Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Howard Dean Says Repealing DADT Will Make the DOMA Defense Brief OK
First, a few words about the DOMA brief.
1. Read it. Here is the link. It’s not in extremely complicated legal language and it might well be a significant historical document one day (hopefully the one step too far for Obama).
2. The case is being heard in front of a judge who previously ruled in favor of a Gay Straight Alliance in Orange County. He issued an injunction demanding that the school allow the GSA to form. Now, the arguments for gay rights in the school context are very different than those in the marriage context, but they are in some ways harder to dismiss: school boards argue that the safety of children requires the removal of gay groups – such groups can become targets for homophobia. As well, school children have limited rights when compared with the general public.
This is a good thing. There is a chance that, if Justice Carter refuses to dismiss the case, and then rules in favor of the plaintiff, Obama (and let’s be clear, this IS Obama) will not appeal.
Now, on to Dean and DADT:
Yesterday, on the Rachel Maddow show, Howard Dean decried the language in the DOMA brief (quite rightfully so) and stated that the Obama administration would now likely be forced to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in order to appease the gay community.
Well, I might be in the minority here, but the repeal of DADT will do nothing to appease this member of the LGBT community. Calling my relationship the equivalent of incest cannot be erased if you let people who share my sexual orientation come out of the closet while serving in the armed forces. It’s just not sufficient.
Sure, DADT is infuriating and demeaning. But at the end of the day, my rights and the rights of most people like me are not affected. This doesn’t make it a fringe issue, the respect of military service members relates to the American community-at-large, but it does mean that repealing DADT while defending DOMA is just like granting rights to a small portion of the LGBT population while defiling the relationships of the whole LGBT population.
It’s just not good enough.
So focus on the issue at hand. One can fix this problem by making it a policy to refuse to defend DOMA in all future legal challenges, including an appeal of this current challenge. Because defending DOMA will always require the use of derogatory terms when describing LGBT relationships and will always lead to a cowardly reversal of campaign promises made by Obama to Americans just a few months ago.
Maybe he will write us a nice letter again. Oh and I am now a fierce advocate for gay rights, just because I said so. I really haven’t earned it in any way. We were all kind of foolish for falling for this shit again.
Wow. They slap us across the face twice, and now they’re gonna use a “bait and switch” to get us to shut up. I feel dirty… and used.
“Sure, DADT is infuriating and demeaning. But at the end of the day, my rights and the rights of most people like me are not affected.”
I feel that the entire LGBT community is affected by discrimination anywhere. Just because we may not be service members, doesn’t mean that discrimination doesn’t have a trickle-down effect. DADT is telling people that discrimination is sometimes okay, and that affects all of us.
Gee, maybe we’ll get a brand new spiffy proclamation! WOW!
Emma:
You need to take a breakk from jumping to conclusions that the facts do not justify:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/16/743139/-Obama-Admin.-Did-Not-Compare-Gay-Marriage-to-Incest-(Updated)
The DOJ did NOT ‘equate homosexuality and incest’ or anything like that. Their lawyer argued that the current STATE LAWS which refuse to recognize marriages in other states that are illegal in the state in question are already in place for reasons having to do with incest and age of consent.
He was arguing the LEGALITY of such laws – not making an equivalence or moral justification argument.
You look silly and uninformed when you draw conclusions not backed up by the facts. There is enough in the brief to be angry about without manufacturing comparisons and equivalences where none exist.
Gay marriage is ‘legally’ compared to incest and underage marriage cases by the DOJ – it is not a ‘moral’ comparison. Hmm. Someone’s missing the forest for the trees and I don’t believe it’s Rachel Maddow…
Regardless, this avenue of argument is pointless, what we need to focus on is getting DOMA repealed. I believe it was drafted to be found unconstitutional one day. In a nutshell it says one group, legally married in their home state has rights while another group, legally married in their home state, does not. I hope one of the current lawsuits will be the one to finally stick a pin in DOMA.
Scott:
Rachel definitely was wrong on this one. And so is Emma.
If you cannot discern a ‘comparison’ with a ‘moral equivalence’, then all 3 of you need to go back to college – or high school.
1. Comparison: “Laws A and B in states A and B are perfectly legal statutes that do not violate the equal Protection clause of the Constitution, since what is a legal definition of marriage in ONE state is ILLEGAL in another. Marriage between first cousins is LEGAL in state A but ILLEGAL in state B, so B is under no obligation to recognize state A’s marriage license(s).
2. “Moral equivalence”: “Laws A and B in states A and B are perfectly legal statutes that do not violate the equal Protection clause of the Constitution, since immoral activity is sanctioned in State A, but NOT in State B. Marriage between first cousins is LEGAL in state A but ILLEGAL in state B, which is the way it should be since said marriages are immoral, so B is under no obligation to recognize state A’s marriage license(s).
See the difference? One is a LEGAL argument, the other a legal and MORAL argument.
The two positions have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.
There is enough in the brief to be upset over without manufacturing outrage over a perceived slight where no slight exists.
Peter, at the risk of boring everyone else to tears wouldn’t you concede that these cases were chosen in some teeny, tiny part for political reasons and not simply because they were most pertinent? No one is arguing that you are incorrect, but when you ignore the cultural/historical context of the issue you do so at your own peril.
Gee, maybe if we stop giving money, time and effort to candidates who do not support full gay equality we might get a better result. Ya think? and…no DOMA brief and DADT are not the same thing but Zero is Zero and that is what we have got to show for supporting a candidate that does not support full gay equality.
DADT is an easier candidate for repeal. Maybe it seems like a “narrow” issue. Maybe Truman’s integration of the Armed Forces seemed like a “narrow” issue to some. DADT repeal and open gays serving in the military will result in many more people accepting that gays have a legitimate and equal place in American society.
From the comments posted here, it doesn’t seem to me that Howard Dean suggested that repeal of DADT was a gesture in lieu of DOMA repeal. The message I got was that Obama would be forced to push for DADT repeal simply to regain lost ground, which counts as no advance in relations between Obama and gay Americans. Obama has foolishly stumbled in this area, where he could have been working to build support and use his skills to bring people to a common goal instead of alienating a growing segment of his base.
I feel betrayed that Obama Has Spat and Shit In the Faces of Gay America!!! The man is a liar, and his actions are despicable. He’s risked every ounce of credibility among gay Americans. The man who championed hope has given us every reason to lose it. If you read the disgusting things written by his justice department about gay Americans you’d think it was written by Jerry Fallwell himself!!!! Incest and pederasty! Saving the country money! That’s how Obama’s DOJ defended DOMA. Even if his administration was required to defend the unjust law, they were not required to defend it using every hateful, bigoted republican talking point!
If he is going to be a homophobic fraud, the least he can do for us is stay out of the way and do no further harm.
The man is clearly not comfortable with gays and lesbians and in order to really re-gain any trust would be a big Gay Civil Rights bill that encompases ALL of the issues into one large Act which kills DOMA, DODT and includes hate crimes etc. Do it all in one fell swoop.
I worked on the campaign, put my personal credibility on the line to all my republican friends (I have alot) and went to DC for the inauguration. Now my friends are all giving me the “I told you so” speeches I “Hoped” would never come.
Humiliated is a good word. Obama has lost a supporter. At best I’ll be neutral but will never voice my supprt again!!!
Disgusted in Miami
I’m not buying it at any price. Repeal BOTH of those horribly un-American bits of bigotted legislature!
This is like saying “we’ll let you drink from our water fountains, but you still have to sit in the back of the bus.”
The only acceptable rule of law for Americans is equal access, equal justice, equal RIGHTS!
Mississippi, God-DAMN!
(It’s from a Nina Simone song.)
Totally agree with you Drewski. I drew the same conclusion from Dean’s statement.
Gee Howard, thanks for the crumb. Can we vote on your marriage now? Wait a minute, what state am I in? Am I still married?
Let’s put the “happy” back in “gay” and become swing voters! Now, that’s change you can believe in. By registering as independents they will actually have to implement their promises. Call the White House and/or the Nat’l Dem. Party and tell them you’ve switched – parties! Obama is like a bad boyfriend to the gay community.