Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

 

We all have issues it's true.  This is just one more that can push the person to the brink.  Everyone wants to belong, to be loved, to have friends. 

 

Ain't that the truth. I don't think anyone ever stops struggling with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We all have issues it's true.  This is just one more that can push the person to the brink.  Everyone wants to belong, to be loved, to have friends. 

 

Ain't that the truth. I don't think anyone ever stops struggling with that.

 

Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the ferocious swing to the right in this last election I am concerned with hard fought civil liberties being swept under the rug.  Republicans are not exactly embracing of diversity, especially in regard to sexual preference.  A bright note is that some of the most outspoken bigots were not elected, but sadly a few of the wackos were.  Only time will tell.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GOP is absolutely no friend of gays and lesbians. It's even more imperative the Democrats stand up with us and maintain the few civil liberties we have.

 

I have been working on getting two non-discrimination ordinances on the ballot in the City of Bowling Green for the last six months, and it looks like both are going to pass. As of midnight, and with the gay-friendly and student-heavy provisional ballots yet to be counted:

 

Ordinance 7905, which protects glbts and others from being denied housing:

 

YES 4104 50.15%

NO 4080 49.85%

 

Ordinance 7906, which is a new law protecting glbts and others from discrimination in employment, public accommodation and public education:

 

YES 4003 49.29%

NO 4119 50.71%

 

but, as I mentioned we still have several hundred (500?) provisional ballots to count for both, which will likely extend our lead for 7905 and put us over the top on 7906.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I assume that 7906 is for "public" employment only?

 

With the ferocious swing to the right in this last election I am concerned with hard fought civil liberties being swept under the rug.  Republicans are not exactly embracing of diversity, especially in regard to sexual preference.  A bright note is that some of the most outspoken bigots were not elected, but sadly a few of the wackos were.  Only time will tell.

 

Fear not.  Their position is clear on this issue.  It's a states rights issue.  Each state should decide for themselves.  California 'values' should not pushed on Utah.  That is why they favor the creation of a negative right in the Federal Constitution banning gay marriage.  Wait.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really a Gay Rights thing, but a sign of progress 'south of the border':

 

Jim Gray Elected Mayor of Lexington

 

Lexington voters turned out incumbent Mayor Jim Newberry on Tuesday, opting for a fresh start with millionaire Jim Gray.

 

Gray, 57, a construction company executive who has been Lexington's vice mayor for four years, defeated Newberry, a 54-year-old lawyer, by a solid margin.

 

He becomes Lexington's first openly gay mayor and the first businessman who has been elected to Lexington's top spot since the city and county merged governments in 1974.

 

...he came out in 2002 when he ran for metro council.  And I think he is the first openly gay male mayor of a larger Southern city (vs, say, small town or college town mayors, which I think there was already, in Carrboro, NC) (and there was already a lesbian mayor of a larger Southern city, in Houston, TX). 

 

Lexington was the first city in KY to pass a gay rights law, too. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I assume that 7906 is for "public" employment only?

 

With the ferocious swing to the right in this last election I am concerned with hard fought civil liberties being swept under the rug.  Republicans are not exactly embracing of diversity, especially in regard to sexual preference.  A bright note is that some of the most outspoken bigots were not elected, but sadly a few of the wackos were.  Only time will tell.

 

Fear not.  Their position is clear on this issue.  It's a states rights issue.  Each state should decide for themselves.  California 'values' should not pushed on Utah.  That is why they favor the creation of a negative right in the Federal Constitution banning gay marriage.  Wait.....

 

No, not just for public employment. It would be similar to existing federal and state protections for race, religion, etc. However, as usual, religion is exempt from having to follow any law, but judging by the shitstorm from a few fundy churchies in our fair city, they want everyone to live under their half-blind version of Biblical law. So no, it would cover private employers as well with a few exemptions for religion, 'business necessity', and small biznesses with fewer than 5 employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can check this out too about BG's ordinances. The comments are indicative of the discourse in our city right now.

BG non-discrimination ordinances appear undecided

Written by By JAN LARSON Sentinel County Editor 

Wednesday, 03 November 2010 06:55

 

An excerpt:

 

The victory party was short lived Tuesday night for the opposition to the anti-discrimination ordinances in Bowling Green.

 

While the initial “100 percent” of the votes on the Wood County Board of Elections’ Web site showed both ordinances being handily rejected by voters, those results were changed around 11 p.m. when early paper ballot numbers were added in.

 

Elation dissolved into suspicion for Crystal Thompson, spokesperson for the group opposed to the ordinances

 

“It sounds a little crooked to me,” she said when the updated results showed one ordinance passing and the other very narrowly losing.

 

http://sent-trib.com/trib/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21788:bg-non-discrimination-ordinances-appear-undecided&catid=1:fp&Itemid=115

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really a Gay Rights thing, but a sign of progress 'south of the border':

 

Jim Gray Elected Mayor of Lexington

 

Lexington voters turned out incumbent Mayor Jim Newberry on Tuesday, opting for a fresh start with millionaire Jim Gray.

 

Gray, 57, a construction company executive who has been Lexington's vice mayor for four years, defeated Newberry, a 54-year-old lawyer, by a solid margin.

 

He becomes Lexington's first openly gay mayor and the first businessman who has been elected to Lexington's top spot since the city and county merged governments in 1974.

 

...he came out in 2002 when he ran for metro council. And I think he is the first openly gay male mayor of a larger Southern city (vs, say, small town or college town mayors, which I think there was already, in Carrboro, NC) (and there was already a lesbian mayor of a larger Southern city, in Houston, TX).

 

Lexington was the first city in KY to pass a gay rights law, too.

 

 

 

My brother-in-law's mother is councilwoman Dianne Lawless and she is a major gay rights supporter.  She probably had something to do with that law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate votes to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'

The 65-31 vote means gays and lesbians will be able to serve openly in the military without punishment after President Obama signs the bill.

By Lisa Mascaro and Michael Muskal

December 18, 2010, 1:01 p.m.

 

Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles — The Senate voted to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, approving a bill that repeals the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" on Saturday.

 

The 65-31 vote came after an earlier procedural vote that brought the milestone in gay rights to the Senate floor. It also fulfilled a campaign promise by President Obama, who has been under attack from liberals in his own party for seeking compromises with Republicans on economic and tax issues during the lame-duck congressional session.

 

The White House said Obama will sign the measure into law next week. Repeal means that gays and lesbians can openly serve without fear of punishment. More than 13,500 people have been dismissed from the military since the 1993 law went into effect.

 

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the media have worded discussion about DADT has led a lot of people to believe that gays were banned from the military only since 1993, and that's not an accurate perception. During the McCarthy-era witch-hunts of the 1950s homosexuals were said to be a great threat to the security of the United States because of their vulnerability to compromise and blackmail, and gay men in the armed forces as well as in critical or influential civilian positions were hunted down and denounced. I remember ongoing witch hunts during my USAF service 1962-1966, and during that time, being found out gay often carried harsher penalties than being convicted of a felony by civilian authorities. An individual sentenced to jail time for armed robbery by a civilian court usually received a general discharge, whereas someone found out to be gay was discharged "under other than honorable conditions."

 

During the Vietnam era compulsory military service (the draft) was still in effect. Part of the induction process along with the physical exam was a questionnaire, and one of the questions concerned whether or not you had ever had a homosexual experience. Some heterosexual men chose to answer "yes" to that question to avoid being drafted, and some were investigated to find out if they were, in fact, straight (irony?). That situation was the plot for a hilarious movie of that era, "The Gay Deceivers."

 

Part of Bill Clinton's presidential campaign platform was the elimination of the armed forces' ban on gay men and lesbians entering military service. He met strong opposition, most notably from Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, and DADT was the compromise that was reached; the military would not pry into individuals' orientation and they could enlist and serve so long as they didn't make it known that they were gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I don't think the media has been painting as gays were only banned from serving in the military since 1993, I think most news organizations have clearly stated that gays are not allowed to serve openly. I don't think they are mentioning the past policies on gays in the military because we are passed that point and we have matured as a nation (for the most part), and by that I mean we can all recognize that gays shouldn't be hunted down simply for being gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't know why the Dem congress and Dem pres put DADT into law.

 

As with most issues, I agree with Mr. Conservative himself (Barry Goldwater) on this one: "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was great seeing both Ohio senators on the right side of this one.

 

You mean the left side.

 

I still don't know why the Dem congress and Dem pres put DADT into law.

 

Time for another history lesson Scrabble won't read.  But just in case any of you are as confused as he is (unlikely):

 

Prior to 1993 (due to a 1982 absolute ban) there were literally witch hunts in the military for gays serving our country.  The military leaders were required to seek out and discharge any and all gay service members (although in practice, this was only done to gay men).  Clinton campaigned in 1992 on a promise to end that practice and allow gays to serve in the military.

 

However, when Clinton won the election and took office in 1993, certain social conservatives (both Dixiecrats and Republicans) nearly shat themselves at the thought of allowing gays to serve in the military.  They immediately passed a moratorium on any changes to military policy and instilled the commonly used delay tactic of forming a committee to examine the issue.  This gave the evangelical effort to ramp up, really putting this issue squarely in the public's sight.  Of course, 1993 and present times are VERY different in terms of tolerance of gay people.  Congressional phone lines were flooded.  DADT was reached as a compromise, to allow gays to serve in the military as long as they did not do so openly.  According to Clinton advisors at the time, it was supposed to be more of a passive law and they never intended it to be enforced so vigorously.

 

Some congressional members foresaw the problems it created and fought it.  But, as is commonly done, the measure was placed in the bill which funds the military for the following fiscal year (the National Defense Authorization Fund Act.... or something like that).  Therefore, by voting against it, you would be voting against funding our troop.  1994 was a mid-term election year.

 

One last ditch effort was made to pull the DADT language out of an Act it shouldn't have been included in to begin with.  An Amendment was proposed to eliminate the language.  The voting was as follows - 156 Democrats and 11 Republicans voting in favor of the amendment, with 101 Democrats and 163 Republicans defeating it.  The Republicans who voted in favor of the Amendment were from Wisconsin, NY (2), Mass., Maryland, Iowa (2), Conn. (2), California (2).  The Democrats voting against the Amendment were overwhelmingly from present day red states, such as Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, etc.  Ohio's voting breakdown was fairly representative of the rest of the nation:

 

Ohio

No OH-1 Mann, David [D]

No OH-2 Portman, Robert [R]

No OH-3 Hall, Tony [D]

No OH-4 Oxley, Michael [R]

No OH-5 Gillmor, Paul [R]

Aye OH-6 Strickland, Ted [D]

No OH-7 Hobson, David [R]

No OH-8 Boehner, John [R]

No OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy [D]

No OH-10 Hoke, Martin [R]

Aye OH-11 Stokes, Louis [D]

No OH-12 Kasich, John [R]

Aye OH-13 Brown, Sherrod [D]

Aye OH-14 Sawyer, Thomas [D]

No OH-15 Pryce, Deborah [R]

No OH-16 Regula, Ralph [R]

No OH-17 Traficant, James [D]

Aye OH-18 Applegate, Douglas [D]

Aye OH-19 Fingerhut, Eric [D]

 

David Mann was the former mayor of Cincinnati.

Tony Hall was a born again christian whose father was the Republican mayor of Dayton.

Marcy Kaptur is catholic.

James Trafficant is a nut.... and a felon.  At present, he is a big fan of the Tea Party

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moments ago, the Senate voted to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

 

When that bill reaches my desk, I will sign it, and this discriminatory law will be repealed.

 

Gay and lesbian service members -- brave Americans who enable our freedoms -- will no longer have to hide who they are.

 

The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one.

 

This victory belongs to you. Without your commitment, the promise I made as a candidate would have remained just that.

 

Instead, you helped prove again that no one should underestimate this movement. Every phone call to a senator on the fence, every letter to the editor in a local paper, and every message in a congressional inbox makes it clear to those who would stand in the way of justice: We will not quit.

 

This victory also belongs to Senator Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and our many allies in Congress who refused to let politics get in the way of what was right.

 

Like you, they never gave up, and I want them to know how grateful we are for that commitment.

 

Will you join me in thanking them by adding your name to Organizing for America's letter?

 

I will make sure these messages are delivered -- you can also add a comment about what the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means to you.

 

As Commander in Chief, I fought to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because it weakens our national security and military readiness. It violates the fundamental American principles of equality and fairness.

 

But this victory is also personal.

 

I will never know what it feels like to be discriminated against because of my sexual orientation.

 

But I know my story would not be possible without the sacrifice and struggle of those who came before me -- many I will never meet, and can never thank.

 

I know this repeal is a crucial step for civil rights, and that it strengthens our military and national security. I know it is the right thing to do.

 

But the rightness of our cause does not guarantee success, and today, celebration of this historic step forward is tempered by the defeat of another -- the DREAM Act. I am incredibly disappointed that a minority of senators refused to move forward on this important, commonsense reform that most Americans understand is the right thing for our country. On this issue, our work must continue.

 

Today, I'm proud that we took these fights on.

 

Please join me in thanking those in Congress who helped make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal possible:

 

http://my.barackobama.com/Repealed

 

Thank you,

 

Barack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent article delving into the source of objections to repeal of DADT:

 

Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize

 

July 12, 2010 | ISSUE 46•28

 

WASHINGTON—As Congress prepares to allow gay individuals to serve openly in the military, those against the proposed change voiced their concerns Monday, warning the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" could soon lead to strong, strapping American soldiers engaging in mind-blowing homosexual intercourse right on the battlefield.

 

More at:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,17698/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose they overlook the fact that repeal of DADT in no way entitles a soldier to give a blow job while on duty or engage in any other ACTIVITY while on duty.  Or really any other activity while on a military base.

 

[not intended to be serious-sounding.... sort of]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent article delving into the source of objections to repeal of DADT:

 

Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize

 

July 12, 2010 | ISSUE 46•28

 

WASHINGTON—As Congress prepares to allow gay individuals to serve openly in the military, those against the proposed change voiced their concerns Monday, warning the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" could soon lead to strong, strapping American soldiers engaging in mind-blowing homosexual intercourse right on the battlefield.

 

More at:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,17698/

A friend of mine who was a combat-veteran said his first gay experience (but by no means his last) was with another soldier in a foxhole during incoming mortar fire. He said there really wasn't anything they could do about the incoming, and he might not get another chance at the other thing.  :-D

 

I suppose they overlook the fact that repeal of DADT in no way entitles a soldier to give a blow job while on duty or engage in any other ACTIVITY while on duty.

Well, Hell! That changes my mind about wanting to see if I could re-enlist! :cry:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay sex remains a crime under military law

Lou Chibbaro Jr. | Jan 13, 2011

 

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of SLDN, said his group’s top priority this year is to secure the certification by President Obama and military leaders for completing repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Much of the nation was riveted over the drama surrounding the congressional vote last month to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law barring gays from serving openly in the military.

 

But in a little-noticed development, Capitol Hill observers say Congress is in no mood to take a follow-up action recommended by Pentagon officials — the repeal of a longstanding military law that classifies consensual sodomy among both gay and straight service members as a crime.

 

Gay rights attorneys and experts in military law say the sodomy law provision known as Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice has been rarely enforced in recent years in cases where sexual activity has been consensual and “fraternization” between officers and lower ranking members has not be a factor.

 

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iowa: Proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage gets first OK in House

 

The Iowa House Judiciary Committee approved a proposal Monday to amend the Iowa Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. The vote was 13-8, with Rep. Kurt Swaim, a Bloomfield lawyer, the only Democrat to join Republicans in supporting it. The resolution is now eligible for debate by the full House. The amendment would not only prohibit same-sex marriages but also would deny state recognition to arrangements such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. That prospect raises deep constitutional questions and almost certainly ensures that the measure, if approved, would be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, Drake University constitutional law scholar Mark Kende said Monday. Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana and other states have passed similar amendments, and some are already in the appeals process. A public hearing on House Joint Resolution 6 is planned next week.

 

The resolution is expected to pass the House, where Republicans control 60 of 100 seats. It faces slimmer chances in the Senate, where Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, has vowed to block a vote on the proposal. The resolution reads, "Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state." Kende, the Drake professor, said of the resolution: "The part that is most troubling is that it gets into something beyond marriage and into arrangements, family situations and unions that sometimes involve benefits. Once you start taking away benefits from one group and not others based on their status, then that is something the Supreme Court is skeptical about. I think it would raise a profound federal constitutional issue."

 

More than 200 people packed into a legislative meeting Monday on the resolution. Both supporters and opponents spoke. Some advocates of the amendment told the crowd that they are not anti-gay but simply believe Iowans should have the opportunity to vote on the issue.

 

"This is the direction of the people, by the people, for the people, and we should not lose sight of that," said Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, who led discussion on the resolution and noted that more than 30 states have adopted bans on same-sex marriage.

 

More below:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110125/NEWS10/101250357/Proposed-amendment-to-ban-same-sex-marriage-gets-first-OK-in-House?ENT06


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Oh freakin' goodness (bowing and shaking my head). Why can't they just let it be. Why are people so concerned if two people of the same sex want to marry each other?

 

I have however, always wondered how same-sex became legal in Iowa. I know Iowa is supposedly one of the more 'liberal' states in the midwest, but still, it's kind of hard to fathom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The same way it became legal in every state where it currently is:  court ruling or legislation. 

 

I know that! :roll: It was more of a rhetorical question. Most of the New England states allow it, which is not surprising at all (maybe N.H. being the exception), and Washington D.C. also allows it. Then you have Iowa.

 

I guess it's a matter of perspective, but out of N.H., VT, MA, CT, IA, and D.C., Iowa is certainly the outlier of the bunch IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Springfield Republican Leads Efffort to Halt Gay Bias

 

COLUMBUS — Statehouse Republicans are busy these days setting the legislative table with plans to limit abortions, fix pension systems, strip power from unions and make Ohio more “business-friendly.”

 

Rep. Ross McGregor, a Republican from Springfield, has one other idea, but it’s too early to tell if he’ll be able to squeeze it on to that table.

 

Some time this year McGregor plans to renew a bipartisan effort to ban discrimination in employment and housing, based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

...more at the link.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wyoming Senate passes anti-gay marriage bill

By JEREMY PELZER Star-Tribune capital bureau

Posted: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:27 am

 

CHEYENNE-The Wyoming Senate narrowly voted Friday to stop recognition of same-sex marriages and civil unions from outside the state.

 

House Bill 74 passed 16-14 after tagging on a last-second amendment guaranteeing out-of-state couples in civil unions access to Wyoming courts.

 

Read More...

Because of the amendment, the bill will now head back to the House to approve the changes. The House passed the legislation late last month 32-27.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Springfield Republican Leads Efffort to Halt Gay Bias

 

COLUMBUS — Statehouse Republicans are busy these days setting the legislative table with plans to limit abortions, fix pension systems, strip power from unions and make Ohio more “business-friendly.”

 

Rep. Ross McGregor, a Republican from Springfield, has one other idea, but it’s too early to tell if he’ll be able to squeeze it on to that table.

 

Some time this year McGregor plans to renew a bipartisan effort to ban discrimination in employment and housing, based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

...more at the link.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, good for him. Too bad he thinks he has to couch in economic terms, rather than equal rights. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing everything framed in economic terms, and it wasn't the recession that brought this on. Isn't anything else important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court

 

President Obama has determined that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and that the Department of Justice should no longer defend the measure, which severely limits the potential of states to honor or carry out same-sex marriages, in court, the administration announced Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the decision, but I disagree with how it was made.  Holder seems to be placing this all on Obama and I am not sure how I feel about Obama, as President, coming to this conclusion unilaterally.  Something about the Separation of Powers seems to be offended here.  I don't like the DOJ acting as a puppet for the President.  It is a slippery slope for the Aministration to be passing judgment on the "constitutionality" of congressionally enacted legislation.

 

That said, I am VERY interested, to see how the alleged "State Rights" crowd reacts to this decision.  Will they applaud Obama?  (yes..... that is a rhetorical question and a comically hysterical one at that).

 

EDIT:  As long as it is pissing off the morons in the comment section to this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110223/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage#mwpphu-container....... I guess I am OK with it  :-D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I don't think it's really that offensive to separation of powers.  The president and DOJ are still enforcing DOMA; it's not like they're picking and choosing which laws they think apply.  And Congress and outside groups are more than welcome to intervene to stage a vigorous legal defense of DOMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does congress intervene in a legal suit without the DOJ?  The DOJ is their legal representation.  Outside groups could have an issue with standing.  It is an interesting question, but it just doesn't sit right with me at first blush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I merely parrot what I read :).  I can't pretend my civ pro is fresh enough to know whether congress can intervene as an actual party or merely file an amicus. 

 

From the comments sections to the PD article, there isa whole lot of confusion, with a lot of folks conflating enforcement of the law (which will continue until it's repealed or ruled unconstitutional by a court), with defending it in court.  Thought it was worth pointing out the distinction so people know what this isn't.

 

The times coverage has a nice description of the legal analysis that went into the decision: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?ref=samesexmarriage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of just perused the article today.  Reading more about it (thanks for the link), this is a bold move.  No other way to put it.  The analysis they are urging will go beyond marital rights, for sure.  Essentially, the Administration is arguing that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, just like race, gender, religion, etc. for purposes of equal protection analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is sort of interesting from a political POV, too.  I think Obama might be feeling time to solidify a part of his base (getting ready for 2012), and also he isn't afraid of alienating voters, so he's not fence-straddling on this like he was before. 

 

I suspect his political advisors don't see a downside in this decision.  Though it should be clarified its not Obama's decision on this law, it will be the courts.  Some of the reporting around this makes it seem like "Obama decided" as if it were by some sort of administrative fiat.  Right now "Obama decided" means its his opinion or his administrations position...

 

Still, the right move. 

 

But gay marriage is certainly under still under attack.  Some actions on this in Indiana are not looking good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

 

In previous cases, the Justice Department defended the act by citing precedents that directed judges to uphold any law that treats gay people unequally unless a challenger can prove there is no conceivable rational basis for the act. But the two new cases were filed in districts covered by the federal appeals court in New York, one of the few circuits that lack such a precedent.

 

As a result, the administration, for the first time, confronted the difficult question of how much protection gay people, as a group, should receive against official discrimination.

 

Do y'all think that this was a concious decision for a test case?  Seems like it put the administration on the spot.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly could have been.  There was a reason the red states filed the challenge to HCR in the circuit covering the southeast.  Same reason the log cabin repubs filed the challenge to DADT in the 9th circuit.  forum/venue shopping is par for the course in cases with such wide reaching implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just another example of a president ruling by diktat to placate/gin up a political base.

 

I think anti-gay marriage efforts have been passed in something like all 31 states where they've been on the ballot.

 

Regardless of one's opinion of DOMA, it is troubling that the Executive can pick and choose which laws passed by Congress and signed by a President he wants to uphold.  So much for the Executive enforcing the law...

 

And how does he explain 2 years of defending DOMA? What suddenly changed, really?

 

This is a bone to the militant anti-traditional marriage crowd. That crowd should remember that when you start chasing bones you start looking a lot like dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of one's opinion of DOMA, it is troubling that the Executive can pick and choose which laws passed by Congress and signed by a President he wants to uphold.  So much for the Executive enforcing the law...

 

Obama is following the precedent set by previous executives choosing whether to defend a law. Here are some examples from the last four administrations:

 

a) George W. Bush (2005): in 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.”

 

b) Bill Clinton (1999): in 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.”

 

c) George HW Bush (1990): in Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission – “The Bush administration chose not to defend the law that allowed that minority applicants for broadcast licenses were given preference if all other relevant factors were roughly equal.”

 

d) Ronald Reagan (1983): in INS v./ Chadha - “Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and instead of defending the law, the INS joined Chadha in arguing that § 244©(2) is unconstitutional.”

 

(I ripped the above from a comment here: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/23/senate-dem-introduce-repeal-defense-marriage-act#ixzz1ExOXJnEd)

 

He is not choosing not to enforce the law, as you say, but rather not defend the law. The judiciary or legislature must strike it down to affect the law in any way.

 

And how does he explain 2 years of defending DOMA? What suddenly changed, really?

 

If you actually read up on this, rather than knee-jerkedly run your mouth, you would know the answer. Hint: It has to do with different precedents in different judicial districts.

 

This is a bone to the militant anti-traditional marriage crowd. That crowd should remember that when you start chasing bones you start looking a lot like dogs.

 

If you want to be cynical about the whole thing, I think it's more likely about putting the issue in the hands of Boehner and the Republican House. Making them defend the indefensible, instead of having the DOJ do the dirty (and, oh, is it dirty) work. Is the Tea Party libertarian or anti-liberty? Let them show their colors.

 

You could also view this as a bone thrown to the states' rights crowd. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...