Solarbird (solarbird) wrote,

  • Mood:


Richard Socarides, former aid to President Bill Clinton, outlines his position on why Mr. Obama did not actually have to defend DOMA in court at all, and how such decisions are arrived upon. I'm not fond of parts of his reasoning, but it sounds reasonably accurate. And regardless, I'm convinced that the brief did not have to be what it was.

At the White House press briefing today, Presidential Press Secretary Gibbs reiterated that the Obama administration stands behind the DoJ brief, and declined specific opportunity to distance the administration from the brief's arguments referencing incest and child-marriage cases - let alone the whole 'if they want benefits they can just marry an opposite-sex person like they ought to be doing anyway' and 'fags cost money and aren't worth it' arguments.

Salon's John Aravosis outlines how Mr. Obama has lost the trust of his GBLT supporters, which I am happier every day to say did not include me:
On taking office, Obama immediately announced that he was doing away with the Clinton-era concept of special assistants who served as liaisons to various communities like gays and Latinos. He then went ahead and appointed special liaisons to some of those communities anyway, but never to the gays. Around the same time, the White House Web site, once detailing half a page of presidential promises to the gay community, overnight saw those pledges shortened to three simple sentences. Gone were five of the eight previous commitments, including the promises to repeal both Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA... senior White House officials kept telling the media that they weren't sure when, if ever, the president would follow through on his promises to the gay community. ... last week [Mr. Obama] had his Department of Justice file a brief in defense of DOMA, a law he had once called "abhorrent." In that brief, filed on the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia (which outlawed bans on interracial marriage) [he] compared our love to incest and pedophilia.

Tonight, [Chief Executive Obama] will try to make amends by signing either a memorandum, a directive or an executive order, directing some federal agencies, but not others, to provide some benefits, but not others, to some gay federal employees, but not others, at some undisclosed time in the future. (And the benefits may reportedly go away when Obama leaves office.)

First problem, federal agencies already have the right to provide these benefits to gay employees -- and several, including at least one DOD agency, do. Second problem, the administration can’t tell us exactly which benefits they’re talking about and for which employees. That’s because this was all hastily thrown together after the incestuous and pedophilic gays nearly brought down a Democratic National Committee gay pride fundraiser scheduled for next week. A gay blogger got hold of the event’s guest list and published it, and once D.C.’s gay paper, the Washington Blade, announced that it would be staking out the entrance to the event with camera and video, the $1,000 a head attendees started dropping like flies.

In other words, the only reason we're getting anything: The gay ATM ran dry. ...

When, Mr. President, will be a good time to set my people free? When will the leader of the free world get a breather, a presidential timeout as it were? ... Are we really to believe that 2010, a congressional election year, will be any more timely than today? Or 2011, the beginning of the presidential primaries? Or 2012, with a congressional and presidential election? There is quite literally no time like the present.
This last section outlines why "patience" is not much of an option, and why so many people are so very upset. "Later," in these calculations, is exactly the same as "never."
Tags: politics
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded