DOMA: Obama invokes incest and people marrying children

back on topic, briefly, here's what Obama had to say back in 2004 wrt DOMA:

When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. … Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress.​

now that he's president, and the democrats control both houses, why doesn't he ask congress to repeal the law?

 

i thought he was "respecting the law?"

 

i don't see a meaningful difference between duty to defend and "respect."

in anycase, you said he's asked congress to repeal the law. can you show me when he did that?

 

wow- you dissed me, made my point for me, and then proved yourself an idiot all in one post.

that earns you some R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

 

Bros before, uhmmm, dunno, but barney frank throws 'em under the bus.

[rquoter]Barney Frank throws us under the bus. Lauds incest brief. Says language was appropriate.
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/17/2009 08:31:00 PM
Well, it seems a trip to the Oval Office is all openly gay congressman Barney Frank needs to stab his community in the back. After criticizing the DOJ's anti-gay DOMA brief this morning, Frank did a 180 this evening and lauded the brief, which invoked incest and pedophilia. Frank now thinks the brief is just super.

Frank claims that he gave a newspaper reporter his negative opinion of the brief without actually having read it.

Did you catch that? Barney Frank, our senior gay elected representative, and a lawyer himself, claims that he was giving legal opinions on a legal brief that he hadn't even read. At least Joe and I, who are also lawyers, read the brief before commenting on it. How many other issues has Barney opined on about which he's been knowingly willfully ignorant? (Of course, I don't believe Frank for a minute - he read the brief, but the president got him to recant.)

I am simply astounded. Even more astounding is that Barney's release sounds as if it were written by the White House. Their talking points are all through it, including the bizarre notion that somehow Obama would be as bad as George Bush if he opposed DOMA in court. (Repeating the lie that presidents never oppose existing legislation in court.) Joe and I already debunked that lie with the example of four court cases in which Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. all opposed existing law. And what's more, we published an essay by former senior Clinton White House official Richard Socarides explaining exactly how the president goes about telling the DOJ to oppose existing law in court. It's not debatable, it's what actually happens in the Oval office, and it's not illegal - it's a fact. The NYT editorial page agreed.

Let me reiterate: Our senior most gay member of Congress actually said that had Obama argued in court that DOMA is unconstitutional, that would be akin to George Bush not going to court to, for example, get a warrant to spy on Americans. Get it? Defending gay people is like spying illegally. But comparing us to incest and pedophilia, using what I'm told was pretty much the original brief the Bush administration used against us years ago, is somehow a sign that we're better than the Republicans - by repeating their arguments in court.

And I quote:

I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example.
Yes, a refusal to abide by the law is the same thing as challenging a law in front of a judge.​

No, Barney, what happened during the Bush administration is that Democrats of good conscience sold their constituents out for fear of speaking up against a president who was powerful and wrong. So yes, the current situation does bear a striking resemblance.

Barney is far too smart to be this stupid. Perhaps Barney is worried that everyone is dropping like flies from his DNC gay fundraiser next week. More likely, President Obama made him an offer he couldn't refuse. And before you think Obama promised some gay rights advance, he could have just as easily promised Frank a highway project in his district, or a presidential appearance at his next campaign fundraiser.

What's more, Barney thinks the language of the brief was great. He even, between the lines, defends the invocation of incest and pedophilia.

And check out this whopper from Frank:

I

t would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”​

Actually, there's another document Congressman Frank didn't bother reading before commenting on. He didn't bother doing a Google search on what our president has actually said about DOMA. Obama didn't say he disagrees politically with DOMA. He said he thinks it's abhorrent and discriminatory. Big difference. So now, according to our hero in congress, our civil rights are just "politics" - and we really don't want our president arguing in favor of our civil rights in court. Astounding. Simply astounding.

Never ever underestimate the ability or willingness of a member of Congress of either party to screw his people for a better offer. HRC attends the White House ceremony, Barney Frank lauds a brief comparing us to pedophilia and incest.

We are on our own folks. The Democratic party has abandoned us.[/rquoter]

 

he might want to tell the DOJ, which just argued precisely the opposite.

 

what, precisely is he doing, other than allowing his DOJ to argue in favor of DOMA?

 

teh gays are a distraction, until someone threatens to roll away the GayTM?