« Admirable Nuance: Obama’s Measured Response to the Iranian Election and Its Aftermath
Come help us demonstrate our lack of support for the troops »
Mounting Criticism of the ‘Disturbing’ Justice Dept DOMA Brief
The NYTimes editorial today on the recent Department of Justice brief defending DOMA:
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. [...]
The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.
These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people. In a letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”
Laura Meckler at the Wall Street Journal:
The letter Monday from Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese included a detailed critique of the administration’s filing. “This brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you,” he wrote.
A Justice Department spokeswoman said in a statement that the department was following routine in the filing, and wasn’t making a policy statement. “As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court,” said Tracy Schmaler. “Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.”
Here’s the full HRC letter. Howard Dean was on The Rachel Maddow Show. He called the language in the brief “offensive” and said he doubts the President saw it. “It wasn’t a little too far. It was a lot too far.” Watch it.
Juan and Ken Ahonen-Jover, founders of EqualityGiving an organization of major LGBT donors and activists, authored a speech they’d like to see from President Obama. They based it on the Proclamation issued by the president on June 1, 2009 to for LGBT Pride Month:
“Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born.
“LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.
“I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration.
“The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. [READ ON]“
8 Responses to “Mounting Criticism of the ‘Disturbing’ Justice Dept DOMA Brief”
Obama lied, gays lost pride
I agree wth CO…Obama lied…flat out. Maybe he is not a god after all?
Obama did nothing to help gays fight against Prop 8.
Obama is now more homophobic than Dick Cheney.
Obama shares the mainstream view defending the traditional definition of marriage, after all, _plus_ he is a liberal Democrat, delighted with massive federal encroachment into state and local issues (as well as into individuals' lives). Why is this surprising to anyone? Man, so many naive Obamaniacs are so naive.
um… DLS… this bill (and the brief supporting it) gave more deference to the right of states to not recognize marriages from other states. Federal encroachment would be if he had wanted to force states to recognize those other marriages. Next time, you should check your definitions.
Anyways, I wish that people in general would pay attention to their terms. “Traditional Marriage” (I'm assuming heterosexual marriage for love) is a relatively recent phenomenon, reaching the US in the late 1700s and reaching Europe in the 1800s. Before then, marriage was essentially a business contract between the families involved, with husbands' families seeking wives with a large dowry from well-to-do families and wives' families seeking husbands who could provide for their daughters.
Marriage is still a business contract between individuals. It provides a rubric for property allocation and visitation rights and provides for power-of-attorney. Why should a state be able to not recognize a valid contract between consenting adults from another state?
Thanks, Joe, for the roundup of different articles on this issue. For those that haven't read Joe Solomnese's full letter (the HRC letter linked above), I'd definitely suggest reading it in its entirety. It's very moving.
It's really a shame to see Obama turn his back on the gay community, which was certainly a significant factor in getting him elected. I know for many in the community, it brings back painful memories of similar occurances during the beginning of the Clinton administration. During the campaign (in both cases), the candidate acted like he thought of gay people as people, worthy of equal rights. In the case of Obama, it was all about change and hope, yet now he clings to “tradition”. The legal brief was just rotten with conservative talking points. That's not hope and change, that's hopelessness because of more of the same.
The issues surrounding the gay debate are not static, neither is Obama's opinion about them. If you know anything at all about Obama, know that he is a fluid and adaptable man. Some see this as a fault, yet evolutionarily speaking, adaptability is a treasured trait.
It all depends on your perspective. His ideas about the wars going on, and about internal policies are adapting too since his “campaign promises” [really, if you hang your hat on those I bet you're one of those people who have a one-night stand with someone and expect a phone call the next day..lol]. Obama must change his ideas as he learns. If he didn't , he'd be an idiot.
At the start of this debate, very few people were aware of the food industry's [artificial insemination in livestock] findings on sexual preference as learned. Few people also noticed that GLBT purposefully didn't include other fetishes like polygamy, bestiality and object-gratification as also just as deserving of any other fetish outside of “one man and one woman”. Few people put together that just because some select people [of a much larger group] loosely share a behavioral rebellion against heterosexuailty, doesn't mean they are a viable minority, when otherwise their ranks cross all races, creeds, nationalities and gender. The debate is evolving, people are learning.
So naturally is Obama's policy.
No one should beat up gays, polygamists, lesbians, objectophiles, bisexuals or transexuals. Just like no one should beat up someone with OCD etc. But should we hold OCD as “normal human behavior” and hold it up as so to society? No, learned and fixated deviant behaviors must never be held as normal. If you cannot grasp why, in a matrix where humans are social learners, then it's time to go back to the books and study awhile.
LOL Sil…so Obama “adapted” his entire belief on gay rights in 100 days? While dealing with 2 wars and a failing economy? I don't know who is the bigger apologist here…you or JWest.
Homosexuality is not a fetish…it is a naturally occurring genetic tendency. We see it in birds, penguins and bonobo monkeys…a very close genetic relative to man.
I have to wonder what happened to you as a child for someone so liberal to be so purposely ignorant on gay issues.
Here is Ellen Kagan's description of her understanding of the Solicitor General's role:
“WASHINGTON – Harvard Law dean Elena Kagan, President Obama's choice to be the federal government's top lawyer at the US Supreme Court, told a Senate committee yesterday she would defend the constitutionality of federal statutes even when she disagreed with them.” (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/ar…).
The deal is that the SG's single most important responsibility is to defend the laws of the US in the Supreme Court. Period.
And, shannonlee above has it right. In terms of overall importance, this whole issue pales in comparison to the other crises Obama is facing. I'm sure that if I were gay and wanted to be married, I might not agree. But, from a high level perspective, if Obama doesn't get the economy and international relations under some level of control, there will be one term. Everything, including gay rights, will go down the toilet.
Please, a) research the SG's responsibility and, b) apply some perspective.