Progressive Puppy blog heartbreakingly covers Obama's defense for DOMA.

[madfloridian]

I do not even pretend to understand this, but there is too much evidence now that this administration and these congressional Democrats have decided women and gays are expendable.

Et Tu, Obama?

The knife in our back has been officially twisted.

After vowing on the campaign trail to work to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Obama administration is now vigorously defending the discriminatory law in federal court - and it's using language straight from "The Homobigot's Handbook" to do it! An extremely offensive legal brief filed by the Department of Justice cites incest and adults marrying children as reasons why DOMA should be defended.

Pam Spaulding assays the situation on Pam's House Blend: The real PR disaster for the administration is how can they explain away the virulent anti-gay defense it is presenting. Among the highlights offered by the "most pro-gay administration" in history...

* Obama administration invoked incest and people marrying children.
* The Obama admin argues that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional
* DOMA is good because it saves the federal government money
* Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states
* The defense, by default, argues against Loving v. Virginia. For the child of an interracial marriage and a Constitutional scholar, this is beyond belief.
* Gays don't deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities receive
* Provides legal argument against gays' right to privacy
* DOMA is rational and reasonable for our society

I feel the pain, and I don't understand why this is being done by this administration. I hear some of the Bush DOJ is still in place...to that I say why? Why allow this to happen?

One of our anti-choice Democrats, in fact two of them...Bob Casey and Lincoln Davis...have worked on a bill to save women from themselves. Actually they call it the Pregnant Woman Support Bill. It is an almost laughable title. They do not mention contraception in the bill as a way to help women not need abortions. It is pushed by the Southern Baptists, the Catholic bishops, and Democrats for Life, whose spokeswoman insults women who support abortion as a woman's choice. The religious groups are pushing this bill, which calls for a national database of abortions.

What database will they want to keep next?

Supporting Pregnant Women by reporting abortions to the government

A) the number and characteristics of women obtaining abortions in the State;

(B) the characteristics of these abortions, including the approximate gestational age of the unborn child, the abortion method, and any known physical or psychological complications.

(3) PERSONAL INFORMATION- A report submitted by a State under this subsection shall not contain the name of any woman obtaining or seeking to obtain an abortion, any common identifier (such as a social security number), or any other identifier (including statistical information) that would make it possible to identify in any manner or under any circumstances an individual who has obtained or seeks to obtain an abortion.

The 2006 bill required that names be given. This is shocking to me.

I think our party has weighed the rights of women and gays in the balance, and they have found us wanting as a reason to fight. I think that they feel these are expendable issues and that bringing the religious right on board is more important. I think we will later find that is a sad mistake that can not be undone.

[madfloridian]

1. This post from Kos seeks to justify this act, and I still don't understand.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/12/741817/-Obama-on-DOMA:-He-IS-Keeping-A-Promise

It appears to me to boil down to the basic fact of wrong/not wrong.

If it is Bush attorneys doing this...why are they there to wreak havoc?

[karynnj]

2. Here is a link to the Casey bill

I scanned the high level information. The only thing that looked controversial is this:

SEC. 501. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON ABORTION SERVICES.

(a) In General- Health facilities that perform abortions in or affecting interstate commerce shall obtain informed consent from the pregnant woman seeking to have the abortion. Informed consent shall exist only after a woman has voluntarily completed or opted not to complete pre-abortion counseling sessions.

(b) Accurate Information- Counseling sessions under subsection (a) shall include the following information:

(1) The probable gestational age and characteristics of the unborn child at the time the abortion will be performed.

(2) How the abortion procedure is performed.

(3) Possible short-term and long-term risks and complications of the procedure to be performed.

(4) Alternatives to abortion, including, but not limited to, adoption, and the resources available in the community to assist women choosing these alternatives.

(5) The availability of post-procedure medical services to address the risks and complications of the procedure.

(c) Exception- This section shall not apply when the pregnant woman is herself incapable, under State law, of making medical decisions. This section does not affect or modify any requirement under State law for making medical decisions for such patients.

(d) Civil Remedies-

(1) CIVIL ACTION- Any female upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted without complying with the informed consent requirements may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States against the person who performed the abortion in knowing or reckless violation of this section for actual and punitive damages.

(2) CERTAIN AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS- With respect to an action under paragraph (1):

(A) The court may award attorney's fees to the plaintiff if judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and may award attorney's fees to the defendant if judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant and the court finds that the plaintiff's case was frivolous and brought in bad faith.

(B) The court shall determine whether the anonymity of the female involved will be preserved from public disclosure if the female has not consented to her identity being disclosed. If the female's identity is to be shielded, the court shall issue an order sealing the record and excluding individuals from the courtroom to preserve her identity.

(C) In the absence of the female's written consent, anyone other than a public official who brings the action shall do so under a pseudonym.

(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection may be construed to conceal the identity of the plaintiff or of the witnesses from the defendant.

(e) Severability- If any provision of this section requiring informed consent for abortions is found unconstitutional, the unconstitutional provision is severable and the other provisions of this section remain in effect.

(f) Preemption- Nothing in this section shall prevent a State from enacting and enforcing additional requirements with respect to informed consent.

provision e) suggests they know this is controversial - so they are insuring that if it is found unconstitutional, the rest of the bill remains.

The rest of the bill, which as I said I merely scanned the high level, provides support to pregnant women and new born children.

[madfloridian]

23. I refer to the statement by Cardinal Regali as to the intent of the law.

I do not find it acceptable for women's rights to be manipulated this way by such a bill with such an obvious purpose.

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=33340

In the encyclical letter “The Gospel of Life”, the Servant of God John Paul II not only set forth the definitive reaffirmation of the Christian rejection of every act against the fundamental Right to Life as being intrinsically evil, but also presented important directions regarding the pragmatic application of this clear teaching by those charged with governance. At the end of Paragraph 73 we read the following words:

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favoring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter.

"In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

We offer the good Cardinal’s letter to encourage support for the Pregnant Women Support Act. as well as to demonstrate to all Catholics, other Christians, and all people of good will in public office how to proceed while they work without compromise to bring an end to the reign of the Culture of Death in the current positive law in the United States"

You need to read that several times to get the full import of it.

The whole bill is controversial, and we should not be excusing it.

There is no need to even mention abortion in a bill that truly means to help women.

[karynnj]

26. There is nothing there that is very different with the

the majority of Democrats saying they would like to make abortion rare. The entire bill is similar to a comprehensive approach to make the option of having the baby more possible - if the reasons for not doing so are financial or not having support. If the woman, for whatever reasons, chooses an abortion, this does not disallow one.

I have far less problem with this than you do. If you feel that having to reject counseling is too onerous, fight that provision alone, because the rest of the bill may help women. (I had to sign to reject amniocentesis during each of three pregnancies - given that I was 35 or older. This really was not a problem.) That provision may keep other Democrats from co-sponsoring it.

I think that Casey's motives here are good.

[madfloridian]

43. I think Casey's motives are religiously oriented.

Just like the crusade against gay people.

The crusade against abortion and women's rights, including contraception is based on religious views.

[karynnj]

45. I heard Casey speak at my daughter's graduation

He and his father are strong Catholic's both very influenced by the social justice aspect of Catholicism fostered by the Jesuit College he spoke at - and which he had graduated from. He actually volunteered after graduation in the Jesuit Volunteer Core and taught school in the inner city of (I think Philadelphia). (I am amazed at the number of graduates opting for the JVC, Americorps, Peace Corps etc - including many graduating with highest honors. The emphasis on social justice is very real.)

He is personally against abortion, as was his father. He is NOT though for repealing Roe vs Wade. This is an issue that is hard for every Catholic politician - and many non-Catholics. I have heard NOTHING from Casey that suggests that he is against contraception. What I have heard of his father and from him are things that seem to define Democratic values - things like providing health care and other things that should be in the security net.

I think you need to look at the piece of legislation. Here, it looks to me like it would help some pregnant women and new borns. As I said, the only thing that looked at all controversial is that it required women seeking abortions to either get the counseling listed or sign that they are rejecting it. I can see why some people would have a problem with that, but if so, I would suggest that people demand that segment be removed. Even with it in, there looks to be more good than bad here. I personally resent that you call that a crusade against abortion AND women's rights. This is not ending the availability of abortion and it is most definitely not a crusade against women's rights.

[madfloridian]

46. I am not going to back down on what I said.

The religious right is permeating decisions in this administration, just like they did under Bush.

The extra power given to the faith-based initiatives, the fact that 19 of the 25 on the council are anti-choice on women's issues. The way the defense of DOMA went down is inexcusable.

We are going the same direction in those vital areas as the Bush administration.

[karynnj]

47. Casey is NOT by any stretch of the imagination part of the religious right

Nor is Obama.

[madfloridian]

49. Then they need to speak up now instead of letting this DOMA thing go on.

Instead of letting people like Kristen Day call people like me "absolutists" on abortion rights.

Damn right I am.

I was raised in the church, so were our children. I don't recognize it anymore.

[karynnj]

56. How many politicians currently in office have either supported suits

questioning DOMA or have introduced legislation to change it? I know of just one who has supported such a suit (Kerry) and none who have introduced legislation.

I doubt they have any control over Kristen Day.

[ClarkUSA]

3. Um, Obama is NOT defending DOMA. By law, the DoJ does NOT communicate w/Pres. Obama on cases.

Despite all the hoopla, the assertion that "Obama defends DOMA" simply is NOT true.

You see, the Department of Justice has a legal obligation to defend the United States when it is a party to a criminal or civil action. This has already been pointed out by some people and promptly dismissed by those determined to lay all the blame on Obama, however, try to deny that truth as one might, it is the truth.

This is laid out under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. The United States Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

•the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the Federal government;
•the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party; and
•the collection of debts owed the Federal government which are administratively uncollectible.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/index.html

But....but....but it's still Obama's fault! It had to be cleared with Obama! Obama had to have OKed the brief! Obama's hand is all over this! Obama hates the gays........

WRONG!

You see, under The United States Department of Justice - United States Attorneys Manual, TITLE 1; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/title1.htm), there is a section titled "Department of Justice Communications with the White House" (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/doj00032.htm).

It reads, under Section 32:

It is imperative that there be public confidence that the laws of the United States are administered and enforced in an impartial manner. To that end, all components of the Department of Justice, including United States Attorneys' Offices, shall abide by the following procedures governing communication between the Department of Justice and the White House.

<...>

Pending Civil Investigations and Cases

The Department shall provide the White House with information about pending civil investigations or cases only when doing so is important for the performance of the President's duties and appropriate from a law enforcement or litigation perspective. Except with respect to national security matters, all initial communications that concern or may concern a pending civil investigation or a case pending at the trial level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President and either the Office of the Deputy Attorney General or the Office of the Associate Attorney General, all initial communications that concern or may concern a civil case pending at the appellate level should take place only between the Office of the Counsel to the President and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, or the Office of the Solicitor General. If appropriate with regard to a particular case or investigation, the Office of the Counsel to the President and the senior Justice Department official with whom the White House is dealing will design and monitor a process for ongoing contact between the White House and the Justice Department concerning that particular matter.

What does that mean? Well, it means pretty much what it says. In order to keep politics out of the process, the Department of Justice does NOT consult with the President, nor does it asks for the President's permission, nor does it brief the President in legal matters in which the United States is a party unless it "is important for the performance of the President's duties" or deals with "national security matters."

There is absolutely no concerted effort by President Obama or the Obama Administration to deny gay people anything, or to defend DOMA.

Simply put, it's just governmental business as usual, meaning the Department of Justice is simply doing what it is required BY LAW to do.

[madfloridian]

5. And Bush cronies are still in DOJ. And Siegelman may go to jail...

while 4 Republicans walk free and clear.

Not an acceptable answer right now. Not in human terms. Not at all.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Why are you blaming Pres. Obama for DoJ decisions? The DoJ operates independently of the WH.

BushCo didn't follow the rule of law, but the Obama administration sure believes in it.

[madfloridian]

7. I am seeing the reality of the hurt done by this.

If it is done in by this administration's DOJ, you will never convince people that the WH is not supportive.

I am a reasonable person, and I like to do my research.

BUT it is being done by Obama's DOJ. It is hurting many good people.

Do NOT put me on the defensive over this.

[ClarkUSA]

10. So do you also think the Clinton WH was "supportive" of Ken Starr's DoJ investigation?

I provided sourced links that make it clear that President Obama did not personally approve the DoJ brief. The DoJ was following the rule of law in upholding the law against a case filed against DOMA. Unless there is a new law approved by Congress, all challenges to DOMA will be defended by the DoJ. President Obama has NO say in DoJ affairs.

[madfloridian]

12. The DOJ now is under the leadership or Eric Holder.

He was appointed by Obama for the job.

You can provide links all day long, but sometimes there is a moral element involved that can not be overlooked and explained away.

It is being done in the name of this administration.

http://www.usdoj.gov/

They are saying terrible things about gays. It is sickening, and there is no excuse for it happening.

[ClarkUSA]

14. So what? Janet Reno was appointed by Bill Clinton. Neither AG was/is a presidential puppet.

Your emotional response does not change the facts or the rule of law.

[madfloridian]

15. You feel a strong need to defend this. I don't. That "so what" argument...

is a brush off to others.

This is a grave injustice to good people that he promised to support.

[ClarkUSA]

17. No, that '"so what" argument' is means what you said is irrelevant to the facts and rule of law.

This is a grave injustice to good people that he promised to support.

The DoJ is follow the rule of law by upholding existing law. Unless and until Congress repeals DOMA, they will continue to do so. President Obama has no say in it, so it is a fallacy to blame him for the DoJ brief.

[Seen the light]

9. Then why say "BushCo didn't follow the rule of law"?

If the DoJ is completely independent of the White House, then why drag Bush into it? Why lay out a double standard for Bush over Obama?

[ClarkUSA]

11. Um, because it's a fact?

Why lay out a double standard for Bush over Obama?

What are you talking about? I did no such thing.

[Seen the light]

13. Why not say....

"the DoJ under Bush" didn't follow the law. Why label it "BushCo" if they are entirely independent of the White House like you claim? If Obama isn't responsible for the actions of his DoJ, why would Bush be?

(Hint: My point is that both presidents are responsible for their Justice Departments. You're correct when you say that "BushCo" never followed the law on anything. However, you should also be intellectually honest and hold Obama accountable for the actions of his DoJ as well.)

[ClarkUSA]

16. I'm not into splitting hairs on semantics. And I disagree with your premise.

However, you should also be intellectually honest and hold Obama accountable for the actions of his DoJ as well.

Why should I do that? Do you have proof of collusion to back up your opinion? If you're "intellectually honest" you would.

[donco6]

20. It's simple logic. For which you have no answer. Again. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

27. What is "simple logic"?

Splitting hairs on semantics is not logic, it's opinion.

The DoJ is following the rule of law by upholding existing law. Unless and until Congress repeals DOMA, they will continue to do so. President Obama has no say in it, so it is a logical fallacy to blame him for the DoJ brief.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sam kane]

18. "It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.


http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-po...

[truedelphi]

25. Sam Kane, you nailed it.

And I'd love to know just who is advising Obama to hold on to the scum-suckers from the Bush administration.

Apparently Obama never watched any C Span hearings on the corruption in the Bush DOJ.

Under Bush, DOJ Attorneys were discouraged to deal with people who burnt crosses on the lawn of Black people in Missouri. Until Bush, such matters were handled by DOJ.

There were other racist items that went on in the Bush appointed DOJ. Some of these people are foul foul foul human beings.

Or maybe Obama thinks that now that he is President he is no longer a person of color, and/or that having racist crooks in DOJ is of little consequence. (He definitely has forgotten all about the middle incomed strata of society that he came from, to him we are trash and the Wall Street crowd is worthwhile.)

[ClarkUSA]

28. Sorry, but Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code is the law and the DoJ followed it.

This is laid out under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. The United States Attorneys have three statutory responsibilities under Title 28, Section 547 of the United States Code:

•the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the Federal government;
•the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party; and
•the collection of debts owed the Federal government which are administratively uncollectible.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/index.html

As for your blogger's assertions, he/she must have thought better of it because they deleted the blog: "Blogger: Page not found."

[madfloridian]

34. Thanks for sharing that.

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

35. Funny how the the link leads to nowhere: "Blogger: Page Not Found"

[madfloridian]

44. Here's a working link to the ACLU and Battle Over Law Censoring Marijuana Policy Ads

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/gen/10903prs20050126.html

The other was not working for me.

"WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems. The controversial statute was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. The Solicitor General Paul Clement stated in a letter to Congress that, "the government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense and will not appeal the district court's decision." Today is Congress' last day to respond to the federal appeals court in the D.C. Circuit.

"The Justice Department finally met a law so unconstitutional that it could not find any way to defend it," said Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "Congress should stop trying to silence public discussion of the cruel and expensive failures of current marijuana laws."

As the Wall Street Journal reported today, "Mr. Clement's opinion also could serve as a warning to Congress that it can't assume the Justice Department will support the controversial riders that lawmakers have been adding to funding bills if those riders are challenged in court." The Wall Street Journal added, "Two past solicitors general, Charles Fried and Seth Waxman, said it is rare for a solicitor general to refuse to defend a statute passed by Congress" and that "Mr. Fried, who served under President Reagan, recalled making such a decision only twice."

[donco6]

19. The DOJ required to equate same sex marriage to incest!

Yay! I love the rule of law.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Prove it. For the record: the DoJ DID NOT compare gay marriage to incest (link to FACTS -->)

Citing case studies as legal precedence is common when filing a brief in defense of existing law. Stop perpetuating a falsehood or else be party to deceit.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5833429&mesg_id=5841710

[donco6]

54. Link to factual facts:

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 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.

[tan guera]

38. Åccording to law

the DOJ is supposed to be investigating and possibly prosecuting bushco.

[donco6]

55. Funny how THAT law doesn't have to be followed, huh? n/t

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[Starry Messenger]

21. Wow, someone on my ignore list really dislikes your post.

Good thing they keep kicking it up, it's really good. I love Pam Spaulding's blog. The discussions there on this DOMA issue have been invaluable.

[QC]

22. Picture a vomiting lizard. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

24. LOL.

[KingFlorez]

29. These histrionics are beyond ridiculous

The facts are there, yet people are still insisting that the President has stabbed them in the back. It's got to stop, it's becoming very annoying.

[madfloridian]

30. These things are being said by the Obama DOJ

"Pam Spaulding assays the situation on Pam's House Blend: The real PR disaster for the administration is how can they explain away the virulent anti-gay defense it is presenting. Among the highlights offered by the "most pro-gay administration" in history...

* Obama administration invoked incest and people marrying children.
* The Obama admin argues that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional
* DOMA is good because it saves the federal government money
* Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states
* The defense, by default, argues against Loving v. Virginia. For the child of an interracial marriage and a Constitutional scholar, this is beyond belief.
* Gays don't deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities receive
* Provides legal argument against gays' right to privacy
* DOMA is rational and reasonable for our society"

Also let's warn all us women about the "histrionics" when a protect women bill comes out with no mention of contraception and being praised by anti-choice religious groups.

"Histrionics" is in the eye of the beholder.

Our party either stands for these groups or it doesn't.

[ClarkUSA]

32. lol! You're quoting a blogger? Show me where the DoJ brief said any of those things.

I read the whole brief. Citing case studies as legal precedence is common when filing a brief in defense of existing law. Stop perpetuating a falsehood or else be party to deceit.

Here are the non-histrionic facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5833429&mesg_id=5841710

[madfloridian]

33. We are going back to how it used to be...

when I could not see your posts.

Deliberately baiting and misunderstanding are inexcusable when two groups are being marginalized.

Shame on you and good by.

[ClarkUSA]

37. Your attempt to distract from my point by introducing red herrings is a fail.

"Shame on you" for not acknowledging the facts about the DoJ brief.

[dsc]

48. you didn't read that brief

It says, in crystal clear language, that gays aren't entitled to the same scrutiny as other minorities. It uses the words rational basis and specificly states we aren't a suspect class nor a quasi suspect class. It doesn't get clearer than that.

[Mattylock]

80. Correct from a legal standpoint

Until the Supreme Ct. determines otherwise. The DOJ is making its argument based on current law, which neither the DOJ or the President can change.

[donco6]

51. Here you go . . . again.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html


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 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.

Lots more! Just let me know when you want to see it again.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

84. so since they are showing cases strengthening their case

Are you of the view that there are some states in the us that are now Incest states, and some that are pedophile states?

as the above shows, marriage of first cousin is invalid in Arizona but permitted in New Mexico(does that make New Mexico a incest state?) The marriage of a 16 year old was declared invalid in New Jersey but is legal in Indiana(does that mean Indiana is now a pedophile state?)

First cousin marriage is quite debated in a fair number of US states, I'm sure all the states permitting it would be quite happy if you told them they support incest

[donco6]

50. Wow. Sorry you're so put out.

Maybe if you just kept on going, it wouldn't have to trouble you so.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Thanks for this post

And for dealing with the raving lunacy of one of the ignored choir, that would of course be claiming that either they HAD to, (but law be damned about torture prosecutions) or my favorite- Obama did not personally write the brief! I love that argument, because it is so shallow and devoid of meaning. The apologists often open with it, as if stating that his administration is out of control is a good defense for a President of the United States.
They are required to investigate indict and bring to trial all participants in torture of prisoners. And yet they wave their hands and say they don't want to bother. Yet at the same time they HAD to make the most bigoted and heinous hate brief against gays they possibly could.

[madfloridian]

41. There is no true defense of this under a Democratic administration.

So all the ugliness in this thread is like sound and fury and we know what they signify..nothing.

[shadowknows69]

40. Bottom line. If the President didn't know about this brief he does now.

And he's chosen to be silent on it. The justice department serves the Executive brance in its mandate to enforce the law of the nation. I find it very hard to believe that this never saw the President's desk before it went out. If it didn't he needs to say so and to condemn it.

[susanr516]

42. Indeed, Shadow

The silence gets louder by the minute, doesn't it?

[boppers]

52. Where did Progressive Puppy get his law degree?

All of this internet-lawyering and Monday-morning quarterbacking is getting a tad silly, especially when a heaping dose of rhetoric and creative phrasing is thrown on top of it.

For one, accusing Obama of attempted murder isn't exactly a reasonable way to have a thoughtful conversation.

[donco6]

53. You need a law degree to read, now?

Put up an argument and let's see if it tears his down.

[boppers]

57. People need an understanding on a topic to speak intelligently on a topic.

For a short reading list, see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16.

Understanding all of these is a requirement to understanding the law behind DOMA, and the issues that surround multi-state rights, and full faith and credit.

Of course, any blogger/reporter/layman can issue forth an "opinion" with no legal background whatsoever, and thus, not really understand, or speak intelligently, about their topic. Much as random folks can think they understand physics, and thus "create" perpetual motion machines, or somebody can declare themselves a "healer" without understanding the Krebs cycle.

[madfloridian]

58. Bull Hockey. This is a moral issue. It was done in Obama's name.

Quote all the law you want, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[boppers]

59. Law and morality are not related.

This is one of the ugliest lessons one has to learn in law school.

It's also why it would be legal (metaphorically) to piss on your leg, and tell you it's raining.

Sadly, many people are confused by this, as they equate legal justice with moral justice.

Thus, Obama's administration can deliver the "mixed message" of something being legal, even when it's morally wrong, because the two are not the same thing.

[madfloridian]

61. It is a moral issue to lie and say gays would cause incest.

Let's not be naive here.

Those words about them are lies.

[boppers]

66. Please, show me the argument that states that gays would cause incest.

It simply doesn't exist.

It's a fabricated argument, a paper tiger, because the case involved DOMA, and some of the precedents involved inter-familiar marriages, which aren't even recognized (depending on degree) as "incest" in the states in question.

Using that logic, you could also say that Obama somehow said "gays also cause endangered frogs", because another complex area of inter-state law is about endangered species.

Sure, the topics are related, mildly, but if one is going to cheat that much, why not claim that "gays cause interstate frogs that make illegal firearms that molest automobiles with different fuel standards".

[keepCAblue]

82. "We are confronted primarily with a moral issue..."

This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right. We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated...

And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free...

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes sexual minorities; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes sexual minorities...?

We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives. It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the facts that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all. Those who do nothing are inviting shame, as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right, as well as reality...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYuVKbEPgoc

####################################

But then JFK didn't have a law degree...never went to law school, so was spared that "ugly lesson"...apparently he lacked the "intelligence and understanding" to comprehend that law and morality are not related.

And thank dog for that.

[donco6]

60. Interesting.

Well, I read through most of them and they seem pretty clear, even to me. All deal with iterations of determining how far one state's laws, judgments and rulings can impact another state's. I know I cannot understand every nuance of these judgments, but I can see how the concept of state's rights has evolved over the years, and how elements have been challeged and won (or lost as in Hood v. McGehee). So I thank you for the reading list, it was enlightening.

However, I haven't seen your counter to the OP's points yet. Are you saying they aren't worth rebutting? It could be fun . . . you never know.

[boppers]

62. How many of them involved incest?

Cherry-picking precedent for offensive cases is intellectually dishonest.

[donco6]

64. None, that I saw.

But I believe the DOJ brief used that to show how one state's marriage restrictions could be upheld against anothers': uncle marrying niece, first cousins marrying one another (though I've been chastised for bringing that up as "incest" because - who knew! - I guess it's legal in some parts).

But I take it that you are offended by our offense at the arguments used?

[boppers]

68. I'm not offended at the arguments.

I just think they're not very legally effective, or intellectually honest.

They are effective in raising moral outrage, but they're not effective in a court, or a legislature.

Perhaps, the offense raised could be better directed to change the law, rather than making noise about the law?

[donco6]

69. Well, perhaps. However,

without moral outrage, there is no noise. No one makes noise when they're happy or complacent. They make it when they're angry. And - from my puny perspective - I really am quite angry about this situation. So I really see the anger and the action as inseparable.

[boppers]

71. Let me say it another way:

Should you direct anger at:
a) Obama
b) Existing law

A lot of outrage seems to be directed at Obama's DoJ, for defending existing law.

In short, Obama's not the problem, this is Clinton-era law that needs to be changed.

[donco6]

73. Well, now we have an argument.

There are a lot of articles floating around about this very thing. And the one point that disturbs me the most is that, because the DOJ defended the law so exceedingly vociferously, they've now created a whole raft of arguments against same-sex marriage that will be difficult to beat back, IF (and it's an exceedingly big IF) the Obama administration actually gets around to maybe supporting the overturning of DOMA.

For example, here's an article by John Culhane that talks about this:

(1) The contents of the brief (more than the decision to file such a motion) betray an astonishing tone-deafness to the LGBT community. With a few exceptions, most measured legal academics have taken pretty much the position I set forth last night: Defend DOMA if you have to, preferably on procedural grounds, but there’s no need to make arguments against gay equality that it will be tough to walk back from. Art Leonard, one of the founders of the legal gay rights academic movement, is a real voice of reason here. I recommend reading his entire post, which provides a clear analysis of the other (more defensible) grounds for the DOJ’s arguments. But on the substantive arguments:

“ for dismissing the case, according to the Justice Department, is failure to state a valid legal claim. They argue that every legal ground presented by the plaintiffs for attacking DOMA is so lacking in any possibility of winning that the court should just dismiss the case. Here is where the trouble comes, and why all of the LGBT litigation groups have blasted the Justice Department (and the Obama Administration, for after all the buck stops with the President for every act of his administration, regardless whether he was specifically aware of it). Some of the arguments made are so specious and prejudicial that they sound atrocious coming from this administration.

“The one that bothers me the most is the argument that there is no anti-gay motivation behind DOMA, merely a desire by Congress to pursue a policy of “neutrality” with respect to the issue of same-sex marriage in a situation where some states might allow such marriages while others would oppose them. This is absurd.”

So, there are those who support our sense of outrage - and they are certainly not alone.

[Cherchez la Femme]

83. By equating us with incest and pederasty?

Seriously, that's your contention and defense?

You are aware that those inferences are right-wingish implications that's why we want children and want to adopt:
so we can commit incest and child-molestation?

Upon our own children? edit: ANY children?! :puke:


Can you imagine accusing, even in the heighth of anger of the African-American equal rights campaign, black people of similar from anyone but the KKK?
Yet we see post upon post from various, supposedly fellow-Democrats defending this.

I have some choice words for that, but I don't want my post to disappear.
What I will say is Obama does not trump all, and y'all should know that.
That seeing so many supposedly in my party defend the indefensible will only push me, and others, away from said party.
That the equivalent of 'so you're in essence voting for McCain' will no longer work because it wasn't we who threw our party away, it was our party who threw us away?
Read Melted Wings - Icarus And The Democrats, by Jon Faulkner
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Melted-Wings--Icarus-And-by-Jon-Faulkner-090612-334.html
It's prescient, IMO.
I can't recall any party so blatantly dumping a portion of their base before; they either think we're completely expendable or that we wouldn't have any other option (and not only gays, but progressives too).
'The man' thought that at Stonewall too.
Words of wisdom: Those who forget or ignore history are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana


You, nor the party, don't have to like it, but that won't change facts nor feelings;
it won't change a damn thing. This is not an advocation for anything nor a threat but a warning: seeing other Democrats defend it makes it worse. I thought up until now that even if Obama remained neutral on our issues that most of us & our PFLAGs would still vote Democratic in the future... but not after this kind of deliberate slander and abuse.
Very very sad, unnecessary and ultimately unwise.

[jberryhill]

79. "I guess it's legal in some parts" - 26 States - More Than Half

First cousin marriage is legal in more states than not.

Your ignorance of the law of the majority of US states does not pass for an argument.

As for "who knew", it might surprise you that there are some allies in the fight for marriage equality, who for some reason are engaged in "incest" this week on DU:

http://www.cousincouples.com/

[madfloridian]

63. He is arguing law. I am arguing morality and truth.

You sound like you are agreeing with him.

I find that interesting.

He says law and morality are separate, and that I may not be intelligent to know the difference.

Oh, yeh, I know.

[donco6]

65. I hope you don't mean me.

Because I don't.

[madfloridian]

67. Thanks.

I wasn't sure. Appreciate the response.

[boppers]

70. My apologies as "intelligently" can have more weight than "understanding" in my phrasing.

Intelligence, and education, and experience can be very important in understanding a topic.

I suppose a better phrasing might be "law and morality are separate, and many people may not understand the difference".

For the record, I think you are right to argue about your perspective on morality and truth (oh, and BTW, I'm pretty sure I agree with your perspective on the morality of DOMA), but it runs up against a barrier of law, where the greatly immoral (to an individual, or a whole society) can be quite legal, or (vice versa), deeply grounded moral acts can be considered completely illegal.

Long story short:
Robin Hood (the mythical version) was a legal Criminal
Bill Gates (the actual version) is not

[madfloridian]

72. That's what is wrong with our party. Letting terminology rule the day and not morality and honesty.

It is going to catch up with us big time very soon.

Pam's House Blend, sorry to give you a blog with your obvious contempt of them, but is a good presentation.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11427/the-obama-admin-defends-doma-in-a-brief-comparing-marriage-equality-to-incest

So how do you feel about the "real" media...you know the news that lied us into Iraq and makes sh** up all day?

I saw an LA Times article where two mayors came out against Obama on this. I am sure you could find it if you don't think Pro Pup is good. I only quote blogs and people I trust, and he is one of them.

I quote bloggers who are honest and care about people, I seldom quote the big guy blogs now...as they are often self-important and pander to the conservative Democrats to get their funding.

[boppers]

74. Words matter.

I'd suggest some Foucault, if you aren't familiar.

When people start confusing legal terms, with lay terms, it's two different languages.

[madfloridian]

75. There is NO confusion in this issue.

I can speak on right and wrong and moral without knowing about law.

You want to reduce human beings to legal terms. That is not possible.

The party has decided two groups will be marginalized to win the right wing over...they are doing it now.

[boppers]

76. The law always marginalizes.

Right and wrong, and good law, are why we often send lawyers "up" to make law.

[madfloridian]

77. This time it was a cruel move.

There is no other way to say it.

[keepCAblue]

81. Your profile states you are an IT geek. Where did you get your law degree?

Or are you just another "blogger/reporter/layman {issuing} forth an "opinion" with no legal background"?

[boppers]

86. I am just another:

'blogger/reporter/layman {issuing} forth an "opinion"'.... but I have the advantage of knowing how law, and courts, work, and thus, am free of making myself look silly by not understanding how precedent, and arguments, indeed, the whole legal system, works.

[madfloridian]

78. A lot OT, but a blogger who love animals like this gains my trust.

I saw this picture and fell in love with that squirrel, who apparently stares in the window at the cats as well.



Nutty watches me watching him

"Every day he sits outside the window by my desk and peers inside. He nibbles on the nut bar for awhile, then he stops eating and stares at me through the the glass."

That is priceless.

[Captain_Nemo]

85. In all due respect, MadFloridian....

"I think our party has weighed the rights of women and gays in the balance, and they have found us wanting as a reason to fight. I think that they feel these are expendable issues and that bringing the religious right on board is more important. I think we will later find that is a sad mistake that can not be undone."

You are just now figuring this out? We had this nailed when Barack stood on a stage with the homophobe Donnie McClurkin and then with the Pro-Prop 8 people.
We had this nailed when we heard Barack trying to get votes from the religious right during the primary by invoking Jesus's name and referring to the "Joshua" Generation.
We knew his position on Choice was tenuous when he gave some speech on religion and cited offending a religious righter with "offensive words" referring to choice and the religious right.
WE knew the Dems were trying to get religious right votes when Barack campaigned with Casey in PA and then put Kaine (anti-choice Kaine) as head of the democratic Party.
Glad you can now see that women and gays have been thrown under the bus. THey were thrown there many months ago.