Help Our President

It’s “to wit,” not “to whit,” Lee.

I meant Whit Stillman. Maybe.

I have to say: upon reading the arguments in Haramain today, it seems to me that Obama is letting the courts dispose of Bush’s judicial legacy for him. And maybe that’s smart.Consider: if Obama were to simply reverse these cases while in lower courts, it would be easy for some later president to change again. But by letting the Bush-era arguments go forward and LOSE, he’s setting a precedent that future presidents cannot ignore.Maybe I’m missing a key part of this puzzle, but this idea is starting to make more sense with time.

Matt -I agree. I think these cases are going forward precisely because the Obama DoJ is certain that they are losers. The people arguing the case may not realize that, but their bosses do. When the case loses that puts an end to it for ever.That statement that gay couples are not being discriminated against because they have the same rights as straight couples is flat out wrong. The straight couples can marry and the gay ones can’t. That is the whole point and it is obviously a defective contrived position like waterboarding isn’t torture even though several laws say that it is.

I personally believe that Obama knows that issuing some sort of executive order redarding gay marriage (or gay rights) right now would take the focus off of health care reform. It would basically kill health care reform, so we must be patient!One thing at a time!

Also on AmeriBlog they have the names of the guys who wrote this. One is a mormon from the shrub era.I think what Matt says makes sense, let the courts say it is ridiculous and unconstitutional.

Marc Ambnder suggests that Obama is arguing this case to win, because that’s what the law requires. And suggests the following: The law has held up to legal challenge before, so pretending like the law isn’t defensible is against the Constitutional obligations of the presidency, but that Congress is free to change the law…which would similarly bind him and all future presidents in defense of the new law.Given President Obama’s seemingly strict respect for seperation of powers, I’m inclined to agree with this. In fact, this is a president I expect very few vetos from. He has shown deference to the other branches of government while defending the powers of his own (see: states secrets).I’d like to see him take some definitive steps that demonstrate his intentions on gay rights (and states secrets) in opposition of the status quo, which so far he’s defended. That’s the message I have for my President.QT

After watching this guy for 2 years and reading all his written work and reading all of his interviews, I will trust him to do what he promised in the manner that he believes is best. He also appointed a fair and brilliant Attorney General who I believe will respect the law. There is a process to everything in DC and I will trust them to take the proper steps that will allow Obama to keep his promises on LGBT issues.Don’t call me a kool-aid drinker. I have watched Obama and I have watched the Left and the gay community and after seeing what this man has accomplished, after watching him prove his critics and “supporters”( who doubt him) wrong so many times – I trust him more than I trust any of his critics.He is a politician not an activist so he can’t and will not approach issues the way you do. Obama is not in-your-face, he is not my-way-or-the-highway. While his critics are talking about what should be, Obama and his DOJ have to deal with what is in order to get to that ideal that you wish for.LGBT community should spend less time hammering Obama and more time talking to their neighbors or members of congress about why gay marriage should be legal because ultimately they will decide, not Obama.

The problem on the DOMA brief is that went beyond whatever they claim they ‘had’ to do.

Here’s the thing. All of the commenters seem to be not gay. The wording of the brief is just so offensive and over the top, that those of us who are gay are wondering, so, where’s our fierce advocate that Obama promised to be. I feel betrayed right now. Right now, it feels as if the gay community is being dropped out of a plane from 30,000 feet. There are lots of important things to support, but my inability to marry the one I love is the most central thing in my life. Absolutely nothing will change that. Many commenters are saying bide our time and wait. If it was your life that was being directly effected, would you say just sit down and wait? Would you say “Oh, just be patient, things will happen?” The civil rights movement did not happen because we waited for a politician. The gay community (such as it is) and those who support us must make our voices known, and make the change in laws happen. We need to push for it. I AM sick and tired of being treated as a second class citizen because I love someone of the same sex as myself.

I’ll say it again: I defended the gay community’s right to complain and be noisy…but I also defend the president for not treating this as some sort of existential threat that needs action now. It does not. No one is dying over these issues. There is no systematic disempowerment campaign underway. The same week this was happening, an Obama cabinet member was out publicly deriding DADT. Keep making noise. But do realize that in fact, the president isn’t going to reprioritize when lives and livelihoods are on the line. The noisemakers keep the issues on the agenda – they don’t set the agenda.Lee: I have seen that claim and don’t understand it. Either he’s defending the law or he’s not. The law has been defended on these terms, so from the pov of the government, these arguments are characteristics of the law. When the courts strike down an argument is when you no longer raise it. It may be that the parts that offend the gay communit is not defensible, but that needs to be established. Until then, all defenses of the law are the obligation of the president as part and parcel of his duty to uphold the law and the Constitution.QT

I’d like to ask a simple question of these opponents which is “should gays be allowed by government to live high profile lives (in pursuit of happiness?”If not “Then all men aren’t created equal in that case”.

Looks like the Republican party is going to try and snag the gay issue after Cheney’s verbal support. They need large groups and the Democrats have seemingly let them down. This should be interesting.

Eric: With the exception of DADT, in what way are gays being prevented from living “high-profile lives”? I just mentioned Obama’s very high-profile, openly gay cabinet member giving a fairly solid speech against DADT in a fairly high profile way. I don’t see any examples of the gays not being able to live “high-profile lives” except DADT, which the president has repeatedly stated he will end. (Not just that he’s in favor of ending…. WILL end).QT

The President also promised to be a fierce advocate of gay and lesbian rights. Words are cheap. Let’s see action.Examples of where gay and lesbians are prevented from living “high-profile” lives. Myself. I am dating a Polish national. Marriage might be a possibility personally between us soon. We live in Illinois, so we could go to Iowa and get married. Well, this does not matter to the federal government. If we are married, I cannot transfer the benefit of permanent residency to the one I love. His visa expires in a few years, so either we are forced to be broken up by the federal government, or I have to leave the country with him.