The Obama Justice Department has decided that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court.
“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
Reader Interactions
182Comments
Comments are closed.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Just words!
FormerSwingVoter
It’s kind of amazing, actually, how much of a not big deal this has been on most channels. This would have been a cause of massive celebration and complete wingnut freakouts 24/7 if it happened two years ago, wouldn’t it?
…Or maybe its just too new and the wingnutplosion will begin any second now.
ed
‘Bout fuckin’ time.
Cat Lady
Just words in the sense of the words being just. And righteous. Also.
zzyzx
Gay marriage, the biggest, most important issue EVER!!!
…until it passes and a few years later people wonder what the big deal was anyway.
meh
hmmmm….now that another obstacle to gay marriage is removed – who are the 2 most closeted GOP’ers that should get married? Tom Foley + Larry Craig? I’m thinking Ann Coulter and the guy from Focus on the Family…
Davis X. Machina
If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
Brachiator
But, but, what does Sarah Palin(tm) think about it? Is the tweet in yet?
trollhattan
@FormerSwingVoter:
The wingnuts have a different shiny thing to follow at the moment, so this has the hallmarks of pretty darn smart tactics, IMHO.
AG Jerry Brown took a similar tack with Prop 8.
socratic_me
Doesn’t this put lie to the claim that Obama had to defend torture because the executive is duty bound to defend all laws as constitutional? That isn’t meant to be an attack. I am honestly just wondering if there is some crucial difference I am missing.
soonergrunt
And the march towards full citizenship for all Americans goes on. And while I KNOW that a Former POW ™ or a Snowbird Snooki wouldn’t ever support full rights for GLBT citizens, I don’t think that a Democratic white male would either. At least, not any of them that might have had a shot at the presidency. I think in this case, it really does take an African-American as President to make it happen. Even if it’s only in the form of not fighting hard to support bigotry instead of outright fighting it.
zzyzx
Well Sullivan will be back to praising Obama again, that’s likely.
Bob Loblaw
Well, now, this just cannot be.
I could have sworn that this time last year, the mighty Obot brigade was adamant that the administration has an ethical responsibility to uphold existing federal legislation in court and that using the justice system to improve civil rights for unprotected minorities was suboptimal.
I also could have sworn that firebaggers insisted that Obama was an anti-gay President and was subverting the GLBT cause to appear more “conservative.”
Turns out, in the mother of all surprises, that neither one of you had any fucking idea what you were talking about. Again.
Commence hypocritical internet jackassery now!
joe from Lowell
@socratic_me:
Torture?
Obama never defended the legality of any law authorizing torture. There was no law passed authorizing torture.
As you might recall, Bush never went to Congress for any actions related to his torture policy. He authorized it through executive action.
soonergrunt
@socratic_me: Well it does, and you are right to a great extent (if not completely).
According to a lawyer I know (and I most certainly am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV), the Solicitor General decides which cert petitions to reply to with a brief and which ones they will not reply to. This is usually the case when the the SG believes that the SCOTUS will not take the case, and is almost always done in the context of military cert petitions, for example.
However, the SCOTUS can demand a cert reply from the Solicitor General on any case they want, and particularly if they grant cert.
fasteddie9318
@meh:
Mark Foley, and he came out openly after he got caught with the page business.
BGinCHI
Thank god we can get back to the culture wars and stop talking about the middle class.
I’m not sure it’s a good idea for BO to get involved with the union stuff in the states at this point, but I sure would like someone to equate all of these issues: attacks on the right for people to collectively bargain and for people not to be discriminated against because of sexual orientation are what makes America great.
Why does the GOP hate America?
soonergrunt
@Bob Loblaw:
Don’t look now, but you just did that for us. Thanks.
Lolis
Gobama. Haters are always gonna hate.
Joe Beese
And this argues against that how exactly?
He’s just proven that all his (and his Obots’) claims of being “forced” to defend DOMA were bullshit.
Now as we approach the beginning of the 2012 election season, he abandons the “kick the base in the balls at every opportunity” strategy that failed so spectacularly in 2010.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Joe Beese: Just curious: What state do you live in, and who is your Congressional rep?
Cris
obama is just like bush he sold us out
Mary
I may be reading this wrong, but is Doug Hill punching hippies over their success in pressuring the administration to abandon it’s defense of DOMA?
Martin
Poor middle-east protestors. Sully is going to abandon them now for sure. Something new shiny has arrived.
joe from Lowell
joe from Lowell – February 23, 2011 | 12:34 pm · Link
Barack Obama is going to go down in history as the Abraham Lincoln of gay rights, and the people who’ve spent two solid years badmouthing him for pursuing what will ultimately be his winning strategy will be coming up with some hi-larious explanations of how “the homophobe in chief” was actually forced into these positions by the awesome power of their protests.
Joe Beese – February 23, 2011 | 12:57 pm · Link
Now as we approach the beginning of the 2012 election season, he abandons the “kick the base in the balls at every opportunity” strategy that failed so spectacularly in 2010.
Mary – February 23, 2011 | 1:01 pm · Link
I may be reading this wrong, but is Doug Hill punching hippies over their success in pressuring the administration to abandon it’s defense of DOMA?
Hi.
Larious.
Lol
@10: the crucial difference is spelled out pretty clearly in Holder’s statement. This only applies to a case coming up in a circuit court where no precedents have been made already. Basically, Team Obama waited for the right case in the right court to get their loophole and avoid setting a precedent of not defending the law.
Joe Beese
This DINO clown.
Loneoak
Hooray! Now I can gay polyamorous marry my horse and cousin!
wsn
@socratic_me:
The statement couches the decision based on the law from the 2nd circuit (NY, VT, CT), so the Administration is saying this only applies to (or arose from) a limited subset of American law.
For the Administration’s reasoning here to apply to torture/military detention cases it looks like there would have to (1) be a Circuit where there was no (legally) reasonable argument that torture/military detentions were constitutional and (2) the case would have to arise within that jurisdiction. I don’t think either (1) or (2) applies, but I am very ignorant of the law w/r/t torture/military detentions.
Whether you consider that “substantial” I cannot say.
MaximusNYC
@Bob Loblaw:
Oh, you can be sure that the firebaggers are determined to keep on hatin’. You see, this latest development is just more evidence that Obama is a lying 11-dimensional-chess-playing Repug!
Yes, doing what the base wants is merely a “trick” when Obama does it.
Matt
How the news is greeted by commenters at Americablog:
“You call this fierce advocacy? I call it late by 3 years.”
Fuck off.
Bob Loblaw
@soonergrunt:
Jackass perhaps. Hypocritical, no. And I hold the latter non-virtue in much lower esteem.
The Obama administration was never anti-gay or unsympathetic to minority causes. They’re the most socially liberal administration ever (as one would expect). They’re also willing to use whatever legal mechanisms, executive, legislative, and judicial, available to advance the cause of nondiscrimination, according to what they consider most politically opportune in the moment. As I’ve said about them from the fucking beginning.
They’re cynical but not malicious. And without question socially progressive. Good for them, they’re getting stuff done. The system works.
Mary
@joe from Lowell: Not really sure what to make of that. I am certainly applauding the administration over this move. I just figure Doug should at least wait until the usual suspects actually start complaining and not giving credit where it’s due before acting all holier than thou. It’s entirely possible to criticize someone for not doing something and then applaud them when they actually get around to doing that thing.
Lolis
@Joe Beese:
Obama had a deal with legislators not to try to change DADT in court and let them change it in Congress. This has been widely reported. I believe the Collins crew made these demands. Obama’s strategy worked. Not that seems to matter to you guys cause he did it in a way you disapproved of.
Joel
@Bob Loblaw: Looks like you’ve already got a head start.
arguingwithsignposts
Wow, DougJ sure does know how to troll with an FP post. Another round of Obot/Firebag Thunderdome!
beergoggles
Well, I’d said I would not vote or send money to the guy’s re-election while his DOJ continued to defend DOMA. Now that that’s out of the way, consider me an o-bot.
Bobby Thomson
Thus putting the lie to the lie that his hands were tied all along.
Well done, Mr. President. Well done.
New Yorker
Ho hum, let me know when he uses the bully pulpit to get a public option.
Mike in NC
@BGinCHI:
A good place to start looking for clues are the editorial and op-ed pages of the Washington Post.
First Rahm steals the Chicago mayor’s election and now this?!? Cue the wingnut outrage about cramming perversity down our throats. Gonna be a long week.
Parole Officer Burke
@Bob Loblaw:
Every time someone says this, a hippie dies.
joe from Lowell
@MaximusNYC: Oh, for Chrissakes!
Forty minutes ago, this issue was so important that it was worth screeching and denouncing Obama as an active enemy of gay rights.
Suddenly, as soon as he does what they want, it’s just “a bone.”
Typical. Three months ago, when DADT repeal passed, that was just the bone, and what really mattered was DOMA and marriage rights.
Yutsano
@Matt: Dare I look? Written by stupid straight people who will experience little to no effect in this changing of American jurisprudence? Hell it was tough enough reconciling DOMA with domestic partner benefits for federal workers, maybe something had to give there.
Lol
It seems like most people, especially Firebaggers, haven’t bothered to read the statement to realize exactly what it’s saying. Obama found a way to thread the needle in a way that’ll pay off at the Supreme Court that simply dropping the defense 2 years ago would not have.
Alex S.
Surprisingly aggressive (and progressive). He goes beyond his campaign promises (just civil unions, but with all the rights of a marrige).
joe from Lowell
@Mary:
It’s also entirely possible – in fact, highly recommended – not to attribute every action the president takes in conformance with his long-stated beliefs and record as being foisted upon him by outside pressure.
Three-nineteen
So if Section 3 gets struck down, what happens? Does the federal government have to recognize all legally married couples, regardless of the genders of the marriage’s participants? Will states have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?
cyntax
@Loneoak:
Box turtles, nothin’ but box turtles.
Me, I’m gonna open a reptile wedding planning service–it’s only logical.
BGinCHI
@Mike in NC: He didn’t have to steal it. Mayor Daley gave it to him.
The key to the election is what didn’t happen: no major racial divides during the campaign. Whatever happened behind the scenes was a deal that sealed the election.
I just hope when it come to cyclists he doesn’t act like a fucking retard.
joe from Lowell
@Lolis:
Yes, Obama looked as his first two years as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pass legislation through Congress, and trimmed his sails on executive action in order to keep 60-vote majorities together.
He stated in an interview prior to the election that he expected to do a lot more on the executive/implementation side for the rest of his term.
Short Bus Bully
@Parole Officer Burke:
THE SYSTEM WORKS
THE SYSTEM WORKS
THE SYSTEM WORKS
THE SYSTEM WORKS
THE SYSTEM WORKS
THE SYSTEM WORKS
THE SYSTEM WORKS
THE SYSTEM WORKS
THE SYSTEM WORKS
If I put it in all caps can I get two hippies instead of just one?
Martin
@Lol: So constitutional lawyers are constitutional lawyering?
Well, that fucks up the narrative that Obama has been fucking over the base. Let’s ignore it – we’ve got to get our rage on.
Culture of Truth
This proves Obama is a LIAR!!! or something.
horatius
So, the bastard was playing 11-dimensional chess after all. DAAAAAAAAAAAAYUMMMMMM!!!!!
Disclaimer : The word “bastard” is only used in an Australian context.
Suffern ACE
@Matt: Ameriblog: Making sure its readers are unhappy, every single day of their lives.
Sure, it’s not the day to put an end to all bad days. But sheez. I expect Michael Kay to come back any moment now and be a twit so that anyone who was even slightly dispirited that today’s positive event would happen would be extra unhappy that he ever doubted the outcome.
Zifnab
/raises eyebrows
Ok, Mr. President. You have my full and undivided attention.
beergoggles
Hmm, now I’m curious how it affects Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services since that was a section 3 challenge as well….
Cris
@Three-nineteen: For a non-Obot/Firebag rational analysis, see Adam B’s response at dKos. I’m not going to excerpt, because it’s a measured response that calls for reading the whole thing.
joe from Lowell
@Bobby Thomson:
Nope.
Please, educate yourself.
You want paragraph 2 of Holder’s letter to Congress and paragraphs 2-4 of Holder’s public statement.
horatius
@Martin:
He did fuck his base on immigration something fierce. Ask Matt Taibbi.
Bulworth
What more evidence do we require now to prove that this Kenyan guy is a Mooslim Brotherhood cramming Sharia law down our throats?
JMC in the ATL
@three-nineteen:
Section Three prohibits the Feds from recognizing same-sex couples in any way. So while IANAL (thank FSM!), I believe that it’s repeal would not require the Feds to recognize, it would allow them to.
joe from Lowell
@Three-nineteen:
That decision will be made by the bureaucrats in each department, but now, it will be made without reference to DOMA.
No, that’s Section 2.
gwangung
I’d rather ask immigration advocates who get the details right.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@horatius:
I’d rather ask all the Senators and congressional reps he thwarted in their zeal to pass meaningful reform.
Lol
I’ve decided it isn’t so much 11-dimensional chess as a real-life demonstration of how Sun Tzu can be applied to politics. This is a perfect example of bringing the enemy to your battlefield instead of the other way around.
LGRooney
So does this mean that my traditional marriage is now doomed?
soonergrunt
@horatius: I believe that context generally implies the word “magnificent” as the first part of the title?
different church-lady
@MaximusNYC:
My god, I really need to stop reading the internets — I feel like the lazy/snarky/stupid I just read there will never fully leach out of my braincells.
gwangung
@joe from Lowell: Let me ask. What it looks like here is that the Obama administration (and note that the executive administration still has holdovers from W’s reign) is moving so that a) any actions it takes will have the least chance of being undone, and b) they’re fulfilling the letter of the law, but not necessarily the spirit, to sap opponents of any force or ammunition they could use. Is that a fair reading of the situation?
Mary
@joe from Lowell:
Putting aside questions on the limited precedential value of a ruling by just one Circuit, if Section Three was struck down as unconstitutional, then it would eliminate the restrictive definition of “marriage” and “spouse” articulated in the statute. It would not have any immediate effect on a given state’s recognition of a marriage that took place in another state.
Is it really irrational to think that without heightened pressure from constituents a politician (even a terrific, principled, and honest one) might be inclined not to avoid taking action on a controversial issue?
schnooten
Wait, isn’t this the executive telling the judiciary how to rule? It’s the SOTU and Citizens United all over again!
BGinCHI
@LGRooney: There was always a 50% chance of that anyway.
sparky
it never fails to amaze me how people will seize on items of minimal meaning as somehow changing the whole world.
1. to all those people who say the DOJ is independent of the WH–get a clue. the WH “has instructed” the DOJ to not defend Section 3 of DOMA in the Second Circuit. so please, don’t ever make the argument again that the DOJ is independent of the WH.
2. No one seems to have read the letter to Bo-ner. if they had, perhaps there would be a bit more unhappiness. why?
“[T]he President has informed the Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA…unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.”
–Ltr from Holder to Boehner, 23 Feb. 2011, at p.5.
Further, Holder’s letter also states that should the Circuit require it, the DOJ will provide [rational basis] arguments in favor of DOMA if the courts in the Circuit require it.
Ltr., at p.6
so, then, what is the upshot? just this: the WH has decided that laws relating to homosexuality ought to require a higher standard of review than perviously. consequently, because Section 3 can not pass muster under a higher standard it is unconstitutional.
this is a far far cry from declaring the statute unconstitutional. what it does do is to propose to make sexual orientation legislation be reviewed under a more demanding standard. nor does it suggest that the Federal Government is going to recognize same-sex marriage; in fact, quite the opposite, as the letter demonstrates.
if you want to call that a great victory, well, go ahead. i don’t think an instruction to not defend the law in two cases in jurisdictions where it was likely the law would be invalidated constitutes much of anything. incidentally, by taking this route of not defending the statute, Obama is actually keeping DOMA alive by avoiding a ruling in those jurisdictions, thus potentially precluding a court from ruling on it at all. and, since other Circuits have upheld Section 3, there will be no change in those Circuits (ie every state except VT, CT, NY) where it has survived a challenge.
different church-lady
@Mary:
Possible? Sure. Lots of things are possibile…
Bob Loblaw
@Parole Officer Burke:
The system has never not worked, socially. Not even during the darkest days of Jim Crow, though that was obviously the biggest setback in the ongoing trend towards social justice.
I wish people understood this better and stopped getting so stupid over culture war stuff. It always works itself out with patience and hard work. No reason to make enemies with allies over matters of timing and “commitment to the cause.”
It’s matters of economic and security/military policy where systemic breakdowns are more frequent and destabilizing (and the forces resisting change far more adamant and secure), and therefore where aggressive pressure should be targeted. The Obama administration was always 100% more likely to let banks love them long time over homeowner market policy than ever resist social progress in the arena of minority rights.
@horatius:
Or just, you know, two dimensions. The court system takes months and months to go about its business. It’s not an agile, nimble process. Demanding immediate results is foolish.
I’d like to be surprised that Obama’s biggest backers are as stupid as his biggest detractors, but honestly I think the very idea that anybody would be so personally invested in the day-to-day transpirings of an administration at the expense of a larger picture are probably immune to simply taking things at face value.
There is often no game being played. No monumental gamechangers that come out of nowhere or can’t be seen coming from a thousand miles out. Just things working like they ideally should. Feel free to take politicians at their words sometimes. If they’re Democrats, you’ve got at least a fifty percent shot of it being true. Unless it involves Israel. Then it’s zero, but that’s a special case.
Bobby Thomson
@joe from Lowell:
You first. There is no controlling U.S. Supreme Court authority on point. What’s more, as I understand it, the administration does not plan to continue to play lip service to rational basis review in those circuits that have applied it. But there was nothing preventing the administration from taking that position all along.
Poopyman
@Loneoak: I think this decision is certainly good news for -John McCain- Rick Santorum.
I predict a tearful fundraising email coming from Little Ricky in 3…2..1..
Omnes Omnibus
@sparky: Well, sparky, the DOJ cannot declare something unconstitutional; courts can. While this is not the end of DOMA, it is a step in process that will result in it being killed dead.
different church-lady
@Omnes Omnibus:
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet…
Culture of Truth
[ stage whisper ] I KNEW it!
Davis X. Machina
@Omnes Omnibus: A need to apply strict scrutiny and/or declaration of LGBT folk as a protected class would kill more than DOMA.
Omnes Omnibus
@different church-lady: Don’t make me pull this car over…
Omnes Omnibus
@Davis X. Machina: That is true as well.
Punchy
GIV MEH MAH BOCKS TURTUL PLZ
joe from Lowell
@gwangung: That seems like the most plausible reading, especially given how he handled the DADT executive-order-vs.-Congressional-repeal situation.
It think it’s also important to keep in mind that Obama was a professor of Constitutional law, and that his actions are likely guided as much by his opinions about legal-procedural probity than by a desire to achieve certain outcomes.
Bobby Thomson
@sparky:
If you parse it out, the position they will take is “Yeah, it passes rational basis review, but that’s the wrong standard.”
Passing rational basis review is so easy that even a Palin can do it, so that’s not much of a give. When it comes to 14th Amendment challenges, it’s all about the standard.
sparky
@Omnes Omnibus: well, yes. i don’t think i said anything to the contrary. and i guess i just don’t agree with your characterization. to me this is the smallest possible step that could be taken, and as such, is really more of a rearguard action than forward movement. at the end of the day, all this says is that the gov’t doesn’t want to defend something when it knows it is going to lose.
to me, the best analogy here was Bush’s moving Padilla around so that no court could ever render a decision on his rights.edit: just so my prior remark is not willfully misconstrued, i mean only that i think avoiding a ruling is not exactly progress. but that’s just my opinion.
for myself, i tend towards this camp:
@Bob Loblaw:
Amanda in the South Bay
Well, putting on my n-dimensional chess hat…
I think this bodes well for energizing the base for next year. Of course, it’d have been nice for this to have happened before last year’s elections, but its a good start.
joe from Lowell
@Mary:
It’s irrational to think that pressure on that politician, rather than attention on the issue and support for his articulated position, is going to get him to do what he already wants to do.
Pressure means opposition to the president. This is what you use to get a president to do something he doesn’t want, or to not do something he does want to do.
Issue advocacy is what you use to create an environment in which the president feels more confident in going forward with something he was shy about doing.
The famous White House fence protests over DADT repeal, for example. A lot of those people seem to think they were putting pressure on Obama to do something he didn’t want to do, when the actual effect of their actions was back up Obama and increase interest in advancing the cause he was already pushing.
Bobby Thomson
@Omnes Omnibus:
To paraphrase Winston Wolf, let’s not all start gay marrying each other just yet. I’ll be really surprised if Anthony Kennedy agrees that gays are a discrete and insular minority under Carolene Products. Still, it’s the right thing for the administration to do, and good on them for finally doing it.
EDITED to fix wrong quote.
sparky
ran out of time editing my intemperate remarks.
i did want to add that even if it is not much from an official standpoint, it does at least signify that the broader culture norms have started to shift, and that is a very good thing.
joe from Lowell
@Bobby Thomson:
Will you please read the letter and the statement, so you can stop writing idiotic things like this?
There is a controlling circuit court decision in the jurisdiction in which the newest case was filed. As it explains in the letter and statement. That you won’t read.
Seriously, I even gave you the links, and told you where to look.
protean girlfriend
@Loneoak:
Hooray! Now I can gay polyamorous marry my horse and cousin!
FUCK YOU. I have to commute to another country to be with my partner because she’s a foreigner and Massachusetts same-sex marriage laws cover only Americans.
My co-worker’s boyfriend got deported back to Saudi Arabia for overstaying his visa. Again, can’t get married in MA because DOMA says so. And can’t commute because, well, they kill his kind there.
I have three other friends with partners overseas because they could not extend their visas.
Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil with his partner because the partner can’t live in the US.
Your glib remark will go over better once we homo Americans get the same fucking rights that one else does.
Davis X. Machina
@joe from Lowell: Everything in politics is overdetermined. For every effect, there are far more than enough necessary causes.
Maude
@different church-lady:
It is NEVER enough. We should know that. And we are almost there.
celticdragonchick
@ed:
‘Bout fuckin’ time.
Boldened for truth.
Two years in, we are finally seeing some of the “fierce advocacy” we were promised.
It makes for a nice change of pace. Not trying to be snarky here…it is nice to finally see some of what we thought we were getting two years ago in recognition of GLBT issues.
Bobby Thomson
@joe from Lowell: OK, now you’re just being deliberately obtuse. I read the letter. Their fig leaf is that Courts of Appeals applied rational basis review in other circuits, so they slavishly followed that law in their briefing. Except now they won’t anymore. Has there been an intervening SCOTUS opinion? Nope. They had just as much ability to take this position in January 2009 as they do today.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bobby Thomson: I think that the DOJ is actually working on a litigation strategy that will eventually put a case in front the Supreme Court in a posture where it is all but impossible not to get a majority to overturn DOMA. I think it will take a while for all the pieces to come together, but this kind of move is a step in the process.
Bobby Thomson
@joe from Lowell: Oh, and for someone chastising someone else for supposedly not reading Holder’s statement, you might want to read it more closely:
joe from Lowell
@Amanda in the South Bay:
The administration was able to take this position because a case was filed on November 11 in a federal district that had no controlling decision on the appropriate standard of scrutiny – that is, after the elections.
Please, everybody, read the statement and the letter.
Bobby Thomson
@Omnes Omnibus:
After today, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. It would be a hell of a bank shot, but it’s worth trying.
Shoemaker-Levy 9
To sum up the chain of events:
Obama/Dems do little to enact promises on LGBT issues for two years.
Activists raise holy hell.
Obama/Dems start doing good things on the LGBT front.
See how politics works?
burnspbesq
@Joe Beese:
Clown?
You two deserve each other.
celticdragonchick
@Bob Loblaw:
Unless you get something like Plessey V Ferguson.
The system works sometimes for people who need it to work. It often does nothing at all, or actually produces destructive outcomes. It works much better for people who have social privilege and money.
burnspbesq
@Shoemaker-Levy 9:
Actually, it goes like this.
Obama plays careful long term strategy.
Irrelevant whiners whine.
Strategy pays dividends.
Irrelevant whiners erroneously claim credit.
joe from Lowell
@Bobby Thomson:
Sigh. OK, third times the charm.
NO, THERE HAS BEEN CASE FILED IN A DIFFERENT CIRCUIT, THAT HASN’T APPLIED A BASIS.
THERE HAS NOW BEEN A CASE FILED IN A DIFFERENT CIRCUIT, THAT HASN’T APPLIED A BASIS.
THERE HAS NOW BEEN A CASE FILED IN A DIFFERENT CIRCUIT, THAT HASN’T RULED ON WHICH BASIS TO APPLY, FREEING UP THE ADMINISTRATION TO PUT FORWARD A CLAIM ABOUT WHAT BASIS TO USE THAT DOESN’T CONTRADICT BINDING CASELAW.
As I’ve explained. As it says in the letter. As it says in the statement.
Sure, they could have told a district or circuit court to ignore its binding precedent two years ago. I’m sure that would have made you feel all warm and fuzzy, but your feelings aren’t the point. It would have been a pointless gesture that established a dangerous precedent.
joe from Lowell
@Bobby Thomson:
facepalm
I’ve been saying that to you for, what, an hour now?
No, wait…I take that back.
HEY, THAT’S A REALLY GREAT OBSERVATION, BOB! WHY DIDN’T I THINK OF THAT? YOU’RE SO SMART!
Please stop bothering me now.
joe from Lowell
@Shoemaker-Levy 9:
Bull fucking shit.
They got DADT repealed, and did so in complete contradiction of the “hell raising” idiocy of the brain donors who wanted an executive order.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
I understand what you are saying…but the DOJ could just as well have said that rational review was incorrect in the other cases. Would that really upset Justice Kennedy? He seems to be the only one we are paying attention to.
I feel like political calculus is driving some of the decision timing here more than actual legal constraints. Maybe there is a perfectly good reason for that as well, yet the enmity between the administration and the GLBT community constitutes an unforced error.
If he couldn’t deliver fierce advocacy when he raised the hopes (and bank withdraws) of GLBT supporters, he shouldn’t have sold it as such.
david mizner
Good move — one of the best thing’s the Pres has done.
Weird how no one’s mentioned the main impetus behind this: Obama’s “need” to raise a billion dollars for his reelection campaign. Duh Gays Got Coin.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
BTW, you fucking rocked on the piracy threads last night. Good stuff. :)
itsbenj
@Mary: essentially, yes. classic projection. projecting of the ‘wrong-ness’ onto others so as to not have to acknowledge that one was wrong. over and over. as if the people displeased about the justice dept defending the various anti-gay laws on the books will think of this move as a ‘betrayal’. how completely disingenuous. but never waste an opportunity to take shots at those who got right what you got wrong, eh? sooo stupid.
joe from Lowell
@celticdragonchick:
The other cases were in federal districts in which the circuit courts had already ruled on the proper standard of review. The Obama administration telling a district court to ignore the binding decision of the circuit court, or telling that circuit court that it was wrong, would have been dead ends, pointless gestures. The district courts wouldn’t have gone against the appellate courts above them, and telling an appellate court it screwed up in some quite recent cases – an appellate court full of the judges who had made their feelings about gay marriage quite clear quite recently – and should reverse itself isn’t a very fruitful path, either.
Oh, and thank you.
mr. whipple
LOL.
Bobby Thomson
Exactly! We’re finally making some headway. There is no legal impediment to a litigant arguing that prior authority has been wrongly decided and should be overruled. In most cases, for tactical reasons litigants will not take that path. But, so long as that authority is brought to the court’s attention, you can have at it, particularly if you think the authority is not faithful to the Constitution.
I agree! The point is that by not doing that, the administration appeared to have conceded the Constitutional field.
Pointless? Hardly. Courts listen very carefully to what the Solicitor General says.
Dangerous precedent of refusing to argue a principle of law that the executive believes to be lack a constitutional basis? Not at all dangerous. But don’t take my word for it. Eric Holder agrees with me! He’s going to be going into each of those courts now and telling them that they got it wrong before and that rational basis review does not apply. He’s doing exactly what he should be doing. And he could have done it two years ago.
Shoemaker-Levy 9
@burnspbesq:
Because obviously you are privy to Obama’s long-term strategy sessions.
Hilarious stuff, send it to Jon Stewart.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
Okay. That makes sense.
All the same, Holder could have still washed his hands of it and allowed congress to defend it, which is where we are now…even if rational review was in effect. This still ends up being a black eye for the admin with respect to wealthy gay donors (and the rest of us who just donated time).
I do not want to be as cynical as some above suggesting that the timing is merely a kick off to fund raising…yet…
gwangung
@Bobby Thomson: Actually, not a bank shot, but of a piece of their other strategies such as with DADT.
It’s very satisfying to move ahead with bold, authoritative gestures, but it seems to me that these kind of moves are easy to overturn or retract with change in administration/ Moving slowly means a) there’s little political will to oppose slow moves and b) they’re less likely to be overturned.
gwangung
Because he’s obviously using his god given common sense and his own two eyes.
I mean, really. It’s not that hard to figure out.
Bobby Thomson
@joe from Lowell:
First you said:
Very haughty. And wrong. And embarrassing to you. And now you double down and pretend you said something completely different.
If you stop lying about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about you.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Bob Loblaw: I’m going to let the President do what he seems to be good at: Being president. He might be going a bit slower than some would like, but I think he’s earned the benefit of the doubt.
Now to write him a letter on his needing to fight more for unions and abortion rights.
socratic_me
@wsn: Thanks. That makes sense.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
Smells … PUMAy in here. Rahmzilla must have stirred them up and now this.
@Lol: This.
I’m not sure how this will shake out on the grand scale, other than to make the fReichtards scream blue murder.
Again.
Heh.
different church-lady
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
I’ve been searching for the right “Tortoise Wins Again” analogy, but haven’t figured it out quite yet.
Southern Beale
WE’VE WON IN INDIANA!
AFL-CIO says right-to-work withdrawn …
fasteddie9318
Is there no achievement we can reach that isn’t cause for bitching about what hasn’t been done yet?
General Stuck
We are going to need more clown paint, and red rubber noses for this firebagging Waterloo. A convention of usual suspects.
Lol
@125: The analogy you’re looking for is “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”
Also “What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.”
Jennyjinx
@joe from Lowell:
This.
Suck It Up!
@Bob Loblaw:
THIS from the same fuckers who called Obama homophobic? You’ve got some giant ones my friend. Scrambling your brain there too.
different church-lady
@Lol: Wow, which Bugs Bunny cartoon is that from? ;-)
EIGRP
@sparky: I hope Boehner writes back. It would be a Boehner Holder. If Holder crumples it up and throws it over his shoulder, it would be an over the shoulder Boehner Holder.
Thanks Cheech and Chong!
Eric
Nellcote
@celticdragonchick:
As of last October:
Reversed an inexcusable US position by signing the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Endorsed the Baldwin-Lieberman bill, The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, to provide full partnership benefits to federal employees
Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
Lifted the HIV Entry Ban effective January 2010
Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King
Appointed the first transgender DNC member in history
Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees
Conceived a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders — the nation’s first ever — funded by a three-year HHS grant to SAGE
Testified in favor of ENDA, the first time any official of any administration has testified in the Senate on ENDA
Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability — the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation’s history
Hired and appointed a record number of qualified LGBT Americans, including more than 10 Senate-confirmed appointments
Sworn in Ambassador David Huebner
Named open transgender appointees (the first President ever to do so)
Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation’s largest employer)
Dispatched the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to call on the Senate to repeal Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell, in the meantime dialing back on discharges
Launched a website to gather public comment on first-ever federal LGBT housing discrimination study
Appointed long-time equality champion Chai Feldblum one of the four Commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept gay relationships from being counted, encouraging couples who consider themselves married to file that way, even if their state of residence does not yet permit legal marriage
Produced U.S. Census Bureau PSAs featuring gay, lesbian, and transgender spokespersons.
Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights.
Merkin
@Shoemaker-Levy 9:
I’m sorry, when did activists raise holy hell?
Bob Loblaw
@Suck It Up!:
Oh sweetie, I’m afraid it’s you with the scrambled brainparts all up in this skillet.
One would think that mocking the firebaggers of the world would’ve been a bit of a giveaway. Might I think them ridiculous and risible? Heavens to betsy! But I knew the BJ community would be up to the task of their usual unthinking jackassery. You can’t accuse of me of promoting false equivalence when you go out of your way to prove both sides are babbling, tribal cretins with no understanding of distinction.
And yes I know, the only thing your special snowflake brain will get out of this post is that OBAMA HAETZ TEH GHEYS LULZ. PRIMARY HIM NAO! I <3 ARAVOSIS. Have a wonderful day.
Mary
@joe from Lowell:
I generally disagree that the definition of “pressure” is that narrow, particularly in the context of politics, but fine. I will amend my original statement and ask instead “is Doug Hill punching hippies over their success in encouraging the administration to abandon its defense of DOMA?”
celticdragonchick
@Nellcote:
And most of that sounds very nice, of course…but for the most part it didn’t actually do anything to advance the ball in equal rights.
Appointments to the dnc? Really? A website? As a transgendered woman, I do like seeing Amanda Simpson appointed. I would like it much better if my marriage could be guaranteed to be recognized if I or my spouse is hurt and have to go to a hospital.
Signing the Matthew Sheppard Act and requiring hospitals that receive federal funds to allow visitation rights were the two biggest items on there before last December. Most of the rest was utterly inconsequential to the average GLBT person. Unfortunately, the hospital visitation thing is reversible and can still be over-ridden by family members…since most states still do not recognize GLBT relationships and blood kin can determine who gets to visit you if you are unable to indicate otherwise.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
On the surface, loblaw, there does appear something of a dichotomy of support from letting DADT get decided by the courts. And not making the effort to defend DOMA.
But they are two very different animals, once you get past your simplistic analysis. DADT was a law specific to a part of the federal government tied legally and managerially to both congress and the executive branch and the CiC POTUS.
DOMA is not directly under the command and control of the legislature and executive like the military. So there would naturally be different tactics, and with DADT, a much better chance of getting repeal soon, which happened, by getting the military itself, and primarily top brass to endorse it. That took away the opponents, repubs in congress, only real cover to not repeal, and put them in some conflict with the military they want to be seen as aligned with politically.
There is little chance DOMA will be repealed soon, without such incentives as DADT, and encompasses the entire nation, not such a small part of it. So really, the only chance in the near term, is for the courts to strike it down as unconstitutional. Most of us were supporting Obama’s course with DADT for these reasons, and that he is way better at this shit than any of us are. And no one now can really argue otherwise without getting pointed and laughed at.
So stuff your triumphant superiority to BJ peasantry. You are still nothing more than a miniature demagogue
Omnes Omnibus
@celticdragonchick: I was going to say “What do you want?”, but I know what you want. Full and equal rights, just like every other person in the US. This is not something that should be up for debate. It should have been done long ago. But, there is a backwardass group of people in this country who can’t see or don’t care that they are being bigoted assholes, and this group is large enough that they can gum up the works for anyone trying to advance a decent agenda. I think what those “achievements” indicate is that the Obama administration is on your (our, if I may) side in this. They are, however, being careful and deliberate in their actions.
Cerberus
Well that’s a nice change. Thank you very much Obama and Holder and hopefully this will be followed by an eventual repeal.
And really that’s the most important statement made.
Now a little bit on the Democratic intra-party fight in the comments.
Of course Obama is growing on the issue either in political courage or personal belief. I mean hell, didn’t he flat-out state he was “evolving” on the issue of gay marriage a couple of months ago? Growing is good. Having a mind that is amenable to change is what we like about Obama. It’s in fact one of his better qualities because he can be “reached” on any issue and is willing to listen unlike Bush and Clinton to a lesser extent.
It’s one of his better qualities.
Now, did he do this in response to the activist pressure. Well, in the general sense, probably. Activists work to fight against cultural inertia to make ideas like the humanity of minority groups and the rightness of certain political actions more accepted and supported jobs.
Given the strength of arguments, Obama’s personal growth, and the fact that general pressure on general society is making it “safer” for politicians and laypeople to socially support this issue in public, it makes sense that we’d see motion.
Does this mean that Obama is a base villain? No. Does it mean he’s a hopeless triangulator? No.
Again, Obama’s best quality, the thing that makes us love him is that he can be reached, he can be convinced. He’s not Bush doing whatever the fuck he wants and fuck you. He’s not even Clinton who may listen to you but is only ever going to do what the focus poll says.
Obama can be convinced on issues and when it’s determined that said course of action is both legal and right, he will show the fruits of that.
That he is amenable to that is why he’s awesome and why changes like this are usually far more rare among politicians.
A politician is supposed to be open. Is supposed to change their mind when evidence presents itself. And Obama lives up to that.
We’re not right-wingers, we do not need those we respect to be perfect people.
different church-lady
@General Stuck: Wait: you’re saying that DADT and DOMA are different things (even though they both have four letters and begin with D), and thus a single magic wand can’t waive them both away? My gosh, I’ve never seen such condescension from an O-bot before!
trollhattan
Boehner takes his eye off shiny thing #1 to glance and become upset at shiny thing #2, which nearly gets the infamous, “Why, in a time of war are we…?” Also, too, a bonus: “spokesman Michael Steel.”
General Stuck
I kind of expected Obama to do something like this, but only after getting reelected and not having to face the voters again. I hope his detractors on the left fully appreciate what a risky and gutsy move this is politically going into a POTUS election. The idea of Gay Marriage hasn’t yet become all that popular amongst the majority of voters, and there are many dems who will not be pleased and the wingnuts will likely post billboards on every highway with Adam and Steve bullshit.
Sockpuppet
@General Stuck:
Actually, I think the President’s real supporters wish useless old white fucks like you would just do us all a favor and drop dead already, and take your pathetic reactionary politics along with you.
2004 was a political lifetime ago.
General Stuck
@Sockpuppet:
I love it when firebaggers get all butthurt when Obama does something right, and all they have is left wing tea bagger death wishes for their opponents. You are a disease sockpuppet, and those like you, and age has nothing to do with it, nor position on any ideological scale. Now go bigot some more.
lacp
This is why you Dems can’t have nice things. You’ve churned out well over 100 comments that turn the microscope on every aspect of this letter while dealing out wild, profane insults at each other. “He didn’t have the guts to do this 250 years ago!” “He’s got balls the size of an elephant!” “It’s not enough!” “It’s more than you deserve!” “Blah-fucking-blah-blah!”
Jesus Christ. Take a look at the Republicans/wingnuts. They wouldn’t waste 30 seconds on this discussion; they would ask one question: “Are Dems/liberals pissed off about this decision?” If the answer is yes, everybody goes out for a beer to celebrate.
We already know Boehner’s response – he’s having a sad. So when you read the first wingnut blogpost crying that Holder is “shoving his letter down their throats”, pour yourself a martini and pat the dog.
Sockpuppet
@General Stuck:
How exactly are real supporters simultaneously detractors?
It’s hardly firebagging to wish your fearful geriatric ass would go away already and leave the political space for those who don’t think it takes courage to stand up for minority rights everywhere.
But go wring your hands over some billboards some more, and maybe write a letter of support to your local newspaper or some shit.
General Stuck
@Sockpuppet:
You’re a real blogging hero sockpuppet, there in mommies basement, grubby fingers talking about fighting and shit.
I didn’t say I opposed what Obama was doing, I was just describing what I think will happen, you ignorant piece of shit.
You want me offed, come and do it yourself, coward with a keyboard.
edit – and it is priceless firebagger, pontificating about minority rights while wanting older people to die. That is bigotry, no different than what you claim to be fighting against. fake progressives. we are lousy with them.
different church-lady
@lacp:
You’ve got the horse/cart relationship reversed: first everyone goes out for a beer and then they need something to talk about. The favorite subject is how to annoy wimpy dirty hippie liberals.
different church-lady
@Sockpuppet: Sounds like you’ve got a problem with the idea that he’ll use up all the Medicade money before you graduate from high school.
General Stuck
@different church-lady:
I guess it’s a new prog tactic. Now they are THE REAL Obama supporters and us old folk need to die, or something for discussing the realities of politics. I’m 57, not quite geriatric yet, but it ain’t that far off.
taylormattd
@Joe Beese: hahahaha. Hillary 2012 forevar!!!!
Sockpuppet
@General Stuck:
And that’s classic conservatism: a white male baby boomer considering himself an aggrieved minority now. Oh no, somebody is picking on me and pointing out what a detriment my generation has been to this country and its politics! Won’t somebody have sympathy?!
Aren’t you the one who’s always spewing forth on the “demographic timebomb” that’s set to wipe out the GOP? It ain’t just about who’s coming up, it’s about the part of the herd that’s getting culled just as much.
The proper response to the statement “The Obama administration finds parts of DOMA to be unconstitutional” isn’t ‘how risky.’
It’s ‘no shit.’
Ross Lincoln
Am I the only person noticing that they’re still going to defend challenges of section two?
General Stuck
@Sockpuppet:
I would agree that leaving behind people like you to carry on has been a big failure of us baby boomers, in general. Stupid arrogant and as hateful as any fascist anywhere. Albeit cloaked in liberalism. And taking general discussion of politics as they are and assigning intent of personal support for the points made, is about as douchebag as it gets. Talking about the “demographic timebomb” as a reality and you using that to justify wishing death on people is fucking sick beyond belief. I just hope there are fewer rather than more twisted liberal punks like you out there, or the next generation doesn’t have a chance.
I need a shower. jeesh.
And I am not aggrieved, it is you that is whining about how old people fucked up your life. I suspect you did that all on your own.
General Stuck
@Sockpuppet:
This is a political blog, that discusses politics, not just a cheerleading squad for leftist purity police. And fuck you for the accusation I don’t support minority rights, clown.
Omnes Omnibus
@General Stuck: It is a pet blog that occasionally discusses politics. Let’s be honest.
General Stuck
@Omnes Omnibus:
Some days, I would rather it just be a pet blog.
AAA Bonds
Ah, no, killer.
That the AG decision constitutes action and not empty words, as far as I can tell, is a fact that’s been universally recognized by LGBT activists – who have been accused of everything up to and including Republican party membership(!) by writers on this blog for their criticism of Obama’s pace on the issue.
It’d be great if y’all, y’know, celebrated something you and these folks (I’d assume?) agree on, rather than couching this in terms reminding us of divisions within the Democratic Party.
To pull out the suspect black civil rights movement analogy, imagine your too-clever headline and lede over an editorial piece about Lyndon Johnson in 1964 after the signing of the Civil Rights Act, one directed at the black activist community for their outspoken advocacy on the issue in Washington and elsewhere. It’s a little nauseating, in other words. You’re gloating, and it’s inappropriate to the occasion.
I enjoy the sarcasm of this blog but sometimes y’all seem uncertain of the time and place in which it actually suits your purposes.
AAA Bonds
Also, l m a o at the Serious Sarcasm Squad getting trolled to chan and back by Sockpuppet in every thread.
Y’all barely deserved matoko’s attention, but the local flavor of super-defensive centrism masquerading as tough-guy “snark” is way too juicy of a target to be neglected for long.
It’s hard to NOT troll this place.
Bobby Thomson
@Ross Lincoln:
It’s unclear what they are going to do with respect to section two, which involves an entirely different basket of legal and political considerations.
Of course, it’s also unclear that the SCOTUS would limit itself to section 3, even if that were the only provision they were called upon to interpret.
Sockpuppet
@AAA Bonds:
It’s true. For such “tough guys,” they sure are squeamish. Further escalation might result in actual tears.
Mary
@Cerberus: You are far to reasonable to hang out around here.
Lol
I don’t recall the civil rights movement of the 60s treating LBJ as an enemy to be overcome because despite his pretty sounding words he was secretly a massive racist.
The professional left is incapable of working *with* anyone, they can only work against an enemy. (and there are so many…). That’s why Obama is in the White House actually enacting the most progressive agenda in generations while the professional left is blogging angry tirades to their dwindling choir while trying to pretend they never supported John Edwards.
General Stuck
@Sockpuppet:
Go to hell you fucking bigot, or come to Silver City, nm and make your wish come true. Enough of this ageist shit, Saying you wish all baby boomer/old people would just die, I take as any Klan Klucker saying “all niggers should die”. Stop by , we’ll go a dancing. coward.
General Stuck
@AAA Bonds:
Fuck you, go away firebagging retard, and take racist/bigot sockpuppet with you.
General Stuck
@AAA Bonds:
Dumbass, it’s not gloating, it’s a square kick in your lying nutsack
General Stuck
@AAA Bonds:
Then bring it on “tough guy”, or are you just a sockpuppet.
General Stuck
And for anyone wondering, I just appointed myself the Senior Bashing Police, and when I hear this form of racism/ageism, expect to be called those things. Doesn’t matter who it is. Time for pointy heads to embrace the concept of bashing old folk is not only a bad idea, it is a form of bigotry and discrimination outside of blogging. Don’t like it. Ban me.
Have a nice motherfucking day.
Sockpuppet
The quintuple post. Classic.
Somebody has a problem with getting the last word in. Or maybe you just need your nappie, old timer.
Is Matlock on tonight? Or maybe some nice NCIS reruns? That Mark Harmon sure is swell.
Big ups on telling everybody where you live and then daring them to come fight you in person as well. You are just precious.
General Stuck
@Sockpuppet:
You said you wanted me dead, I was just offering you the opportunity to do the job yourself, just to highlight the bigoted tea tard big mouth coward you are.
different church-lady
@Sockpuppet: Wow. You’re a dick.
I mean, don’t get me wrong: the General is a dick too, but at least he’s a dick who’s got something to say.
General Stuck
@different church-lady:
I grew up in a tough neighborhood, and my gramps used to always say, you can get further being a dick with some meaningful words, than with just being a dick.
different church-lady
@General Stuck: Glad to know I’m reading you correctly.
Sockpuppet
@General Stuck:
You’re using fake military credentials on a blog called Balloon Juice and daring strangers to come to your house (trailer?) in bumfuck New Mexico and beat you up. I struggle to figure how you could have gone any less far in life. Prison, I guess.
Also, you appointed yourself a member of the Internet Police (capitalized, for great justice). Vigilantes assemble! That is just fantastic. I clearly have no idea who I’m dealing with.
General Stuck
@different church-lady:
You are. And thanks :)
different church-lady
@Sockpuppet:
Fixed.
Suck It Up!
@david mizner:
I thought those gays were in the Republican party?
Mike Kay (Peacemaker)
I wanna give a shout out to my new buddy and BFF, Glenn Greenwald (Yes, you read correctly).
Last night, my dear friend Glenn went on MSNBC and hailed our President for his DOMA decision.
In earlier times, Glenn has called me a “cultist”, a “North Korean Communist”, a “robot”, and a “Nazi”. No, really.
Yet, the Bible tells us “the wolf will lie down with the lamb, and a small boy will lead them”.
Yes, this gifted President, only 2 years and 2 months in office (time flies, doesn’t it), has united the Big Pragmatic Wolf and the Libertarian Lamb.
If only for this detente, President Obama has richly earned his Nobel Peace Prize.
Zuzu's Petals
@Sockpuppet:
The spoof, it is strong with this one.
Peter
Whoa what the fuck went on in this thread.