Both are up for a vote today, and both will be filibustered:
In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama repeated a campaign-trail promise to the gay community.
By the end of the year, Mr. Obama said, he would seek a full repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bars gay and transgender people from serving openly in the armed forces.
The president called it a “law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” and he said repealing it was “the right thing to do.”M
The promise faces a critical test today as supporters of the current policy say they will try to filibuster military defense legislation that includes the repeal. With midterm elections just six weeks away, a unified Republicans filibuster would likely mean a delay in fulfilling the president’s pledge until next year.
Opponents of an unrelated immigration measure included in the annual defense authorization bill are also vowing to filibuster, increasing the odds that both issues will be put off.
If the Democrats can’t muster 60 votes to cut off debate, the delay on “don’t ask, don’t tell” would be a blow to gay activists, members of a key White House constituency who fear that next year’s Congress will be less sympathetic to a repeal of the 17-year-old ban. The policy was enacted during President Bill Clinton’s first term.
I doubt President Snowe or Collins will come through, although Scott Brown might flinch. McCain, being all mavericky, has flip-flopped so many times I have no damned clue which way he will vote. And, of course, if we do get a republican to vote for cloture, that means President Nelson can hold up the Senate for some sweetheart deal for the real Murrikens in whatever shitty flyover state he represents.
Also, it goes without saying that any failure to have these two items passed is not the fault of the troglodyte bigots who blocked the bills or the dysfunctional Senate rules that always seem to call for a supermajority when the President is a Democrat, but Obama for failing to use the bully pulpit.
joe from Lowell
Just to be clear, DADT and the DREAM Act are not being fillibustered; the Defense Authorization Bill in its entirety is being fillibustered. Those two reforms have already been inserted into the bill, by votes in the committee that wrote this years Defense Authorization Bill.
The opponents are filibustering all defense spending, during wartime. This point needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
Nick
That Obama, wasting his time talking about taxes and the economy to nobody
LT
Why do this now? When no “moderate” Republicans even can go here? I don’t get it. But hell, I hope it passes and proves me stupid once again.
Nick
@joe from Lowell:
Because the mean old Democrats are forcing gays and immigrants on the proud military. Don’t you listen to John McCain?
EDIT- and by John McCain, I mean the media
Culture of Truth
McCain, being all mavericky, has flip-flopped so many times I have no damned clue which way he will vote.
Yes you do. We all do. Everyone does. My cat knows how he will vote.
4tehlulz
@joe from Lowell: I was under the impression that DREAM still needed to be added.
Also, to be clear, “you’re undermining the troops” is only a valid argument against Democrats; Republicans are standing by principle, or something.
LT
John. You’re a hero among dogs and primates, but is this what we can expect from nearly every post from now on? Honestly, it’s getting boring. We get it.
Face
Executive order. Now.
stuckinred
@LT: It’s a bitch the way you are forced to come here now isn’t it?
lacp
This is good news for Christine O’Donnell!
john b
i called my two senators this morning. i urge you all to do the same:
switchboard number:
(202) 224-3121
(though it may be faster to google your senator’s direct office number, or regional office number if the DC one is busy)
August J. Pollak
@stuckinred:
Yeah, that’s an effective line Democratic canvassers are using outside voting booths too.
John Cole
@LT: When you and everyone else acknowledge that the Senate is the god damned problem, and there is not much Obama can do to wave his magic wand and make them vote the way you and I want them to, I will. As it is, I’ve spent the last five days dealing with butthurt because Obama pointed out the obvious about the public option at a fundraiser.
Chinn Romney
Are we talking a real filibuster here? Or just the threat of one? I’m tired of the mere threat being enough to derail bills. Make the fockers actually filibuster! The Spineless Party in Power is making it way too easy.
celticdragonchick
Uh, he has yet to expend one iota of political capital in this fight, but whatever you say. Then again, I cannot say if it would have done any good…but we will never know.
I am wondering if the Justice Department will continue to defend DADT in court and if he will refuse to sign an Executive order suspending implementation of DADT.
You guys have been telling us for the last year that DADT was going to be repealed any minute now, so we needed to wait for it to be done the right way instead of doing the Bush thing with an EO that can be reversed in the future.
Yep. Working out real well.
I give it ten years before this comes up for a vote again…and forget about DOMA.
I’m sure there will be more black tie events with HRC, though. That always looks good in The Advocate.
Steve
Dems need to hold firm on this. The GOP cannot plausibly sustain a filibuster of the entire defense bill. It would be like a mini-government shutdown in advance of the election.
lol
Obama could get everything passed if he’d just “show leadership”, “twist arms” and “use the bully pulpit”.
The fact that he doesn’t is proof that he’s a conservative just like Bush.
celticdragonchick
@Face:
About damned time.
hilzoy
Minor correction to the NYT: I believe that DADT prevents gay men and lesbians from serving in the armed forces. Transmen and transwomen are barred by another chunk of the military standards. For this reason, repealing DADT would not allow transmen and transwomen to serve openly in the military. If it did, we would have heard a lot more about it.
(The idea that people who are biologically male, but live full-time as women, might use the women’s bathroom is scary enough for some people. Imagine the idea of such a person sharing barracks and showers!! with other soldiers. Expecting our soldiers to face down insurgents and IEDs for the sake of their country is one thing, but this — ??!)
lol
@Chinn Romney:
Filibusters haven’t worked the way you think they do for *decades*.
Kryptik
@John Cole:
Congress as a whole is the problem. The Senate is just the most obvious squeaky wheel, mostly because Pelosi is actually an effective majority leader compared to Fuck-All Reid. That still doesn’t leave the idiotic Blue Dogs in the House off the hook though. You know, the ones who are ‘forced’ to not only distance themselves from Obama, Pelosi, et. al., but actively run AGAINST them because….I don’t know, Democrats are evil except the ones that act like good ol’ Republicans.
You know, the ones that are waffling on the tax cut thing that the Senate, the fucking SENATE will likely vote on it before they do. Face it, Congress as a whole is broken. Especially since despite doing most of the footwork on actual good legislation, the House is the one looking to flip, because fuck all.
Gator90
@John Cole: Later on when you are telling people that it’s important to vote for Obama in 2012, please make sure to remind everyone how powerless he is. That will close that enthusiasm gap right up.
August J. Pollak
@celticdragonchick:
That’s just completely unfair man. You completely forgot about the way he put himself out on a ledge to have his administration actively support the Defense of Marriage Act.
Wait, that’s impossible because nothing the President says or wants or expresses or directs his staff to do in any capacity has any bearing on anything. Quick, punch a strawhippie!
tomvox1
Done! Joe Sudbay, Americablog:
http://www.americablog.com/2010/09/dadt-repeal-progress-today-or-massive.html
Nick
@celticdragonchick:
Did it, or did it not, pass the House?
Is it, or is it not, on the cusp of passing the Senate?
Working out real well indeed.
celticdragonchick
@hilzoy:
Yeah, it’s a weird policy dating back to the “mayhem laws” that were still in use here in the US in the 1950’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayhem_%28crime%29
What your genitals have to do with combat effectiveness is beyond me.
Sex reassignment surgery was illegal in the US for some time because of mayhem statutes, though, which is why in the 50’s and 60’s one had to go to Europe for the procedure.
fourlegsgood
I know how McCain will vote. The man is an out and out shit.
God but I wish he’d go the hell away.
celticdragonchick
@Nick:
It doesn’t look like it will pass the Senate at this point, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong later today.
Nick
@tomvox1: If I was a Republican, or even conservative Democrat, I’d be more than happy to cast a no vote today.
What flack do I get? Conservatives won’t hate me, and liberals will be too busy hating Obama for not making me vote yes to hate me, I win!
Liberals are so stupid.
LT
@stuckinred: That’s just a silly comment. do you think Cole wants no feedback? And are you a big fan of repetition?
joe from Lowell
@4tehlulz:
It appears that Reid added it of his own volition, as opposed to DADT, which was added by the Armed Services Committee.
In either case, the amendments are in the bill, and there is a vote at 2:15 today to cut off debate on the entire Defense Authorization Bill.
Nick
@celticdragonchick:
Is it not getting a vote in the Senate?
That’s the problem with some of you, you’d rather have a temporary fix than fight for a permanent one.
Fine, if it fails today, I’ll support an Executive Order, only because it will force gays to vote Democratic in the future so that EO doesn’t get rescinded.
celticdragonchick
@August J. Pollak:
Especially the delicious bit where my marriage was compared to pedophilia and raping barnyard animals in the DOJ brief.
And this was from a friendly administration…but I digress. Somebody will be here to remind me that he signed the Matthew Sheppard Act and I need to STFU.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
Oh, look pre-emptive surrender.
How about we wait for the god damned vote before giving up on a comprehensive and complete repeal of DADT and settling for your half-assed measures?
Nick
@Chinn Romney:
Oh for Heaven’s sake, like I said in 20-fucking-07, THIS IS A REAL FILIBUSTER
Pangloss
Funny how the Republicans never complain that their presidents didn’t ban abortion, balance the budget, eliminate the Department of Education, privatize Social Security, nuke Iran, reinstitute slavery, or whatever the hell it is they say they want. It’s always the liberal media’s fault, the liberal congress, the liberal activist judges, George Soros, Michael Moore, etc., never the fault of their dear courageous president.
If the Democrats had half the party discipline of the GOP, there would be no Republican Party.
LT
@John Cole:
It just seems to me that you’re going after the fleas on the dog. I personally did not like the comment, but 1) I don’t let things like that influence me to do stupid things to not vote, and 2) I pretty much accept whoever it was’s explanation about jokes at a fundraiser. And most everyone who has these kind of problems with Obama already do acknoweldge the problem with Rs and Ds both in the Senate.
Hugin & Munin
So if it passes, it’s not actually an Obama acievement then, right Cole?
Christ your a thickie sometimes. What is that is said so often? “Politics ain’t beanbag” Like it or lump it, Obama is the leader of the Democratic party, and as such the legislative record of Congress is viewed through the lens of his leadership.
This has been the case my entire life, I don’t know why things should change just because of your hurt fee-fees.
Joe Beese
Firebagger! Naderite! Pony-wisher!
REN
On an unrelated political note, I thought I would tell you about a so called Dem ad running in my congressional district.
Julie Lassa is running for Dave Obey’s seat and has an ad airing out of Duluth Mn. tv stations which serve the very far north of Wis. The 5 or 6 most Democratic counties in Wisconsin. She talks about the deficit and earmarks, and the ad does not identify her as a Democrat. I’m sure it’s a district wide ad, but come on. Dave Obey has easily held this seat forever and she won’t even tell us she’s a Democrat?
No need to wonder why Democrats are in such trouble this cycle with brilliant campaign advice like this.
Nick
@celticdragonchick:
He signed the Matthew Shepard Act, so STFU.
Nick
@Hugin & Munin:
No, it’s a Democratic achievement.
Congress gets credit for passing it. Obama gets credit because he signed it.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Not only did that brief do no such thing – it merely cited instances demonstrating that the government could restrict marriage, while making no comparison between the reasons for those laws and the reason for DOMA – but the government later dropped even that argument in its appearance before the court.
Some people can’t get out of bed in the morning without a good dose of self-righteous anger, even if they have to make up an excuse.
celticdragonchick
@Nick:
Hundreds(if not several thousand) of servicemen and women have been discharged under DADT in the last year needlessly. They could still be doing their jobs right now.
We have waited for this vote which looks to fail as we speak, and the prime mover for getting rid of this anachronism is a lawsuit from…wait for it…The Log Cabin Republicans.
The DOJ under Holder is, of course, continuing to vigorously defend DADT as a necessary part of military discipline.
We are left with getting back to voting for the lesser of two evils. Our “fierce advocate” is now reduced to “It was worse under Bush”.
…and they wonder why so much of the base is dispirited.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@joe from Lowell:
I believe that the vote today is to start the debate, not end it. The thing that Snowe and Collins are nominally objecting to is that the Democrats have imposed a maximum of debate on three amendments to the bill, and nothing else will be considered.
This is one of those things where the Dems are between a rock and a hard place. The full Senate really should be allowed to consider more amendments than that, especially for a bill as large as the defense authorization. The Republicans, however, have demonstrated that what they really want the amendment process to do is to waste time and bring up irrelevancies.
In principle, I’d sympathize with Maine’s Lethargic Duo, but not in practice. Once again, they have to take responsibility for the company they keep.
Nick
@Pangloss:f the
and without the Republican Party, the professional left would be out of a job.
joe from Lowell
@Hugin & Munin:
If it passes, it will be much more attributable to Pelosi and Reid than the Obama. Signing it will still be a chit in his favor, but unlike Health Insurance Reform, the Recovery Act, Lily Ledbetter, or the Credit Cart Bill of Rights, he’s been relatively hands-off in this debate, even though he’s made his position clear.
…by people who don’t know much about politics. Which, apparently, includes you.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@celticdragonchick:
You would be more persuasive if you didn’t insist on lying long after the lie has been pointed out.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
Silly me. Listing my marriage along with other examples such as beastiality and pedophilia is not really a comparison at all. Excuse the fuck out of me.
I read the brief. I know what I saw. Your hippie punching bullshit does not impress me in the slightest.
hilzoy
@celticdragonchick: My personal favorite bit of the Army recruiting standards is the fact that an undescended testicle makes you unfit for service. How is a mystery.
Likewise, all the paraphilias (aka kinks), and a whole host of other things. Fascinating reading.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
That would be most of the voting public. If you don’t want to play by the rules of political reality, find another job.
joe from Lowell
@Nick:
And banned discrimination in federal hiring, so keep S-ing TFU.
Oh, wait, I forgot: a true firebagger always makes sure that the only action by which to judge Obama is unattainable. I’m sure DADT repeal will become utterly irrelevant to judging Obama’s bona fides as soon as it passes, and he will be a gay-hating sellout because some other bill didn’t pass yet.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
False.
The Justice Department continues to defend DADT as within the rightful powers of Congress, and as possession a rational nexus with a legitimate government purpose.
Please look up “rational nexus” before misstating its meaning.
Nick
@celticdragonchick:
Running the risk that in 2013, or before if courts rule against the administration as they’ve been doing lately (see stem cells and BP), they could be out of a job anyway.
Are you doing anything today to prevent that? Huh? I’ve called my Senators twice, but this is New York, my Senators are already advocates, so I called the Senators in my family’s second home state (Maine) three times. Gonna do it again.
Your “fierce advocate” and his party has done more for you than any Democrat in history, and you cannot deny that. Your “fierce advocate” and his party can say “No, we’re not going to waste time now on the Matthew Shepard Act, or benefits for domestic partners or DADT”
Perhaps your issues are not being addressed in the timely manner you wish, but join the fucking club, there are, quite frankly, more important issues to deal with, like jobs, the economy, and the deficit.
celticdragonchick
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
And what lie would that be?
The brief was written. Risible comparisons were made. The brief was withdrawn and belated apologies made. The fact still exists that the comparisons were made to begin with, and that DOMA is still being defended in court.
Your views of historical fact seem somewhat provisional.
lol
@joe from Lowell:
It’ll be too little too late which means that Obama signing a DADT repeal is a slap in the face for all True Progressives.
joe from Lowell
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
You might be right. It is damn difficult to get accurate information of legislative process from the general press.
freelancer
I think I remember hearing something like this on Maddow, but did anyone else hear about a possible backroom deal the Dems made with McCain on DADT, about getting his support for the Defense Authorization bill as long as they didn’t bring it up during his primary with Hayworth? Anyone else hear anything like that? Fat lotta good it’s doing now, if it was true.
celticdragonchick
@Nick:
I’m sure the same things were being said to all those radical “negro agitators” a few years back. There is always something more important, and don’t you know how good you’ve got it now, you ungrateful bastards??
I’m off to class (optical mineralogy), so we will see later of something has actually happened in the Senate.
Joel
Politically, I have to say letting the Republicans filibuster is probably a wise move. If the Democrats know their ass from a hole in the ground, they’ll let everyone know that…
@joe from Lowell:
Secondly, issuing an executive order at this time is not bound to be a popular move, especially since a lot of people are still homophobic and those homophobes are going to be disproportionately represented in the upcoming electorate. Until we can change their minds (or wait for them to be washed off with the tides of time) we’re stuck with their opinions.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
I honestly can’t tell if you’re lying, or if you just got so rea in the face when you saw the words “homosexual” and “pedophile” on the same document that you utterly failed to understand what was being argued.
Ultimately, it doesn’t much matter. You are demonstrably, factually incorrect about what the Justice Department argued, and I’ll excuse you when you demonstrate a degree of genuine understanding of the factual error you made, and apologize for it.
Citizen Alan
We have actually reached the point where the Log Cabin Republicans and TED FUCKING OLSEN have a better record of achieving positive results for gay Americans that the Democratic Party. If this bill goes down, it will be with every Democrat in the Senate (save Jim Webb) voting Aye, even as the President and leader of the party appointing people who support DADT to high level command positions and while his DOJ is submitting overtly homophobic briefs in support of DOMA and DADT, And yet all the blame for the failure should be placed on Senate procedure.
Obama cannot fail, he can only be failed, I suppose.
cyntax
@Hugin & Munin:
OK, that’s funny.
I was not expecting a new wrinkle to the bully-pulpit/emo-pants/straw-hippie
argumentconundrum, but there you are.Nick
@celticdragonchick:
Is this snark? Because if it’s not, then you need to pick up a motherfucking history book and learn about the history of civil rights.
gene108
@Chinn Romney: Senate Democrats blocked proposed drilling in ANWR by a threat of a filibuster. It wasn’t abused like it is now by the Republicans, but Democrats did use it, when they didn’t have control of the Senate. Blocking drilling in ANWR is the example that jumps to mind of a Democratic threat to filibuster that worked.
The only question is have Republicans created the new normal by blocking everything Democrats try to do. If Democrats end up in the minority, which would most likely happen by losing conservative Democratic seats in red districts or states, will they tack hard to the left to fire up the base, the way Republicans have done.
I don’t think it’s likely, but one can only hope…
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
Yup, that’s a problem. It’s not a problem that’s going to get better when people who know better keep repeating politically-convenient falsehoods, but that seems to be your stock in trade.
Your next tattoo should read “Too infuriating to check.”
Sly
Politics is, to a very large extent, mere pageantry.
That this is manifestly stupid does not make it less true.
Nick
@Citizen Alan:
Yes, you fail Obama with your lies.
Joe Beese
If you’d like to campaign on 16.7% real unemployment and a $1,400,000,000,000 deficit, knock yourself out.
joe from Lowell
False.
You misunderstood what you read. This has been pointed out to you over and over again, for months.
The Obama administration never, not once, compared gay relationships to bestiality or incest or pedophilia; not did it state that the reasons for DADT were similar to those for the laws that ban those actions.
It is a falsehood – whether one stemming from ignorance, or from malice – for you to keep repeating this statement. You should really stop.
Citizen Alan
@Joel:
Yeah, we had a similar discussion here last night on the topic of torture and investigations into Bush era war crimes. The consensus view then, as well, was that the Democrats should avoid doing what is morally and ethically correct if doing so would be unpopular with people who would never vote for us anyway and might at some point be electorally disadvantageous. Because the Democratic Part, as it has been for the last twenty years, is defined by its institutional moral cowardice.
cleek
@Face:
an executive order won’t do it.
DADT is the law.
gene108
@Pangloss: If Democrats had the party discipline of Republicans, they’d also be closet-fascist-wannabes like the Republicans.
Some dissent and discussion is good for a democracy and any political party operating in a democracy.
Bullying everyone to move in lock-step with your Party or be branded a traitor isn’t good for democracy.
Citizen Alan
@Nick:
My God, you sound like the high priest of the First Self-Righteous Temple of Obama! I can just imagine you snarling that at me while wearing a giant pope hat with a big, gold-lame “O” embroidered on it.
joe from Lowell
@Joel:
I think of it in terms of the immigration debate. The nativists are so eager to hide their bigotry behind language about “upholding the law” in order to deflect attention from the real issue. The homophobes have lost the debate over the issue of gay people serving their country, and it would be politically foolish to give them a chance to couch their position in terms of “upholding the laws passed by Congress.”
joe from Lowell
@Citizen Alan:
False.
They really should include at least a little instruction in the law in the high school curriculum.
The Obama administration never submitted an overtly homophobic brief in support of DOMA and DADT.
FlipYrWhig
@celticdragonchick: IIRC the examples establishing why the federal government could have an interest in defining marriage include some things that some states defined differently from others, such as degrees of consanguinity and age of consent. (I don’t remember “bestiality” being included, but I’d gladly revise my impression by taking another look later.) Thus when you, the government, are trying to establish that the government has the right to define a marriage, all of your examples are going to be things that invalidate some marriages in some states. IMHO that reasoning is not a “comparison” between homosexuality and pedophilia and incest _as practices_.
Brachiator
@Face:
How about after the mid-term elections? Here it might be more likely to stick.
Nick
@Citizen Alan:
Jesus Christ, is this for real?
Come back when you actually have an argument you didn’t copy and paste from some disgruntled PUMA blog.
Nick
@Citizen Alan:
Sorry, I don’t consider a temporary executive order that doesn’t repeal the law, only prevents its enforcement for a period of time, morally or ethically correct.
Hugin & Munin
joe from Lowell: You seem incapable of differentiating between observations about the state of affairs and between statements of personal political opinion. Sloppy thinking.
joe from Lowell
Just to clear things up for the confused:
The brief submitted by the Holder Justice Department in the DOMA case argued that it is within the rightful power of the government to put restrictions on marriage, if the legislature that passed the law was doing so in order to advance a legitimate public purpose. They cited some marriage restrictions, such as laws against incestuous marriages, or underaged marriages, as examples to demonstrate this point.
They did not argue that the public purpose served by DOMA was the same as, or even similar to, the public purposes served by those other laws. Rather, that early brief cited a different set of public purposes. They later withdrew even those arguments, asserting that they were invalid, and thus tanked their case.
Nick
@Joe Beese:
Whose talking about campaigning?
Besides, with 16.7% underemployment and a $1.4 trillion deficit, I hardly think people concerned with that are going to change their votes because we repealed DADT.
What is it with you people and thinking your personal agenda is the panacea that saves the Democratic Party?
FlipYrWhig
@Citizen Alan:
Look, you scum-sucking fool, you know that I was not arguing THAT the Democrats SHOULD avoid doing what is morally and ethically correct, but that actually-existing Democrats HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN by doing what is morally and ethically correct and thus PROBABLY WILL NOT do what you want them to do without being pushed in some unprecedented, superhuman way. Which probably will involve a little bit more than some puffed-up masturbatory moralizing by three people on a blog in the middle of the night cheaply bragging about what they refuse to accept even when it comes at no cost to them and has no effect whatsoever in the world. But, yes, you’re the fucking hero, congratulations, you’ve changed the world just by evaluating it silently against your own imaginary state of perfection and finding it lacking.
cleek
@cleek:
lemme amend that…
DATA is an executive order which tempers (about as much as can be hoped for) the law which says gays are not allowed in the military. DATA tries to deflect enforcement, but the law remains, and an executive order ultimately cannot trump a law.
lol
Executive order also kills any political willpower for Congress to do its fucking job and sets a precedent that’ll keep it from permanently being repealed for decades.
(see abortion gag rule)
joe from Lowell
@Hugin & Munin:
Fascinating. Did you get this impression from the comment in which I differentiated between the state of affairs and someone’s opinion about politics?
Wait, don’t answer that. I don’t actually care.
Cris
Tangentially on topic (of the thread, not the original post): Michael Tomasky on the myths of the filibuster.
Sly
@cleek:
Obama could issue an order halting all discharges under DADT. EO’s must be used to enforce existing law, and the OLC could certainly find some legal minutia within the statutes to justify it. He’d essentially be playing the same game that Bush did relative to circumventing FISA (and a bunch of other things), but I doubt many in the public would care.
There are still the problem of legitimacy in the eyes of the chain of command, which relates directly to the ability of the order to be faithfully implemented. In magical unicorn land where no one learns any history, Truman’s order to desegregate the military was immediately carried. He issued his decree, and suddenly blacks were serving alongside whites in every unit. In reality, it took years for the order to be implemented because hold-outs within the chain of command could maintain a segregationist policy without declaring as such. Giving an order the imprimatur of Congressional approval, for several reasons, makes that practice more difficult.
Would it make things better? Yes. The irony is that the people so gung-ho about an EO have not typically been receptive to the “making things better” argument.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
Kal Penn just tweeted the following (edited to add line breaks and bolding, to make it easier to read):
DADT&DREAM, cloture 2pmEST.
Needed: Collins 202-224-2523
Lugar 202-224-4814
Voinovich 202-224-3353
Snowe 202-224-5344
Brown 202-224-4543
joe from Lowell
Joe Biden stated quite clearly the reason why Obama didn’t issue an executive order: because they had to promise not to in order to get the votes they needed to repeal DADT once and for all.
Is there even the slightest doubt in anybody’s mind that if Obama had issued such an executive order, and thereby killed the actual repeal of the bill in Congress, we’d be seeing the EXECUTIVE ORDER NOW! crowd wailing that Obama had sold out by dooming the legislative repeal, and was just “waving a shiny object” in front of the base?
After all, that’s exactly what they’ve done over Obama’s executive order banning torture. “Oh, boo-hoo, he didn’t really ban torture! He just issued an executive order, which the next president can overturn at any time!”
Hugin & Munin
joe from Lowell: Yes, I can see how accuracy would be an anathema to you.
Allan
The person you should be calling is Jim Webb, D-VA. Explain to His Majesty that he can vote however the fuck he wants when the defense authorization bill comes up for an actual vote, but that you expect him to vote with the Dems on procedural cloture votes.
202-224-4024 press two to speak to a human (keep trying)
Zifnab
@Chinn Romney: This.
If the Republicans want to spend the next month whining about gays in the military and immigrant soldiers getting citizenship, why can’t we just let them climb up on this hill and die on it?
FlipYrWhig
@Zifnab: Because conservative Democrats want to climb up that same hill.
joe from Lowell
Just called Scott’s Brown’s office.
“I’m calling about today’s vote on the Defense Authorization Bill. Look, if Senator Brown objects to having patriotic, gay Americans serve their country, I can respect his opinion. I disagree, but he’s entitled to his opinion on that. What I cannot respect is blocking the Defense Authorization Bill over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. This country is at war, and he needs to support the troops.”
Oh, yeah, I went there. Miss, perhaps I can help: I speak Wingnut.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@Allan: Doing so, as I type, even though I’m from Illinois. I’m a Democrat, ain’t I? (Um, yes, in case there was any doubt).
joe from Lowell
@Hugin & Munin:
Again, fascinating. Did you draw that conclusion form the posts in which I corrected someone for inaccurately describing the Justice brief in the DOMA case?
Oops, I forgot: I don’t really care.
If you have an argument you’d like to make about something, champ, just go ahead and shout it out. I don’t think nipping at my ankles like this is accomplishing anything.
Culture of Truth
Can I get one of those Obama Pope hats?
cat48
@celticdragonchick:
About those “negro agitators”……they’ve been waiting forever to get the backpay due Black farmers from court decision. They don’t appear to have full civil rights yet.
Joseph Nobles
Collins is out, because DADT is unfair but Republicans unable to offer amendment after amendment and drag out debate is unfair too. That’s right – the Republicans’ efforts to enforce bigotry is more important than ending bigotry.
This is her Dred Scott moment.
Gator90
@Nick:
May I respectfully recommend a book to you? It is “Why We Can’t Wait” by ML King, Jr. (1964). It provides an eloquent explanation of why people who have been denied equality by their society don’t appreciate being told by allegedly well-meaning people that now isn’t the right time, other issues are more important, etc. Because a lot of allegedly well-meaning people told him (and other civil-rights activitists of the era) exactly that, which is what I believe Celticdragonchick was referring to.
If one believes that equality for gay people is just another issue (along with the budget deficit, farm subsidies, marginal tax rates, etc), then it makes sense to balance it against other policy priorities and weigh the political pros and cons. If one believes that it is a matter of basic human dignity, then the right time is always now, now, now.
Amanda in the South Bay
When I came out to the Army, it was as a transsexual, with absolutely no mention of my orientation. I can’t remember the regs off the top of my head, (AR 635-200 maybe?) but gender identity disorder is a very specific no no.
Despite my love of mil tech geekery, I’ve been pretty anti military since I’ve gotten out, but there have been times when I’ve felt pretty crushed and fucked over by people and the world, and I’ve thought that being an openly trans soldier wouldn’t be that bad.
The thing is, during the HCR debate, when us DFHs were shouting for the administration and Congress to do more than one thing at a time, we were told to STFU and wait till after HCR was passed, then stuff like LGBT issues could be worked on. There was such a window, and I blame both congress and BO for nit pushing things in that window. Now we have midterms, and the 2012 election will start the day after, so that will be trotted out as an excuse to not touch controversial issues.
Alas, even if trans people could serve, I don’t think the Army would look too kindly on purple colored hair, or any of the other private interests I’ve developed since I no longer have to worry about my employer intruding in my private life.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@Allan: Done!
I said that I understand that he has issues with the defense authorization bill, and when that comes up for a vote he should of course vote as he sees fit, but that as a Democrat, I hope that he will vote with his caucus today on this procedural vote, “and not against us.”
Fingers ever crossed.
taylormattd
@celticdragonchick: That brief was filed by the Bush administration. When the Obama administration came into office, the further briefing on appeal removed those disgusting arguments. But you know, keep on with the zombie lies.
Nick
@Gator90:
ah, good book, yes, it was also written after decades of pro-civil rights politicians telling civil rights activists that other issues are more important and now ins’t the right time.
Unfortunately, what you’re missing, is 20 months after the election of the first President to want to repeal the law, we’re actually holding votes to repeal it, so now does appear to be the right time according to our leaders.
If we’re still here in 2034, we have problems.
Allan
@Nick:
I was going to make a point about how much Abraham Lincoln managed to accomplish as President in addition to winning a war against domestic treason that had brothers killing brothers in the streets.
But then I remembered that when the South seceded, Lincoln had a cakewalk in what was left of the Senate compared to today.
So my conclusion is that the best thing for America would be a second Civil War. Let the Confederacy secede, then while legitimately exterminating all remaining defenders of the Confederacy with extreme prejudice, we could also push through single-payer, card-check, same-sex marriage, etc.
Getting to bayonet the children of teatards in front of their mothers is just a nice bonus.
FlipYrWhig
@Gator90: If you’re an activist, yes, the right time is always now, now, now. I would like to think, though, that even as an activist who thinks the right time is now, now, now, a person wouldn’t act mystified about why stodgy, conflict-averse politicians weren’t eager to take up your struggle without a lot of convincing. My impression of MLK is that he knew his was an uphill battle no matter how righteous, and didn’t continually seethe about being betrayed by people less righteous than himself.
gex
@celticdragonchick: It will be interesting to see how the Prop 8 trial ends up too. I fear the Roberts court will find that there is no right to SSM. Despite oodles of straight people telling me things are getting better, the actual legal and political track record tell a different story. When Prop 8 passed I said it would be 15 years before federal SSM. But if we can’t even get DADT repealed when a majority of Americans approve (including conservatives and service members) it shows two things:
1) The power of demagoguery against gays is still in play.
2) The straight people who do support gays do not prioritize this in any way that will get it done.
And while generational change will change attitudes about gays, the idea that working on “more important issues” that “affect everybody” will always hold.
Fuck.
Nick
@Allan:
you know, I’m not convinced succession of some parts of the country wouldn’t be such a bad idea. I’m starting to think we’re too big, too diverse, too complicated.
As a first generation ethnically European Deist Mid-Atlantic liberal, I’m not sure I have anything in common with someone from Louisiana or Idaho.
joe from Lowell
The offending passage from the DOMA brief:
There is no – zero, zilch, none – comparison drawn between gay marriages and the other marriages discussed in this passage. None. The DOJ was arguing that states can refuse to recognize each others’ marriages, and listed several cases in which this principle was upheld.
gex
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN): I don’t know. I think that gay people can be outraged that gayness needs to be regulated by the state in the same way pedophilia or bestiality do. Even if they didn’t COMPARE gayness to those things, it is being placed in the same category of things that are really bad for our society.
Amanda in the South Bay
@ Nick
That would be a horrifically bad idea, since there are large numbers of liberals, LGBT people, etc who actually live in those states. Plus, a Dominionist dominated neo Confederacy would probably be aggressive and expand northward.
hilzoy
@Amanda in the South Bay: Sucks, doesn’t it? I would have hoped that anyone who wants to serve his or her country, and is able to do so, would be welcomed, and that anyone who has already spent time serving his or her country and came out as trans would be fine.
Part of the reason I wanted to correct the NYT is that I think it is really awful that the repeal of DADT does not include transmen and transwomen, and even more so that they are unlikely to be able to serve openly in the foreseeable future.
ruemara
@joe from Lowell:
Stealing that tack, Mr.
Amanda in the South Bay
Basically, Congress shouldve tackled this much earlier, right on the heels of HCR when there was at least a modicum of momentum. Why wait until so close to the midterms, with the spectre of a GOP take over hanging over everything.
IOW, what were Congress and the Administration so busy doing in the aftermath of HCR that they had to put this off till now?
Turgidson
@joe from Lowell:
I, for one, won’t be convinced of Obama’s support for gay rights until he forces Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to get married on the White House lawn on national TV. Preferably they’ll be decked out in anti-colonial Kenyan attire as well, but I’m not picky.
FlipYrWhig
@joe from Lowell: Thanks for retrieving that. I was speaking from memory earlier and wasn’t entirely accurate. To me it stands to reason that if you want to make a case that states refusing to recognize each other’s marriages — an issue with same-sex marriage being allowed in some states and not others — you’d have to enumerate the reasons for which some marriages are deemed not to pass muster with one state or another. And, yes, it does conjure up memories of Loving v. Virginia; but — OK, IANAL — mostly it’s just recounting that the patchwork situation whereby marriages deemed valid in one state may not be valid in another, as would happen after some states passed SSM, is ongoing, and hence not a reason to find attempts to restrict SSM a new problem outside the existing jurisdictional framework.
Citizen Alan
For those who want to reread the brief in question, it can be found here. Personally, I found its central arguments to be offensive and plainly homophobic:
1. Gays should not be considered a suspect class, despite decades of persistent and invidious discrimination against them.
2. DOMA was in no sense the result of discriminatory animus towards gays, but was based entirely on non-discriminatory reasons.
3. While marriage is a fundamental right, gay marriage is not, and so the federal government can deny the benefits of marriage to gay married couples for any “legitimate” reason.
4. Because of 1, 2 & 3, DOMA should be reviewed under “rational basis” scrutiny, meaning the law should be affirmed if it was not passed for arbitrary or capricious reasons but for any legitimate purpose.
5. The burden is on the plaintiffs to eliminate every possible legitimate purpose, including reasons imagined by the judge during the course of the trial, even if they were never suggested by the court record or the legislative history.
6. One acceptable “legitimate” reason for affirming DOMA is that the federal government has limited resources and recognizing the right of gay spouses to receive federal benefits might require the government to spend more money. Even worse, it would be spending tax dollars which might come from states where gay marriage was still illegal.
Collectively, I consider these arguments to demonstrate a shocking homophobic bias on the part of the DOJ lawyers. YMMV.
joe from Lowell
No, it’s not.
Read the passage. The DOJ did not argue, anywhere, “that gayness needs to be regulated by the state in the same way pedophilia or bestiality do.” Rather, they argued that it is within Congress’s power to allow states to refuse to recognize each others’ marriages.
In fact, the brief repeats over and over that DOMA is neutral on the validity of gay marriages, and that it allows states to recognize them if they so choose.
gex
@Nick: Obama has issued executive orders that countermand legislation in other areas, notably for immigrants who are married to Americans. I’m not sure why it is unacceptable for gays to want an EO for the time being, until such time as DADT gets repealed. It isn’t unheard of.
In the meantime we’d have two years of adjustment. And while it may take longer for DADT to come off the books, I wonder what the real chances are that the next Republican president will reverse the EO. I think it’s unlikely.
Meanwhile, the political reality is that DADT repeal has majority support, even among conservatives and service members. If we can’t do that because the GOP simply refuses to give ground on any gay issues, why not an EO?
joe from Lowell
@Amanda in the South Bay:
There’s actually a reason for this: in order to attach it to the Defense Authorization Act. You can’t pass the 2011 defense authorization bill in March; it takes months to write.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@Allan: I have this powerful sense that I shouldn’t have laughed out loud at this.
But I did.
So, I’ll just add that this a war against domestic treason that had brothers killing brothers in the streets is the best description of the Civil War that I’ve ever seen.
FlipYrWhig
@gex:
Where did “beastiality” come from? celticdragonchick mentions that too, but I don’t see it in the language joe provided.
I think the idea is that states have exerted a level of control over who can be designated married, as for example setting age limits and consanguinity requirements, in a way that has been upheld by courts; thus there is nothing amiss about one state recognizing SSM and another not doing so, because a patchwork of standards is already in place and because the overarching principle that governments can set rules for what counts as marriages is well-established. Like I said, it feels to me like that argument could also be mounted to defend Loving v. Virginia, so I don’t care for it; but I don’t think it’s the same thing as “regulating gayness” or comparing gay people to pedophiles.
gex
@joe from Lowell: DOMA does not allow the Federal Government to recognize marriages. Gay couples in Iowa do not have the same marriages as their straight counterparts.
You tip you hand by calling that “neutral”.
Citizen Alan
@joe from Lowell:
Does this mean that if the DADT repeal gets stripped out of the bill, that Obama WILL issue an executive order? Since, you know, they didn’t actually get all those votes they were promised to repeal it once and for all?
joe from Lowell
@Citizen Alan:
While I disagree, strongly, with each of those arguments, it seems a stretch to call them “homophobic.” Homophobic would have been arguing that gay marriage was harmful, or like child molestation and animal buggery.
I’d like to draw your attention to this one though:
When the Bush administration argued the case, they included the anti-gay arguments that motivated the passage of the bill in their filings – that gay marriage is icky, harms society, bad for children, you know the drill. The fact that the Obama administration struck these arguments, which were the actual heart of the case for DOMA, we all remember the debate, and argued procedure and separation of powers/federalism, was extremely significant.
Paula
Another stupid firebagger thread, not least because the folks arguing for immigration reform are at least as frustrated about the lack of progress on that front as the folks arguing for gay rights.
Do you ever read about immigration reform efforts on a regular basis from progressive blogs? NOT REALLY. Except to rib Republicans about being xenophobes. Now the DREAM Act should be getting some much needed attention but I guess it’s less important than whether Obama should have done x or y 9 months ago …
Cris
See, that’s why I still can’t get enthused about twitter. I like formatting. I like verbosity.
Thanks for carrying the torch here, by the way.
Nick
@gex:
Because it could and probably would be reversed and would exonerate Congress from repealing it permanently.
I’m not sure why gays would want a temporary fix when we’re so close to getting a permanent one?
Nick
@Citizen Alan:
If Congress can’t pass a repeal, then the argument for an EO becomes stronger. That becomes the compromise.
gex
@FlipYrWhig: I guess I don’t understand why the administration arguing that there are legitimate reasons to ban SSM is somehow not insulting to gay people – even if we throw out the unfortunate “comparisons”. The entire premise of government banning something is that it is harmful and bad.
So throw out the outrage over the comparisons. I’m still pissed that this administration advances the idea that there is a legitimate state interest (and indeed COST was one such interest cited) in prohibiting SSM. Some of you argue that there is nothing offensive about that brief, but I can’t help but feel that arguing that there are legitimate reasons to ban SSM is offensive in and of itself.
Nick
@Amanda in the South Bay:
They pushed a lot through that window, including DADT repeal. It IS coming for a vote in the Senate, isn’t it?
Do you think it would have been more likely to pass in April 2009 when Ted Kennedy was basically already dead, Robert Byrd was almost dead, Al Franken was still trying to secure his seat and Arlen Specter still thought he could beat Toomey?
gex
@Nick: But everyone tells me that things are getting better. If we can stop discharging gays NOW while we have 2 wars, that’s a plus.
The people who tell me to wait because now is not the right time are also telling me that it won’t be better in the future by your argument. It will both be a period in which Obama’s EO gets reversed, but somehow DADT would get repealed.
I say let a Republican president deal with reversing the EO AFTER gays have been serving openly, and possibly during war time. Do you think with one swift statement the next Repub president will discharge tens of thousands of openly gay soldiers?
ETA: both of your points were addressed in my initial comment (odds of repeal of EO, delay in repeal of DADT). In fact, I wonder if you even read anything beyond the piece you excerpted.
lacp
Nobody does pro-active flame wars better than Dem bloggers, fighting over a bill that the Senate hasn’t even taken up yet. It’s almost enough to make me want to become a Democrat again. Almost.
Nick
@gex:
You’re equating the administration’s position with the law. The DOJ is defending an already existing law, through the arguments made in favor of it. It’s not their official position.
You’re not mad at Obama, you’re mad at whoever wrote DOMA to begin with.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@Cris: Always happy to carry a torch! Even if it’s only back-lit.
Nick
You’re forgetting the Senate is voting on it this week! Now IS the right time, that’s why it’s being voted on in Congress! I’m not really sure what you’re complaining about. It may fail, but you can’t argue they didn’t try, though I suspect you will.
I can’t possibly fathom who wouldn’t
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
This is off-topic, but w/in the topic of DADT — that is, the rights of LGBT people in this country.
Dan Savage has launched a new YouTube project for LGBT youth (in the wake of recent suicides…) called “It Gets Better” http://bit.ly/atKVRD
It’s something else. Make sure you have your hankies.
(h/t commenter kate_bee over at Ta-Nehisi Coates’s place http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/09/open-thread-at-noon/63321/#disqus_thread )
gex
@Nick: Um, I’m talking about the brief in defense of DOMA, not DOMA itself. I could be wrong, but thought the “costs to the state” is a new argument, a new “legitimate interest” that was introduced with this brief.
If so, that is offensive. But I’m willing to be shown I’m mistaken and that this wasn’t a new argument.
Nick
BTW Atrios ‘ diary is an example of why the “I’d be satisfied if Democrats fought and lost rather than compromised first” bullshit is just that…bullshit.
Of course if the Democrats fight and lost, the blame would be placed on them not trying hard enough.
gex
@Nick: I should apologize – I’m not saying EO instead of repeal. I’m saying if this doesn’t go through with the repeal, there should be an EO. Quite obviously legislation is the preferred method. But I fear that is giving this batch of Republicans too much credit for being grown ups.
Gator90
@Nick: Nick, it was you at comment #55 who said this:
If you are (as you suggest) familiar with MLK’s frustration at being told to “wait” for equality, then are you really unable to see why the above remark, made by you in this thread, reminded Celticdragonchick and me of the people with whom he was frustrated?
Really?
joe from Lowell
@gex:
A. I didn’t call it “neutral,” I stated that the DOJ argued that it was neutral, which is quite different than arguing that anti-gay discrimination is appropriate.
B. Tipped my hand? Go fuck yourself. I’ve been against DADT and for gay marriage since you were in grade school.
joe from Lowell
@Citizen Alan:
I don’t know; I’m not a mind reader. That’s a good question.
joe from Lowell
@gex:
It would be, if they had ever done so. The Bush administration did so, hauling the old tropes about the children and defending the institution of marriage. When the Obama administration came into office, they dropped those arguments from their brief, and argued instead that DOMA was neutral.
joe from Lowell
@gex:
Oh, for Christ’s sake!
“Gay marriage will cost money,” is now the equivalent of “Gay marriage is like having sex with animals?” An argument can be wrong without being a slander on the decency of gay people, you know.
You’re overdosing on being offended. Your “tip your hand” remark shows it – you want, desperately, to believe you’re being insulted, and will seize on anything to believe it.
celticdragonchick
@Nick:
I got an A- in African American History last year. Try again.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
Owe you an apology, lol?
How about when hell freezes over?
You really are an egotistical prick, at least in print.
Gator90
@joe from Lowell:
Sure it’s neutral. The old anti-miscegenation laws were neutral, too, because blacks and whites were equally prohibited from marrying a person of the other race. Who could have a problem with that?
celticdragonchick
@FlipYrWhig:
A reasonable response at last. I appreciate the distinction you make, but I wonder if you understand how an awful lot of us felt about our marriages being conflated with criminal practices by means of ‘examples’.
BTw…I was indeed wrong about the beastiality bit. The conflation was with pedophilia/ incest.
cleek
@Amanda in the South Bay:
FinReg and…. summer recess!
gex
@joe from Lowell: My misunderstanding. I’m sorry I attributed the “neutral” evaluation to you. Fair enough. Nice comeback though.
gex
@joe from Lowell: Is it or is it not a new argument in providing a reason the state has an interest in banning SSM? I apologized (later) for the misattribution. But I think you are trying to paint me as someone looking to be offended specifically by Obama. I’m not.
Where did I say gay marriage costs money = gay marriage is like beastiality? If one is offensive, does that automatically preclude the other from being so?
I find the “costs money” argument offensive because the amount of marriage benefits that would be given to gays pales in comparison to the money being spent for straight marriages. Is that okay with you? Or do you prefer your assumption that I see no difference between the two, and thus find them both offensive.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN)
@celticdragonchick: Professionally offended person is offended.
You have made consistently false statements, persisting in them long after the error has been shown to you. Not differences of opinion, but absolutely, utterly false. The DOJ did not compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia, and bestiality wasn’t mentioned at all. You have zero credibility.
All the DOJ did was to say that, absent any federal statute or constitutional provision saying otherwise, states are permitted not to recognize marriages made in other states. They also argue that same-sex marriage is not constitutionally protected. The administration threw out all of the arguments pertaining specifically to there being legitimate state purposes to barring same-sex marriage. As pointed out above, that’s as close to tanking the case as you can get.
They claimed that DOMA was constitutional so long as the standards necessary were met, but did nothing to show that that was the case. The ban on same-sex marriage must itself be constitutional for DOMA to even matter, and they left its opponents on their own hilltop to live or die without federal support.
They argued a narrow constitutional point that they thought would be consistent with the way that the courts would read the Constitution.
You know what? THAT’S THEIR JOB. The Bush administration’s refusal to do this, and, in fact, doing their best to weasel around legal and constitutional provisions they didn’t like was the most repulsive thing about it. I do not want administration’s doing that. I thought the way they presented the case was a very clever way to defend their view of the Constitution without providing any ammunition to the opponents of same-sex marriage.
Apparently, other people are not content to simply disagree with someone, but must feel offended by them. So, they make up things in the relevant documents that they can be insulted by. That doesn’t mean the rest of us should take them seriously.
Michael D.
@Gator90:
This.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Paula:
You know, there are those of us who have no problems criticizing the administration, but who are obviously going to vote Dem this fall because the alternative is a million times worse.
Stop equating “firebaggers” with people who want the Dems to lose.
NobodySpecial
@joe from Lowell: Never happen. Obama has no power to do that, remember? We get hammered with that over and over and over, regardless of the truth of it.
FlipYrWhig
@celticdragonchick: Yeah, I think one part of the genuine gripe is the idea that the defense of the law would take place on a playing field that would also almost certainly justify laws against interracial marriage too: some states might allow it, but others might ban it, and the banning states would hence not be required to respect the interracial marriages performed in other states. I think what I just spelled out there adheres to all the same logic as the defense of any and all laws showing a state interest in marriage, including DOMA.
So basically to defend this law implicitly suggests that same-sex marriage is _more like_ underage or consanguineous marriage (subject to criteria states set and manage for themselves) than it is like interracial marriage (now accepted by almost everyone as something no state has any business banning).
I think. IANAL.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
Apology accepted.
In addition to being egotistical, I’m also fucking right, schoolgirl, and you are fucking wrong. You haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about when you slag the Obama administration on gay rights; you don’t even know what’s in the legal brief on which you claim your opinion is based; and you need to keep your mouth shut and learn something before you spout off next time.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
No, you were wrong about any conflation whatsoever being made.
You’ve been proven wrong, the text proving you wrong has been posted, you’ve read it, but you’re still clinging to your poutrage.
joe from Lowell
@Gator90:
Well, me, for one. Regardless of the intent, the law is still discriminatory in its effect.
Just to catch you up, someone upthread asserted that the Obama/Holder-era brief argued homophobic tropes about needing to protect society from gay marriages, and I was pointing out that it did not. Why you expect me to defend a position I’ve never taken is beyond me.
Paula
@Amanda in the South Bay:
I don’t see why you chose this to respond to. I have no idea that you are personally a firebagger in the way I use the term.
Let it be noted: these stupid debates (that I think Cole should stop putting up) attract what are the same 20 people using the same arguments and talking points. It’s all dumb. Vote for who you want, deal with the results.
I have way, way, way more respect for actual Greens and Socialists (who make stronger arguments against both of the corporatist parties) because they’ve made an intellectually and morally consistent commitment to be outside the mainstream. Firebagger logic, OTOH, rests on the ambiguity (and irrationality) of seeing themselves both inside and outside the political mainstream, as both the “base” and the “vanguard”, as power players and as marginalized victims. Unless you think your comments fall under this description, then you are not a firebagger.
joe from Lowell
@gex:
Sure. I agree with that position.
Assumption, my ass. You went off on how “offensive” the brief was for repeating offensive, homophobic tropes, and then when forced to recognize that it does not, you insisted that it was just as offensive, because of its arguments that had nothing to do with that tropes, but about procedure and costs.
joe from Lowell
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal (JMN):
Professionally offended person also doesn’t seem to know very much about the law, but is just sure she knows what statements in a legal brief means.
Like, “reasonable” means that they, like, totally agree that the law is good and stuff, rite?
Gator90
@joe from Lowell: Would you seriously argue that DOMA is not discriminatory in both intent and effect? If one assumes (as one must, for this discussion to be meaningful) that restricting marriage equality for gay people is a form of discrimination, then how could it be otherwise? Such was the open and avowed purpose of the legislation’s proponents.
I haven’t read the DOJ briefing either, but I take you at your word that the Obama Administration described DOMA as “neutral” rather than discriminatory. Describing it as neutral is patent nonsense and transparent bad faith. I think I prefer the ugly candor of the Bush years.
Mnemosyne
@celticdragonchick:
Except that they weren’t. In some states, it’s perfectly legal for a 16-year-old to get married without parental consent. In others, it’s not. Same with cousin marriage — perfectly okay in some states, not valid in others. The brief’s point was that they felt that the states could make some of those decisions about the validity of marriages performed in other states and that latitude should apply with gay marriage. I disagree with that argument, but I also don’t think that pointing out that some states allow first cousins to marry but other states won’t allow third cousins to marry was claiming that the first set of states was legalizing incest.
The only person who made a value judgment and decided that a 16-year-old’s legal marriage was automatically evidence of pedophilia or that legal cousin marriage is always incest was John Aravosis.
John Bird
Yeah, you ever wonder why those rules seem to call for a supermajority when the President is a Democrat? I do.
Nick
@Gator90:
I understand the frustration, but my point is, good people have sold out civil rights for decades before, good people fought and lost civil rights for decades. it didn’t start with MLK and MLK was forced to wait for years as well. It was near ten years from the Montgomery Bus Boycott until the Civil Rights Act.
No one wants you to “wait,” but everything can’t happen at once.
Anyway, that’s not the point, you didn’t have to “wait,” we put it to a vote today…and it failed, and we’ll do it again. It happens.
MLK didn’t run and give money to racists the second the party told him “wait.”
gerry
If only Obama used the bully pulpit to call the bigots bigots. Maybe that would satisfy both you (I’m looking at you Mr. Cole) and the Firebaggers.
Wait, that couldn’t be possible.
Rig
I look forward to the day when sexual deviants are allowed to adopt children and serve openly in the military. I can’t believe that anyone would condemn or oppose this! I am in the Navy and I want our homosexuals to be free to tell us about their sexual deviation and I want them to be loud and proud! I want to be able to look around me and 24/7 on a 6 month deployment and take comfort in knowing that the people who I’m working closely with and sharing living quarters with are sexual deviants. I want them to be able to walk around on the boat all day long proclaiming their deviation for me and all of my fellow honorable service members to hear, including the Captain, the Commodore and all of the marines on the boat! I will not rest until sexual deviants are practicing their deviation openly, loud and proud, in full military uniform. Dear God please get them into the service. And to those of you that are in the service having to conceal your sexual deviation; thank you for your service! We’re gonna make sure you can be open, it might take some more work, but we’ll make it happen!!! God bless you guys