Saturday, June 13, 2009

Obama's DOJ And DOMA

Ever since I read the post from Americablog yesterday, I've wanted to write something about the defense of DOMA by the lawyers at Obama's DOJ. However, I was so disheartened by what I read there, that I had no energy to write anything at all until now, and this is mostly cut and paste.

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).

Aravosis' statement in bold type (my emphasis) turned out to have been prescient because he later learned that "one of the three Obama Justice Department attorneys who wrote and filed the anti-gay DOMA brief last night is W. Scott Simpson, a Mormon Bush holdover who was awarded by Alberto Gonzales for his defense of the Partial Birth Abortion act."

And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.

During the campaign, Obama stated that he would be gay-friendly. When will he begin?

Thanks (or no thanks?) to Counterlight for the link to Americablog.

10 comments:

  1. Mimi, i have discussed this extensively on my posts here and here at GMC (cross posted at DailyKos).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Time to start some oversight, it appears - if left-overs (Mormon) of the former maladministration think they can do as they like ;=)

    ReplyDelete
  3. IT, I'll check your posts out.

    Yes, Göran, so it appears. Very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  4. IT, that's pretty much what Aravosis said. The DOJ had to defend DOMA, but they did not have to choose those particular arguments to make their case. Their arguments improved on W's arguments, but were more insulting to lesbians and gays than those of the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Crap... and I spent a fair amount supporting his candidacy. I am so sick of safe hets who don't have a clue what it is like constantly to be dissed by society. (Present company excluded because you walk in solidarity.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Caminante, I'm sure Obama had moments of being dissed because of race. That's what makes me so surprised that he would not be more sympathetic on LGBT issues.

    Doesn't he realize that the folks who hate him now will still hate him after all his compromises?

    ReplyDelete
  7. If any of you gave him money -- or voted for him -- TELL Obama that this is NOT acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The final point? This hatefilled brief became public on the 42nd anniversary of the landmark decision Loving v. Virginia in which SCOTUS cast out anti-miscegenation laws.

    From the DoJ of the first mixed-race president.

    Irony, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  9. SusanKay, you're right. I'll do it.

    "Have you no shame, Sir?"

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.