with that? You all want to be disrepectful and venomous towards our president, but you get very offended when people point our your hypocritical attitudes and you accuse them of ad hominem. It seems as though you elected him to be your community organizer and did not realize that once he became POTUS, like all the previous administrations, there would be many other important and consequential issues that he has to undertake. In addition he has to work within a very complex and yes, at times flawed political system. I don't mind people criticizing the president's policies, or expressing their disagreement with a particular stance that he takes on an issue. But the personal and acrimonious tone this has taken for some time points to some latent resentment of the person Barrack Obama, resentment that is not fully explained by the DOMA/DADT issues. The level of intolerance displayed after 6 months, when previous administrations were tolerated for 4 if not 8 years with half the venom displayed is rather suspect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am keenly observant and rarely mistaken about those things.

[superstition]

Obama wasn't supposed to be 4 more years of Bush.

And, as has been pointed out, the DOMA brief goes beyond even what the Bush administration managed to do in some respects. Recall that the Bush administration's FMA did not succeed (Cheney even openly opposed it) and conservatives attacked the administration for what they perceived as only a half-hearted attempt. The Obama DOMA brief was very thorough and very wrong. Scalia, though, will likely find it quite useful.

The Bush administration's failures do not ameliorate the Obama administration's failures in any case.

As for constitutional scholars... note that this site ran an article that said his own professor said DOMA is unconstitutional. One cannot hide behind labels if the actions one takes are dissonant with those labels.

A constitutional scholar whose expressed opinions are unconstitutional has not ameliorated those opinions simply by knowing better, or by having the ability to have known better. Civil unions are unconstitutional in the manner of Segregation's separate-not-equal. Refer to my 4 point post.

As for intolerance, consider the decision to continue to fire (including with dishonorable discharge) 248+ troops, including those with medals for heroism who are 2 years from retirement.

Consider that no gay president has filed a brief comparing Barack's marriage to Michele to a marriage between Barack and one of his daughters, or one that says he has fewer rights than other Americans.

[M1]

Your wrong. I feel exactly as superstition does and I see the inconsistencies of our President elect in the same light as well.

The fact that are President is a constitutional scholar merely serves to highlight the high level of insensitivity which is so great that it is perceived as likely intentional.

It started with the Warren pick and the high note is the DOMA brief. I even recall Pastor Robinson's microphone being cut off so no one could hear this gay pastor speak at the inauguration and his time to speak was hours before any official even set foot upon the stage. The Warren pick hurt feelings. The DOMA brief will leave real harm in its wake in the cost of lives from the incitement to violence against gays that it will surely cause.

The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush did not borrow and pull rhetoric from great men who actually lived their lives fighting for equality to stir the hopes of disadvantaged/oppressed people, inserting promises to boot. The repeal of DADT and DOMA and Federal civil unions granting all the same rights that married Americans are given to same sex couples. Bush never entered the stage through this door so the comparison is moot. We never believed in Bush.

You know the saying, "Lord has no furry as a true believer scorned."

[Jtt]

"the personal and acrimonious tone this has taken for some time points to some latent resentment of the person Barrack Obama, resentment that is not fully explained by the DOMA/DADT issues."

You are wrong and that was totally ridiculous. Not only has he not repealed these he has continued to enforce them and his administration has actually in a way strengthened them by filing briefs supportive of the bad reasoning that created them.

Thats the bottom line here.

[KriTiKiT]

I like the Idea of pulling cash from campaigns and tearing the justice department a new ass in court our money seems to be better spent making a super fund of DOMA death...

[Matt Carter]

I'm seeing a schism right among Democrats now, which has become clear on the Huffington Post the past few days. There are quite a few people (LBGT and otherwise) upset over the administration's actions regarding marriage equality over the past couple weeks, and then there are party stalwarts (as far as I can tell, all straight) who are convinced that LGBT activists are selfish, stupid, reckless, impatient, or whatever derogatory adjective you apply here. Almost every post on this subject the past few days has included some variation of "Stop being so selfish! You are alienating everybody. Just wait."

Can I ask the Democrats espousing these views: why the unrelenting, knee-jerk hostility? Why is it always a zero-sum game with you people? Are you so devoid of empathy that you can't even understand what it must be like to be denied basic rights? Has it been so long since other civil rights struggles that you won't even hesitate before treating us with derision? How can any of our actions possibly be harming you? I'm not talking about speculative harm. I'm asking what you have to lose in joining us, or at least not working against us.

Finally, I would suggest that if you are so concerned about the economy, war, or health care, that you go pay attention to that and leave us alone. If those issues are more important than this, the amount of time and energy you are wasting on us is puzzling indeed.

[superstition]

Thank you!

[CigarGod]

Have a cigar, Matt.

[scottyknows]

Easy solution. Simply state that a gay union isn't as important to society, or anyone, than a heterosexual marriage.

Which we all know, but some like to pretend.

[Jtt]

Besides being not correct its absolutely perfect!

The best argument for gay Marriage is then benefits to a society form a stable and committed couple living and working in it.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

The MAJOR LGBT organizations should make a big public display of giving large donations to charities, with the clear implication this money could have gone to the DNC....when they grow a SPINE.

[superstition]

I'd rather see the money go to things like Maine and the march.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Maine equality is a good cause, but it won't help our community with forging allies.
Giving to help those in CA having their AIDS drugs gutted by 80 million, helping communities with the highest unemployment in Michigan stock food shelves, doing volunteer work to help those families close to foreclosure navigate options available to keep their homes...are the type of giving that can help others, and build a good reputation of LGBTs being neighbors, and assets to the larger community.

[GlennInVenice]

I have been trying to make some sense out of the fact that the DOJ brief so vigorously and offensively defended DOMA and Obama had visibily and forcefully promised to repeal DOMA. The alternatives that I can think of include only the following. There is no particular order to my list as I find them all very disturbing.

1. The DOJ is misalligned from Obama's objectives
1a. Obama is not supervising a renegade organization within this administration but will not admit it
1b. Obama does not have control over the DOJ and can't afford to admit it

2. Obama has calculated that there is some long term political advantage to supporting DOMA at this time that is not apparant to folks like myself. This would suggest that he is willing to throw the gays under the bus like so many before him as part of his strategy and that repealing DOMA is not a near-in or important goal at all

3, Obama has flip-flopped on his position on DOMA and is showing it only by his actions but not his words

4. Obama lied during his campaign and never intended to repeal DOMA

Can you think of any other viable alternatives? What do you think is the driver?

[superstition]

Well, considering that he once fully supported marriage equality and now has been promoting Segregation-style separate-not-equal civil union in a secular nation gives us a clue.

Promoting an "ex-gay" singer and Rick Warren... I mean the list just keeps getting more far right with time.

[GlennInVenice]

I understand your anger. I feel much of it myself. However HuffPo is overflowing with your single eye icon and your comments are getting very repetitive. I hope you do not turn your anger toward me when I say this but I recommend that you go away from the blog for a while and find other ways to vent and/or fight for your civil rights. At this point you are not appearing to be very rational and are loosing credability.

To the degree that this is also true of myself, I will also agree to take a vacation from writing comments for at least a few days.

Truth is never absolute or one dimensional and being absolutely convinced of something does not make it absolutely truthful. :-)

I write this as a friend in the same struggle.

Glenn

[PhilipB]

Hi Superstition!
You know, I have been a fan of yours for some time, and i wanted to comment now and thank you for your coherent, illuminating and strong posts to address my families' official second class status.
Thank you for all you do.
Warm regards,
from the two Lolos ( grandfathers in Pilipino)
and from the family we raised.
Warm regards

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

KEEP POSTING superstition!

[M1]

Keep posting superstition....you are speaking the truth. It is not pleasant but it is the truth. Thank you.

[JackNasty]

Keep up the good work. Using my best vintage mock Latin, Illegitimi non carborundum.

[Jtt]

Been thinking too. 1 a and b. The DOJ is probably still stocked with Bush Rejects and right wingers.

Even though Bush refused to enforce good regulations that ended up harming a lot of people - such as at the SEC and the FDA, the Obama admin may be letting these flunkies tell them they have to enforce bad policy first.

[superstition]

Obama is a legal expert and his wife is a lawyer. He knows what he's doing. Prior presidents have filed briefs in opposition to laws they disagree with.

If Obama was in schism with his DOJ, he would have condemned the DADT brief and would have been supporting the Tauscher bill from day one. He would have stopped the firings from day one.

No, the excuses really fail.

[Jtt]

Also one more unfortunately negative possibility with further reaching implications.

Obama also may be more of an old school Chicago democrat than we like to admit. Time will tell on that. God help us as a country if he is.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Here's something they taught me at Columbia in the Master of Public Administration program:

If there are Bush Attorneys that are rogue and cannot be fired, then what you do is create a "turkey farm". You put them all in the same department and give them only the weakest cases that don't matter.

A new case comes in and it's meaningless -- "Ah, this is one for the turkey farm..."

But I don't think we can blame this on rogue attorneys because Tony West, President Obama's appointee put his name on it, and neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor the President criticized the language -- meaning they tacitly endorsed it. They could have ordered a supplemental brief filed to correct the offensiveness of the first brief, but the didn't.

So In this case, the buck stops with the White House. We cannot hold the President accountable for Congress not repealing DOMA or DADT (once he offers leadership to repeal them), but we can certainly hold him accountable for the actions of the Executive Branch and his non-actions as well -- especially his refusal to criticize the DOMA brief.

[johnbdonovan]

What we need is a national law prohibiting all same-sex marriage or civil unions. Together with that, we need continual national promotion of honors and increased benefits for father-and-mother families as the bedrock of stability in our society and the best possible bulwark against government expenditures for addiction cures, prisons, and welfare payments.

[GlennInVenice]

If the rights and responsibilities of marriage were solely about raising children, you may be onto something. Marriage is also about supporting and equitable and fair divource when necessary. It supports shared financial planning and asset ownership. It addresses issues related to health care, decissions during times of incapacity, retirement, immigration, legal privacy, and on and on and on. Thus your post ignores too many dimensions of marriage to be of any use. Oh that it were so simple. :-)

[superstition]

"If the rights and responsibilities of marriage were solely about raising children, you may be onto something."

Gay couples parent just as well as heterosexual couples.

[johnbdonovan]

But the main reason that those special benefits for married couples exist in the first place is because giving such benefits places married people into a position of special honor and privilege, and the entire human race benefits from that. The most formative experience in the life of humanity is being raised, and every one of us needs the union of paternal and material influences.

[superstition]

"What we need is a national law prohibiting all same-sex marriage or civil unions."

Based on what?

Take a look at the 1st and 14th amendments sometime. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it say unscientific/religious heterosexism can be the basis of our laws. Nowhere in the 14th does it say Americans have hierarchical citizenship in which the level one is at is determined by popularity.

Based on ignorance of the law and reality. That's what.

[Jtt]

That would be a disaster for many existing families and historically it is the kind of policy, that doesn't focus on reality, that got us to this point.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

your side LOST....go wander in the wilderness

[KoolAidAmerica]

you sure Obama is on the side of us pe do philes

[JackNasty]

Somebody left the gates of the homophobes' ghetto open and John B. Donovan escaped to pursue the object of his unhealthy obsession with all things gay.

Deos anyone know why John B. Domovan is so obsessed with all things gay?

Does anyone care to guess?

[johnbdonovan]

You don't have to guess. I'll explain. I don't exactly think in terms of the gays but in terms of kids having mothers and fathers. A lot of my thinking comes from a recent three-year experience running an after-school program for inner-city kids, none of whom turned out to have fathers. It got me researching this to the point where I've come to realize that it's absolutely at the heart of the social problems we have nowadays, which also have economic implications. If we focus on the periphery and not on the core, we won't solve these problems.