Obama supports "DOMA", proves himself typical lying politico

[JillSwift]

See: Here

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

I may as well have voted for McCain-Palin.

[Sophus]

What an idiot.

[rlrose328]

Yes, that decision has really got me questioning Obama now.  There have been a few other minor things here and there, but this one is big.

Politicians make so many promises on the campaign trail, but when they get into office, it's nearly impossible to keep all of those promises.  It's too hard and there are too many battles to face to get it done.

I'm still glad he's in office rather than McCain and Palin, though.  Just wondering what other disappointing decision he will make next. :verysad:

[Jolly Sapper]

Never let it be said that the gears of democracy spin quickly.

Obama's a slightly left of center centrist by my non-professional guess, he's doing what he can with the political capital he's got but I don't expect to see too much revolutionary change from this administration.  What I do expect to see, is a slow erosion of the Republican and Blue Dog Democrat political base that *should* allow for future politicians to tackle future issues that today are too toxic for most politicians to want to touch.

[karadan]

I'm still glad he's in office rather than McCain and Palin, though.  Just wondering what other disappointing decision he will make next. :verysad:

Yep. Had McCain/Palin won, by now we'd see far more radical proposals coming through.

[Whitney]

I'm still glad he's in office rather than McCain and Palin, though.  Just wondering what other disappointing decision he will make next. :verysad:

Yep. Had McCain/Palin won, by now we'd see far more radical proposals coming through.

Yes, it would have been much worse than this:  http://obamasplanforgayrights.com/

[PipeBox]

Sometimes it feels like you're just voting for which fist gets to punch We The People:  left or right?  It's the same damn boxer.  He is right-handed, though, so maybe I'll keep voting left until it looks like he's switched hands again.

This is so monumentally stupid, undermining as much of the judicial branch as possible to at least offer neutral support to an amendment of bigotry.  Frak.

[Ninteen45]

You know, Bill was Right.

"The democrats have moved to the center-right, the Repulicans moved into an insane asylum.

[JillSwift]

You know, Bill was Right.

"The democrats have moved to the center-right, the Repulicans moved into an insane asylum.

[Will]

President Obama was always a centrist, though. He ran as a centrist, he promised centrist things, and he's acted as a centrist from the moment he was sworn in. I don't understand why people are surprised that he's not ushering in a golden age of liberalism.

I don't expect President Obama to make any sweeping changes on gay rights without the support or even strong nudging of congress. I don't expect President Obama to end the war in Afghanistan. I don't expect President Obama to really fight for universal health care. I don't expect him to take on the corporate industrial complex, the military industrial complex, or the debt industrial complex.

I'm still hoping Dennis Kucinich, the Congressman from Ohio, will run in 2012. I know it's a long shot, but he's a real liberal. I voted for him in 2008 and I'll be doing it again.

[thiolsulfate]

I am about to write what will probably be the least popular opinion on this thread.

(Before I even begin. I seriously have to question the source. Americablog, and blogs in general, are wretched places to look for news. Americablog in particular is as fair and balanced as some other "news" source who claims the now defamed moniker.  Obama himself did not file this brief as the "news" article's title would lead you to believe, neither did Eric Holder, the Attorney General. The brief was written with a W. Bush holdover.

Next I have to speak on former Clinton aide Richard Socarides's argument that the DOJ did not have to file a brief. His argument is that sometimes the Justice Department does not need to enforce the law -- what the hell kind of argument is that? Don't want to take my word for it?

I know and accept the fact that one of the Department of Justice's roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack. But not in all cases, certainly not in this case â€" and not in this way. To defend this brief is to defend the indefensible.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/choi ... d-its.html

Actually no. The Department of Justice must defend the law at all times, regardless of what law it is, regardless of how stupid and openly bigoted. Until the law is changed it is law. I do not want my Law Enforcement deciding not to enforce laws, I do not want my prosecutors not to prosecute, even laws that I hate -- especially laws that I hate. Laws must be changed before we can stop enforcing them. Enforcing the law is a sword that cuts both ways as it should.

It is not the responsibility or the privilege of the Executive to decide what the laws are or what laws are to be enforced, that ability belongs to the Legislature. If you don't like that the law is enforced, aim your ire at Congress.

It is this issue in particular that has made me decide to stop calling myself a liberal or a progressive. [I was already of the opinion that liberal/conservative terminology doesn't mean anything, but liberal was always a safe default.] My problem with George Bush and other presidents like him was that he refused to obey the law. He broke them when they were inconvenient and when he knew the people would let him get away with it. He violated FISA Law, broke the Geneva Convention, retarded the protection of Abortion Clinics by US Marshals. I hated Bush because he did not obey the law. I thought "liberals" did as well -- apparently I was wrong, they just wanted a George Bush who would not obey the laws they didn't like.)

Let's face a few things really quickly right off the bat:
First, on the big list of problems that need to be fixed, repealing DOMA and DADT rank fairly low. On the other hand, things like the Economy and Health Care rank fairly high. Is it worth sacrificing the economy and health care for gay rights? Before you answer, read below to understand why that really is our choice.

Second, the notion that the majorities in Congress give the President a free pass is an outright lie. The House may be with him but the Senate is not. Even if Norm Coleman finally releases his death grip on his Senate Seat and Al Franken becomes the 60th Democratic Senator, the President still does not have a filibuster-proof majority. Some of his 60 seats are given to him by people like Joe Lieberman and Arlen Spector. Even Evan Bayh, who was thought to have been Obama's pick for VP, formed a new Democratic caucus to oppose Executive overreach even BEFORE any plans had been made; vowing to filibuster WITH Republicans against certain economic issues. Not to mention the simple fact that a lot of the new Democrats making up the Senate are Blue Dog Democrats from Red States who were voted in on economics and could easily be replaced by Republicans on social issues.

Third, case in point, New York. The State Congress of New York WAS a Democratic congress until the Governor proposed a legislative bill to allow same-sex marriage in his state. (I'm NOT blaming the Governor for this, I want to make that clear. It is not his fault that there are bigots in his State Legislature.) Two anti-gay-marriage Democrats caucused with the Republicans -- solely on the issue of Gay Marriage -- throwing the Legislature to the Republicans. Now, in New York, not only is gay marriage an impossibility, but so are all the other proposals of the Governor and the formerly Democratic Legislature -- all power in State Legislature commissions must now be given to the Republicans because they have the largest caucus.

Given all that, is overturning DOMA and DADT worth sacrificing everything else?

Before anyone calls me an Obama apologist, I am not. I did not like his vote to give immunity to telecom companies who broke the law and surrendered phone logs of private American citizens to Bush's DOJ and DHS. I did not like his decision to bring that slobbering idiot, Rick Warren to his inauguration. I did not like that he has not closed the overtly unConstitutional Office of Faith Based Initiatives. I hated, in every sense, his statement that we must "move on" with regard to having tortured people; that, especially, is unforgivable in my eyes.

Before anyone calls me a homophobe, I am not. I campaigned hard in California against Proposition 8. I spent money on the campaign, I spent time in the most backwater areas of my state and was even threatened with violence for having stood against Prop 8. I am, to this day, disgusted by the duality of the 2008 referendum that gave farm animals rights with Prop 2 while taking rights away from humans with Prop 8.

I don't like that this is the position that President Obama or the Justice Department is in, having the obligation to defend backwards and bigoted laws, but I am not of the authoritarian opinion that the Department of Justice and the President (no matter who that President is) can choose which laws they are going to enforce.

[-43-]

I think I have said this before, but Barack Obama is a shameless media whore who would eat his children if he thought it would increase his poll numbers. If anybody here really that he wasn't simply posturing for "hope/change" then allow me to remind you of his profession. Politician.

[Brizz]

I think I have said this before, but Barack Obama is a shameless media whore who would eat his children if he thought it would increase his poll numbers. If anybody here really that he wasn't simply posturing for "hope/change" then allow me to remind you of his profession. Politician.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, holy shit! I've read all your posts and you're perfect. You're probably already a member

Check out this conservative/libertarian site I'm always on: http://arthurshall.com/x_2009_motm09_goldwater.shtml

[Reginus]

I personaly don't have any faith in politics. I think Obama is a good man, but government its self is a broken system of people fighting for power. If someone supports universal healthcare, than instead of rallying for a polititian who's for it, he or she could do a host of other things. Perhaps that person could donate money to an organization that helps the poor pay for medical expenses, or maybe volunteer at a clinic for the homeless. Same with almost all the other political issues.

Btw, this is related to the fall of the American church. They got involved in the struggle for political power instead of doing what they are actualy "called to do".

Sorry but I had to get that little rant out of me, .

[-43-]

Obama works in govt'...this invalidates any moral code he may have.