You need to start listening to what Obama has said and read what he's written, rather than just accepting what people tell you.
Here's a nice video montage of Obama campaign speech on civil unions. (http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001841/) Yeah, it's not the same thing, but it's a starting point.
There'also this quote (and others like it) from Obama's letters and articles: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate." (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=45106)
So, rhetorically, he's either walking the "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one" line or he's a hypocrite. Don't worry, I already know what conclusion you've drawn.
Action to this point
He's not living up to the "fierce advocate" claim. No argument there. But he's also better than his predecessor.
The Obama administration has started their term with gay and lesbian appointees (previous administrations have only nominated gay and lesbian appointees later in their terms). The Matthew Shepard act is moving through Congress. The State Department is enacting new policies that recognize domestic partnerships. things are happening.
The administration has not carried through on Obama's promise to repeal "don't ask-don't tell" or DOMA. On the other hand, we're only 5 months into a 4-year term. I may not be happy that these promises aren't on the front-burner, but I remember you advocating waiting until the time is right for social progress, so you're not in a good position to argue about speed.
The DOMA brief:
I've been reading law blogs, and the legal eagles (except for the ones at Americablog) seem to agree that, at this point in the proceedings, the DOJ has to defend the law. This is true until they lose the case, and a court declares a law unconstitutional. Then, if they administration agrees with the court's decision, the DOJ can drop out of the appeals process.
Thus, the argument has been made that defending DOMA is satisfying Obama's promise to restore the rule of law. Counter-arguments have been made asking why on this issue and why not on the torture issue (where the administration seems to be happy with the Numemberg Mai Lai defense and not prosecuting the individuals who engaged in torture, only the people who gave the orders). While I agree with the assertion that the administration is taking the easy way out on the torture prosecutions, two wrongs don't make a right. It's a straw-man argument.
Understanding that, yes, at this point, the DOJ does have to defend the law, the complaint transfers to the brief itself. The motion to dismiss is appropriate, but the contents are at issue. Several lawyers have commented that it's a meandering brief that throws the kitchen sink at the case rather than making a coherent argument, although others have pointed out that this is standard operating procedure in a motion to dismiss.
The process is ugly and messy, but it's our government working the way it was designed, even if I don't like the details in this instance.
What I'm concerned about in this brief is how it was, as one commentator described it, "larded up" with anti-gay rhetoric. There are a number of arguments in this brief that shouldn't have cleared any review process (drawing a legal parallel between denying same-sex marriage and outlawing incest and child-rape) and a number of arguments right out of the Republican National Committee playbook (same-sex marriage would be too expensive to the federal government).
no subject
Let's take a look at this from a few angles...
Basic Rhetoric:
You need to start listening to what Obama has said and read what he's written, rather than just accepting what people tell you.
Here's a nice video montage of Obama campaign speech on civil unions. (http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001841/) Yeah, it's not the same thing, but it's a starting point.
There'also this quote (and others like it) from Obama's letters and articles: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate." (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=45106)
So, rhetorically, he's either walking the "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one" line or he's a hypocrite. Don't worry, I already know what conclusion you've drawn.
Action to this point
He's not living up to the "fierce advocate" claim. No argument there. But he's also better than his predecessor.
The Obama administration has started their term with gay and lesbian appointees (previous administrations have only nominated gay and lesbian appointees later in their terms). The Matthew Shepard act is moving through Congress. The State Department is enacting new policies that recognize domestic partnerships. things are happening.
The administration has not carried through on Obama's promise to repeal "don't ask-don't tell" or DOMA. On the other hand, we're only 5 months into a 4-year term. I may not be happy that these promises aren't on the front-burner, but I remember you advocating waiting until the time is right for social progress, so you're not in a good position to argue about speed.
The DOMA brief:
I've been reading law blogs, and the legal eagles (except for the ones at Americablog) seem to agree that, at this point in the proceedings, the DOJ has to defend the law. This is true until they lose the case, and a court declares a law unconstitutional. Then, if they administration agrees with the court's decision, the DOJ can drop out of the appeals process.
Thus, the argument has been made that defending DOMA is satisfying Obama's promise to restore the rule of law. Counter-arguments have been made asking why on this issue and why not on the torture issue (where the administration seems to be happy with the
NumembergMai Lai defense and not prosecuting the individuals who engaged in torture, only the people who gave the orders). While I agree with the assertion that the administration is taking the easy way out on the torture prosecutions, two wrongs don't make a right. It's a straw-man argument.Understanding that, yes, at this point, the DOJ does have to defend the law, the complaint transfers to the brief itself. The motion to dismiss is appropriate, but the contents are at issue. Several lawyers have commented that it's a meandering brief that throws the kitchen sink at the case rather than making a coherent argument, although others have pointed out that this is standard operating procedure in a motion to dismiss.
The process is ugly and messy, but it's our government working the way it was designed, even if I don't like the details in this instance.
What I'm concerned about in this brief is how it was, as one commentator described it, "larded up" with anti-gay rhetoric. There are a number of arguments in this brief that shouldn't have cleared any review process (drawing a legal parallel between denying same-sex marriage and outlawing incest and child-rape) and a number of arguments right out of the Republican National Committee playbook (same-sex marriage would be too expensive to the federal government).