I cannot help but notice the ease with which they throw over their campaign promise

Posted June 16th, 2009 by Prometheus 6

Culture wars

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

A gay couple married under California law is challenging the act in federal court. In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the couple lack legal standing to do so. It goes on to contend that even if they have standing, the case should be dismissed on the merits.

The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people. In a letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”

Bookmark/Search this post with:

this is another one of those ' gimmes' that makes little sense

On June 16th, 2009 rikyrah says:

to me. This was a simple thing to do that they fucked up. It's ridiculous.

Obama and his people know

On June 16th, 2009 ptcruiser says:

Obama and his people know that the bigots, yahoos, brain donors, aspirational zealots, crass opportunists and unprincipled pragmatists are all on their side. The only time they need the rest of us is when they are running for election or reelection. After that, we and our views don't count. Not at all.

I hate to pile on

On June 16th, 2009 ProfGeo says:

Here's an article from the other coast from Saturday's (6/13) S.F. Chronicle to bookend the NY Times editorial. It is "news" as opposed to "editorial" so there is a bit more on the specifics of the case. The reader comments on the article are overflowing, so I didn't even skim them.

I am aggrieved by the "states rights" approach now overtly favored by both Cheney and the Obama administration:

But the department also defended the 1996 law's restrictions. Its court filing steered clear of the justification of the law it had offered under President George W. Bush: that it promotes a traditional form of marriage best suited for procreating and raising children.

Instead, the Obama administration argued that the law preserves long-standing state authority to define marriage while saving taxpayer dollars.

OK, so it's really about the money. Again. And we do know that IN THE CAMPAIGN Obama was not in favor of gay marriage, so he's going for what he may believe is a compromise, as is his nature. But the net effect is the old metaphor of the truck driving by to pick up this group, and there won't be anyone left to mourn when the truck comes by next time.

Prometheus 6