Sunday, June 21, 2009

White House photo ops versus justice

Michelangelo Signorile:
This is pretty outrageous. In the midst of all the anger from LGBT people over the DOMA brief and the inadequate response -- so far -- by the Obama administration, gay lobbyists, executive directors and assorted others who comprise what is identified as the gay leadership apparently have been invited to a party at the White House thrown just for them.

It's another photo-op in which everyone -- the president and the gays -- can look happy and like they're having fun, but more so, it's a way for the White House to wank off the gay leaders a bit while still not delivering. None of them should fall for it -- and that means they should not attend this event -- least of all the Human Rights Campaign. We don't want cocktails for high-paid gay and lesbians lobbyists and executive directors looking to schmooze and feel important. We want action on our rights, and at this point it means DOMA and DADT....
Pam Spaulding:
OK. Who said Congress shouldn't be held accountable? But where does it get its cues from -- the White House. Come on, we're not stupid. We've heard apologists say that Obama's rogue DOJ issued that brief without anyone in the WH knowing. Gee, when Bush was in the White House, we sure nailed the fact that Alberto Gonzales was working hand-in-glove with Dear Leader's constitutional wrecking crew at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. So which is it people? I'm tired of the excuses, and bad ones at that.
John Aravosis:
The biggest betrayal of all? Our leaders are going to the White House to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. Irony is not lacking in this White House.

But we got cake! (And a gay band in the parade!)
Until a truly satisfactory retraction of the DOMA insult comes along, I doubt that self-respecting LGBT folk want to even be seen with the White House. They could have fucking done nothing and we could have been patient and understanding, but such an egregious slap in the face is like challenging us to a duel and then expecting us to show up for caviar and champagne and smile for the camera. I don't think so.

Why are we so pissed? Well, it seems some DOJ types went out of their way to be do some really vile arguing in a case.
Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.
You can read more thanks to John Aravosis at Americablog - if you can keep your meal down while you read it. I don't need to go further than having our relationships compared to incest and pedophilia. It is a vile comparison and flawed legal reasoning. It should be laughed out of court.

Tony West, James J. Gilligan, and W. Scott Simpson (the last a Bush political holdover) who wrote the brief are, in my opinion, reprehensible scum. I am sure they feel the same about me.

Yes, on this particular topic I am awarding Obama an F! As in "failing grade" or, let's be honest, a huge "FUCK YOU!"

I believe in evaluating policies and actions one by one. I may, and expect to, support the President in many areas while disagreeing and vigorously opposing in others. An all-or-nothing approach is not acceptable. (The blanket condemnations of Bush had, well, a lot to do with the fact that almost everything he touched turned to owlshit - or, more properly, profits for his buddies and disasters for the US and the world.)

I am not going to conclude that Obama is "just like all the others." (Consider where we would be if McCain were president: too horrible to contemplate.) Obama's imperfect. He's flawed. So am I. He can learn and grow. We need to help him learn and grow.

h/t to Pam for the instructive Malcolm X video
--the BB

No comments: