Did anyone notice that Obama and the Justice Department revised the DOMA brief today?

Now this was a brief on the same case that caused all the furor last time around. (Smelt V United States. Considered one of the weaker anti-DOMA lawsuits.)

Only difference is, top attorneys at Justice MET with attorneys from LAMBDA and other gay legal organizations in June and mapped out a strategy. The meeting happened because Obama ordered it - Steve Hildebrand and others were furious at the first brief, told Obama directly how damaging it was to future court cases against DOMA, and he listened. HE LISTENED.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/justice-department/obama-administration-set-to-hold-powwow-with-big-gay-groups/

He listened, because FIRST the blogosphere, followed by gay activists and their straight allies nationwide, followed by the front pages of the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times, followed by Hildebrand and others inside the administration all told him that it was a huge political and moral mistake.

So what did Obama do? Well, he did what he said he would do during the campaign. He listened and then he attempted to fix it.

The administration still maintains they have a responsibility to weakly defend the law, as no lower court has yet declared it unconstitutional. But, they not only changed the language of the brief, they specifically SPELLED OUT IN THE BRIEF ITSELF that the administration supported repealing DOMA, as it is a discriminatory, unfair statute.

"With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."

To add to that, Obama himself issued a statement to be released with the brief:

"Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law."

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid105720.asp

Now what does this latest turn of events have to offer us by the way of instruction?

1) President Obama listens. He will attempt to fix things when his own administration fucks up. He may have a ways to go on marriage equality, but the man LISTENS.

2) The untruth promulgated here by some posters that there is a strict "wall" between Obama and Justice, and that neither hand knows what the other is doing, was really tantamount to nothing more than pure homophobic drivel. The events today proved that. This was all well orchestrated today between the White House and Justice and that is a GOOD thing.

3) In the future, should your gay brothers and sisters and their straight allies react angrily to the administration over a specific rights-related issue, listen to what they have to say. Maybe their anger is justified. Maybe what they're saying is worthwhile listening to.

Obama listened. And he understood. And I, for one, applaud him today.

"So what did Obama do? Well, he did what he said he would do during the campaign. He listened and then he attempted to fix it."

But I know you had no doubts he would.

Cool, isn't it. :D

I agree with your post. I had a hard time believing that they would push such an upsetting brief at the time. I'm still not exactly sure why his DOJ used the brief he did. That was back in June and I think that it ended up taking a long time for Holder to get started. Perhaps they just used what was available at the time. At any rate, Im glad he learned from that whole mess.

there were a number of indignant threads, highlighting how Obama had returned Justice to its original intent: a supposedly completely autonomous agency. How the language was NOT hurtful, it DIDN'T compare marriage rights to incest and pederasty and there was nothing to correct. Gay people were just using this as an excuse to bash Obama. These threads got many, many recommendations from the crowd here that wants gay people to shut up.

Well, we won't. And they shouldn't expect us to. Obama doesn't.

Ah, the good times....

The apologists who attempted to shout us down and dismiss our concerns were wrong. Pressure works. Holding the administration's feet to the fire can work. Unrelenting pursuit of our issues will never steer us wrong.

I will give the President and his administration credit here. They listened to the outrage and changed course. Though they are still defending DOMA, and I would quibble with the absolute necessity there, it's important to acknowledge this change in tone and approach from the DoJ.

It's a welcome thing.

and everyone who agreed with the OP in this thread was flat out wrong:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8468149

I don't think I will hold my breath waiting. Obama did what he should have done in the first place. Glad he got it right the second time around.

There were a lot of straight DU'ers very pissed off at the administration over this and they bravely spoke up.

gay DUers need to know they are not alone - LOTS of us are with them

Do you think they also owe some apologies?

except those who claimed the DOJ was totally independent and Obama couldn't change those briefs (like you).

I have seen apologies on this board from those who were so wrong about some speculation that didn't materialize.

calling people here -- who are on the same side, or even gay or bi themselves -- homophobes or worse, simply for saying that some things take time and feedback to the WH/our reps.


Usually though, it's hard to back away from indelible rage.

I also like to keep defenestration in reserve.

That said, how do you manage this dissonance? When the administration filed its initial DOMA brief, people here defended it to the hilt. Today, some of those exact same people are now demanding credit for the administration doing the right thing.

How can the June brief have been absolutely, 100% the right thing for the administration to do while this current filing is also absolutely, 100% the right thing to do?

What is so difficult in saying "The LGBT community was right to be upset with the June brief, it was indefensible, and the administration was correct in making changes to their approach with this issue."

Can't the LGBT community be right? Just once? Is that such a horrifying prospect to contemplate that we must now collectively agree to forget the scores of defenses posted in response to the June brief so that unquestioning, unexamined support of the administration can be safely allowed to continue intact with nary a flicker of reflection or pause to see why it was wrong then and what was effective in changing it now?

No? Just need to keep taking shots at the community? Too much fun to be had?

I promise you, it's ok to say the administration was wrong. It's also ok to say, "You know, at the time I condemned the outrage and pressure exerted by the LGBT community, but I now see that their efforts have proved effective."

I'm happy today. The brief was changed. The administration is happy, they have one less headache to deal with.

Why aren't his super-supporters happy? Does everything have to be turned into a "Dear Jesus, please save me from your followers," moment?

Please, I respectfully ask, don't do exactly what I was talking about in my post.

I was not supporting nor talking about defenders of the initial DOMA brief.

I was talking about extreme, angry responses to those of us saying we don't believe Obama to be a hater, be aware it may take time, and KEEP UP THE PROTESTS, calls, letters to the WH/Reps!!

PLEASE stop decorticating those of us who don't come barreling in with rage and insults on anyone who suggests that some institutions take time and continued pressure.

PS defenestration -- great word. Thanks, that goes in my word bank.

I have to admit, to some degree, I think DU is having an adverse effect on my thinking towards politics. It isn't so much the administration that works me up nearly as much as the mega-supporters who find any club at hand to minimize LGBT concerns. You go back through my posts, and what starts out as relatively moderate and sedate devolves into aggravation and weariness from the constant, unbending, unrelenting harping on LGBTers for having any complaints at all.

It's like Christianity. Jesus was just fine. His followers on the other hand . . . well, they've led directly to my negative opinions about the religion. It's similar to this administration. I started out relatively ok, then the DOMA brief hit, and then the defenses of the DOMA brief hit. It's the defenses that did me in. At that point, it was time to dispense with pretense and go to town.

Though, I'm not quite in town just yet. More hovering in the suburbs. But the bigotry and harrassment LGBTers receive on this board. It takes its toll. Most people never notice the picking, the baiting, the little comments and remarks and prods and nudges. Then something big hits and suddenly it's "Where did all this come from?!" By the time the willfully blind are just reaching, "Huh, didn't realize there was a problem," many LGBTers are already pulling out the charcoal fluid and matchbooks because they're just stone cold sick and tired of it.

Before I started reading and posting regularly, I always wondered why so many LGBT posters were always in such a froth. If you go back, you'll find posts by me saying "I don't really get the outrage over McClurkin and Warren."

Then I started reading more closely what gets posted, and my opinion rapidly changed.

Just last night, we got a real, real nasty AIDS thread by a poster who has been galloping across DU for years tossing out the most homophobic content imaginable. Not only is he still here, but his friends never noticed the homophobia that was leaving many LGBTers completely slack-jawed and at a loss to explain how on earth no could see what was so naked in our eyes.

What you see as rage at various political developments is really an entire history of enduring homophobia, and the perpetrators latch onto policy and use it as their excuse du jour to have go after go after go at us.

And we have to suffer it, because we know if we dare speak up about any of it, our thoughts and our persons will be disappeared for the greater good. Just noting that an entire group of LGBTers were taken out on this site in one, single night puts you on perilous ground.

What does that say about the atmosphere, that LGBTers have to watch what they say when they defend themselves while the homophobes are allowed veritable free reign? And people wonder why we're so pissed off all the time.

I've missed pretty much all of the gay hate here, so I don't have that piece of awareness; I am sickened to find it exists here.

But the misogyny gets me as fed up and disgusted as you describe. And the perpetrators -- rape jokesters included -- never seem to get removed.

Still, when I make a mistake and excoriate someone who didn't deserve it, I apologize. I admire people who can observe their own behavior and make amends -- so I try to practice it.

I have seen more men supporting women here lately. You may also see many more people who support GLBT rights than you thought. There are more of them than of the other.

Some of things said in the Sodini threads alone left me gasping.

If I believe there's a chance at some understanding, I'll generally take it. There are a few threads were I've had some polite, productive exchanges with posters I didn't begin seeing eye to eye with. And even if we didn't entirely agree at the end, at least general awareness was raised. Those are some of my favorite threads.

However, look at this thread. You've a poster who is banned from the GLBT forum for a general pattern of harrassment all over it.

After six months of that sort of thing, I really, finally understand why so many LGBTers occasionally go nuclear.

and of course I'm curious about who the banned p oster is; I can't tell just from looking at the thread (well, it's is also too long to examine in minutiae. I've already been online too long -- my butt is starting to hurt).


Now, there is one little thing I still need to say....

to quote you, "I promise you, it's ok to say the administration was wrong. It's also ok to say, "You know, at the time I condemned the outrage and pressure exerted by the LGBT community, but I now see that their efforts have proved effective." " ........

You insulted me pretty enthusiastically in your first reply to me, accusing me of cognitive dissonance, of condemning the GLBT community, recommending I admit my wrongs. -- and I think that was based on jumping to conclusions without actually comprehending my post.

It's ok to say I slagged you and I was wrong.

I may regret the tone of the original response in light of the resulting discourse, but when the first and only post made is to agree with one of the biggest LGBTer antagonists on the board and slag people in our community without much expressed material support for the issue at hand, you'll have to forgive me somewhat for reading into it a touch.

When your first impulse is "Oh, those bad gays" in response to a partial representative of the powerful homophobic forces we're currently fighting, I'm just not going to apologize for tone.

that that poster was one of your nemesises; nemesi... whatever it is....

very sad to hear that, since I've admired the guy's smarts..... very disappointing

and, no, my first response was not "those bad gays" How many times do I have to say that before you actually hear me?

...my first response was, "I'm so tired of people who are extremely nasty, are proven wrong and then don't apologize".

Why did I pop along and say something on that thread?

Because, sad to say, the ugliest experiences I've had of willful refusal to put the ego down enough to stop slagging me and comprehend my point was with GLBT ranters and of course, sexists/misogyny deniers.
Absolutely infuriating. (so, if the thread had been a sexism one, I would have said the same thing)


But, anyway, I'm not going to push any farther for apolgies. That's cheezy. Bummer though that you think that it's ok that you ripped into me bec you've had previous negative experience with other people, even after our extended conversation here. I thought that was the point of what you yourself were encouraging me to do -- that it's ok to admit a mistake.

"people here defended it to the hilt."

No, actually no one did. People said that the person who wrote and filed the brief was a holdover from the Bush administration; that given the dates, AG Holder would not have reviewed it for consistency with the current administration's policy; and that such a routine brief would not have been reviewed by the White House, and therefore could not be used to infer what the Obama administration's policy was, especially in light of the independence of the Justice Department from the White House.

Those were the arguments that were made -- not the ones that exist solely inside your head.

I guess if you actually had skin in this game you might see it a little differently. Always interesting to see your creative writing though.

Do you have any links to posts that defended the substance of that brief? I don't remember reading one. Maybe I'm wrong. I remember the defense of the administration was that this was a holdover attorney and it was unlikely any one had reviewed the argument.

Links to arguments defending the substance? If you post one, I'll definitely concede -- but I certainly never defended the substance of the brief, I know that.

How about replacing defending the hell out of the brief with "excusing the hell out of the brief while absolving the administration of all responsibility."

Edited words, same practical result, same motivations, same bigotry, same diminishing of equality.

There, I've invoked my Get Out of Pedantry Free card.

It's an important point in this whole thread. No one defended the substance of the brief. They said that it didn't reflect the policy of the Obama administration, and lo an behold, it doesn't.

You're in a boat, club in hand, circling the waters.

I is suspicious, and the eskimos have the night off.

In that little phrase, you have just expressed your utter lack of interest, concern, and appreciation of the issue.

Your argument, namely- that the Obama administration also judged it to be "such a routine brief"- suggests that you would like to also attribute a complete lack of appreciation of the interests and concerns of a segment of his constituency to the administration. Your further argument of "the independence of the Justice Department" is in fact an echo and thus a supporting example of the assertions of the OP, as well as those of Prism. In echoing that "talking point" (which the OP neatly summed up as complete bullshit)... you have undermined your own purported points.

I see references to your creative writing here and there. Is your point simply that you have an issue with the specific idiom of "to the hilt"?... Would "people here defended it like halfwits, without the spare wittage to both admire the aplomb of the President, and at the same time recognize when He has made a miscalculation." more suit your tastes? Or, would you prefer an allusion to Keats' Negative Capability, and some sort of academic expression of the fact that "whole hearted" supporters here at DU seem to lack said capability (and my personal corollary which expands the "uncertainties" listed in the Wiki to include the holding of two mutually exclusive truths without the "irritable reaching after" a solution of the conflict of those truths)?

:)

I am dumbfounded by the "we are at war with EastAsia, and we have always been at war with EastAsia" moment that people here seem to be having.

It wasn't until the DADT debacles that I not only learned of, but memorized the relevant codes (10 USC 654, and 10 USC 12456) to the DADT argument. And then there were the arguments suggesting that DOMA had to be defended... which led me to delve into the legal terminology of the 14th Amendment, and to stumble across the the "suspect case" terminology which delineates the legal difference between discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation (not currently protected, theoretically) vs. discriminating based on race, ethnicity, or religion (currently explicitly included in interpretations of the 14th Amendment's protections under due process).

And now these f^%#tards are going to say that the wording of the DOMA brief wasn't defended as being nothing to do with the Whitehouse, and really just "law stuff" that isn't really relevant to reality?...

I know... preaching to the choir. You are, as always, an inspiration Prism. I'm gonna go have a twitching nicfit... it makes more sense than listening to people who want an apology for pointing out that the fervor with which the DOJ's last brief defending DOMA was completely dissonant with what Obama had promised during his campaign... and, let's face it... a nicfit is just plain less painful than the logic I'm seeing here.

I'm so glad I posted today, for those two words alone.

And yeah, the usual suspects are doing, well, the usual. Why I bother . . .

I'm going to try to follow through on the plan... the absinthe is looking all the more appealing now.

is utterly contemptible, but that's the story of someone in this very thread.

as tiny does

...but I fear next week you'll be back on the bash-Obama bandwagon.

I hope not.


I told you he would do right by the gay community. He has a good heart.

actually got their message through to Obama loud and clear and he acted.

So, why criticize them for legitimately speaking truth to power in the first place?

That's not "bashing" no matter how many times you repeat it. It's called criticizing the President when appropriate and supporting him when he (as he often does) gets it right.

I did not.

All I've said in the past was that Obama would eventually do right by the gay community, and that people who were jumping off the bandwagon were being premature.

he only "did right" because we raised hell.

And I'm referring to your "pony" and "poutrage" comments, which seem to arise everytime Obama is criticised for anything, legitimate or not.

...but we'll never know for sure.

until it became a major story in the MSM. Then, he listened and acted. Which is extremely commendable.

...unlike our previous occupant of the White House.


This is also why I believe there WILL be a public option in the health care reform bill that finally passes.

This offers some hope of that happening.

Deep down, I think Obama is an agnostic.... if not an atheist.

... from a base in the church on the South Side of Chicago?

I think you are expressing the thoughts that I had during the election... which have since proved to be only me projecting hopes.... I suggest you take off the election goggles and examine actual behavior...

I hope you're not hoping for a champion for atheism in the Whitehouse... or you will probably find yourself as sorely disappointed as the LGBT community has been thus far (though this new brief is at least some sign of change...)

seemed to be needed to get the right thing out of them. They did wrong, then we raised hell, then they did right. Lather, rise, repeat as needed until we get full equality.

I am very supportive of Obama except when it comes to this issue. Yes, we had to yell at him to get it done but he actually listened. We shall see from here if its a sign he will be more aggressive on gay rights issues. And ruggerson, your issues with Obama on this were always legitimate in my opinion.

Yes, and let's hope that Congress is listening to him because he is very clearly telling them to repeal it.

Do you know if anyone has introduced a bill to yet?

2) The untruth promulgated here by some posters that there is a strict "wall" between Obama and Justice, and that neither hand knows what the other is doing, was really tantamount to nothing more than pure homophobic drivel...

The single most annoying and dishonest aspect of DU is the "why do you support the slaughter of baby arctic seals" rhetorical tactic. It goes like this: If you disagree with me on X, then you support <insert horrific policy or political position of your choice.>

Many people advocate a strict separation between the Justice Department and the presidency. That does not make them homophobic, any more than it means that they support the slaughter of baby arctic seals or the dictators of Mynmar.

Do a Lexis search of the literature. It's one of the most disputed and unsettled areas of the law -- how much does/should the executive branch communicate with the Justice Department. Read about Nixon, Watergate, Attorney General Mitchell and the Saturday Night Massacre.

After Bush's lawless, politicized Justice Department, most progressives hope that Obama will take a hands off approach to policy at Justice. At the other extreme, Clinton was so hands off Justice that Janet Reno allowed her independent counsel to run wild and almost destroy his presidency.

So try to grasp this: Arguing that Obama couldn't/shouldn't intervene in Justice policy has nothing to do with homophobia. Not everyone who disagrees with you on any political, legal or constitutional issue is a homophobe.

And, btw, just why do you continuously log onto DU and support the ruthless slaughter of baby arctic seals -- and the rights of hunters to club the big eyed cuties to death and to rip their hides off while they are still alive -- by disagreeing with me?

What's interesting about this sudden principle of absolute separation between the DoJ and the administration is how it materialized among people who A) Never before seemed much interested in this separation within the current administration, B) have a curious propensity for taking oppositional stances against the LGBT community whenever it makes any demands whatsoever, and C) are suddenly fine and demand credit for their support of the President and the administration on this issue even though the DoJ is now behaving in a way that would seem to go against their professed principles of separation.

Don't you find those kinds of shifts curious? I find them curious.

But then, I'm a curious guy.

Now, if these opinions were given out of actual principle, then we should be having thread after thread about the dangerous and dictatorial disintegration of the wall of separation between the White House and the DoJ.

We do not see those things from the very same people who were deeply concerned about that matter previously. Rather, the previous advocates of separation are now openly celebrating the administration's actions in this DOMA brief.

You're somehow hoping or wishing away the fact that such behavior is transparent and highly noticable. What say you to the apparent hypocrisy of scores of posters in advocating separation yesterday and celebrating its disappearance today?

Not homophobia, you say? Very well. If it isn't homophobia, then it's simple, inexcusable blind allegiance to party.

Which isn't much better, really. Because what that betrays is that equality, civil rights, and the morally decent thing to do are secondary to political personalities and party loyalty. That is a highly dangerous plane to be existing on, and one that would never receive any kind of defense whatsoever if the perpetrators were Republican.

Like I said, it's all very curious.

If the GLBT leadership worked with Obama to change the DOJ policy, that was wrong, and I for one don't celebrate it, so your premise is wrong.

If, on the other hand, they sat down with AG Holder and convinced him to change policy, then I applaud and celebrate that.

As for who has been interested in separation of the DOJ from the presidency, I suggest you go back to the archives and check out how people reacted to the Bush administration's use of US Attorneys to persecute Democrats, to harass progressive voter registration drives, and its firings of US Attorneys who would not play political ball. I also suggest you do a search of what positions various DUers took on the prosecution of former Governor Siegelman. Then tell us whether you still believe that this is the only issue on which DUers have insisted on a strict separation of the president's office from the Justice Department.

As for a correlation between those who are concerned about separation of the presidency from DOJ with those who take "oppositional" stances on GLBT issues, you would need to define what oppositional stances are. If you define everything that you disagree with as oppositional to GLBT issues in general, then your correlation may be overly broad. If on the other hand, anyone who is in broad agreement with the goals of GLBT community is not considered "oppositional" then you might find that your correlation collapses:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=110423&mesg_id=110480

It's really very easy to oppose anything Republicans do, and it's also very easy to be theoretically supportive when our party is not in power. It is almost meaningless to advocate views and give opinions when there are no consequences or difficulties in providing them.

However, once we are the party in power, it is amazing how those easy opinions suddenly changed and the dialogue instead became one of opposition to anything that could even be perceived as criticism or discontent. That you had to go back to a period before the President assumed office to find a positive post makes my point rather than diminishes it.

Just last night, we had a poster who made an OP full of the most vile, disgusting homophobia I've ever seen on DU, all under the guise of "I support equality". People can speak the words to build up their pro-gay bona fides, but words are not much once action is required.

It is only in adversity that our words and attitudes are tested for authenticity. In this, people - including you - have failed that test again and again and again. Only now, when defense and promotion of equality is difficult because it strains the bonds of loyalty and power, are we learning who is a true believer in justice and who only hummed along when convenient to maintain paper-thin credibility.

It is a matter of seeing who told us to shout and shouted with us when their goals were parallel to ours at the time, and who told us to sit down and shut up once those goals became divergent.

You, and many others, have been telling us to sit down and shut up the very instant the party assumed total power.

You can never explain or excuse that away, and you will never rationalize or will LGBTers not to see it. For it's the face of an oppressor, and that is a very difficult thing to ignore.

The DOMA case was the first time we were presented with a controversy over the relationship between the DOJ and presidency, so what other precedent is there?

My point is that every Attorney General regardless of party and administration must be independent of every president. That, however, is my policy preference, and as I acknowledged upthread, it's not clear whether there is a legal and constitutional basis for it; it's more of a legal tradition that many of us hope Obama will uphold. It is even more important in the wake of the Bush administration's politicization of the DOJ to re-establish the wall between the two. I simply don't understand your belief that my views "suddenly changed." I was against the Bush administration influencing the DOJ, and I would be against the Obama administration influencing the DOJ.

I will, however, admit that there is a more fluid relationship when it comes to civil law and policy matters, which the presidency arguably was elected to change, compared to criminal law matters, which must be completely apolitical and where the scope for political abuse is greater.

On edit: One point of yours that I misunderstood. I posted a link to an argument I made about the constitutional requirement for marriage equality from way back in 2008 specifically to show how long standing that view is, and it does not show that my views somehow changed -- only that some people are willing to ascribe anti-marriage equality views to anyone who disagrees over side issues, like separation of DOJ and presidency.

As for me telling anyone to sit down and shut up, your memory is faulty. Once again, this is the arctic baby seal argument. Disagreeing on the scope of DOJ-presidency cooperation is not the same as saying sit down and shut up.

After all, to divine intent, motivation, and attitude, the larger the body of work examined, the more accurate the opinion formed. When it comes to this administration's actions to date in relation to LGBT rights, some people - including you - have been firmly on the side of believing the LGBT community is in the wrong.

Every. Single. Time.

Yet when this is pointed out, there is a claim that this opposition is always and forever rooted in principle, despite the existence of threads unrelated to policy where LGBTers were also lectured, opposed, dismissed, and sometimes even villainized (see: every thread ever where race and orientation issues have crossed paths, Rick Warren, McClurkin, etc. etc. etc).

At some point, when these patterns become prevalent, noticed, and omnipresent in the discussion of LGBT issues on DU, one cannot bewail that others bring it up.

I share in the opposition to the overt politicization of the Justice Department when it comes to the execution of the criminal justice system. However, that was not at stake in the DOMA brief. Furthermore, there were many, many, many different ways a DOMA brief could have been presented without causing the backlash that June's brief engendered. In fact, this current brief is testament to the grave, unconscionable error the administration made.

The administration now admits they were wrong. The administration is now positing that you and others now celebrating this week's move were in grave, unconscionable error to defend what you did. The administration now concedes that the LGBT community that so very many scolded for over-reacting and protesting was in the right and to be heeded on these issues.

The administration was wrong. You were wrong. No one who puts equality and LGBT dignity below partisan consideration could have ever defended the language inserted in that brief nor absolved the administration or the DoJ of its responsibility for the pure hatred let loose in a legal process of the United States.

That's what you did. That's what others did. And that is piled on top of scores of other threads, incidents, and policies intended to diminish and dismiss LGBT concerns.

At this point, clubbing arctic seals would be an upgrade.

Any proof of that? I can tell you exactly where I differed with certain elements of the LGBT community here -- over the interpretation of history, and then on what responsibility Obama had for a DOJ lawyer's brief. If you want to elevate that, fine, but you're just making an arctic baby seal argument. Go ahead do a search and post some evidence of your claim.

As for the rest of your post, frankly my mind glazes over at the generalizations and in-your-mind characterizations, and just thinks, "arctic baby seal ... arctic baby seal ... arctic baby seal ..."

This is fun thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8299179 where you miss the point entirely and go to great lengths to minimize the role sexual orientation plays in clearly discriminatory law and circumstance. This is a theme. Whenever there is LGBT discrimination, you will bend over backwards to explain why it is not so.

Here you are with a pony remark: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7998205&mesg_id=7998371

This is a long, but interesting thread. The theme? If a gay person is speaking, you're getting into it with them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5524913&mesg_id=5524913 If I were straight, I honestly cannot imagine myself actively flying into LGBT threads and just posting hundreds of times in disagreement with LGBT posters over their issues. It'd be like me jumping into every race-based thread on DU and constantly telling blacks "Tch, it's all in your head. Stop being so disagreeable." I bet you'd probably not react favorably to that.

I mean, to be honest, I could just post a link to the GLBT forum, and there you are, over and over, finding any and all reason to tell LGBTers why whatever argument they're making is invalid. The really juicy stuff, of course, ends up disappeared so people cannot judge for themselves the extent of this homophobic problem (see, for example, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x124970 and note the deleted subthreads). After hundreds of posts where you actively go out of your way to do it, you're actually going to say "That doesn't mean anything!" Really? Hundreds. Of. Posts.

Just because this site's policy is to transport most homophobic unpleasantness down a memory hole while allowing the most egregious perpetrators to carry on as if it never happened doesn't mean no one actually remembers it. We do. Oh, how we do.

so very many people no longer post there! It's quite remarkable, isn't it?

Also regular visitors to the African American Issues Group simply stopped dropping by!

Don't bother to deny it--it was posted on your profile during your recent suspension.

who used to post at the GLBT Forum no longer do. It's very odd.

Ghosts within memories within mists within wisps.

Ah well, off to do some yard work. It's been pleasant.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

For example, pointing out that Annie Liebovitz is bankrupt because she tried to speculate in real estate, spent too much on renovation was engaged in too much litigation, is not attacking gay people -- it's talking about real estate speculation and financial irresponsibility. It's an arctic baby thread because it somehow morphed into the form that "if you believe Annie Liebovitz's financial problems are self-inflicted, you hate gay people." Her former editor at the New Yorker, Tina Brown, gave an interview just this morning on NPR about how her financial problems were entirely self-inflicted.

The next link is to a thread about whether DU discourse was abusive and my points were about how some were imputing motives to Obama, Hillary Clinton et al. Again, you're making an arctic baby seal argument -- "if you disagree with DUers' right to engage in abusive language toward Democrats, you're a homophobe."

Sorry those don't compute.

As for the last link, I did say insulting things to a certain well-liked DUer. But she had unleashed a stream of insults at me, including an insulting PM. So we trashed each other. Again, all your saying is that, "if you insulted X (as badly as she insulted you), you support the slaughter of baby arctic seals."

If you've spent the last few hours doing a search and this is what you've come up with, basically you've proven my point. I've always supported the core issues of the community, but you seem to be saying that anyone who disagrees you or any of your friends on any issue, no matter how trivial or peripheral -- Annie Liebovitz's finances, DOJ independence from the president's office, or the state of discourse on DU -- is a homophobe. Sorry if I don't accept the characterization because as your evidence points out, it doesn't fit.

I had no idea about the current status with the GLBT forum. Had I known, I could have simply noted it as evidence enough and contented myself with that.

Edit: I didn't spend hours. I spent about five minutes. All the results you see were on the first page of the search result. A ban from the GLBT forum is statement enough, I think. More than enough.

Ain't that the truth.

Edited to add that I thank you so much for continuing to fight in this place.

"Homophobia? Here? I have no idea what you're talking about!"

always use this as a handy reference point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8468149

I do not remember that "LGBTer of color" subthread you were in. In hindsight, it's sort of hilarious.

And sad. Deeply, deeply sad that so many were deceived.

Probably still are, actually. The salient revelation thread sank pretty fast. Great woman and all that.

White is a color.

Socks have colors.

I saw you had a sock incident today. Ruggerson, you must manage your laundry better.

and not a few pathologies.

:rofl:

After that meat grinder, I need a hamburger. Or maybe some Ham and Rice.

How about some Spam instead?

always says whatever he does isn't good enough.

I for one always said that i was happy for the protest, while understanding the principle that the Administration must go to court on the laws as they stand. To do otherwise would be to authorize future administrations to pick and choose the laws they will execute, a further expansion of executive power. I think you overstate your case a bit here. Many people said just what I said now: not a "strict wall" between Obama and Justice, but the absolute requirement that Justice enforce the laws as the Congress passed them, even if the law itself goes against the executive's beliefs and the enforcement is pro forma alone. That seems to be precisely what is happening here, and precisely what you are praising Obama for here. Which is fine with me. This is exactly how it should happen until either Congress or the courts get off their asses and rid us of this disgusting and triangulated law.

You can't pick and choose which laws you are going to enforce. Adding insult to injury, Obama has not introduced any bill repealing DOMA or DADT, and he has not publicly endorsed or fought for ENDA.

Meeting behind closed doors with LGBT leaders just doesn't cut it!

It makes me feel a lot better having voted for him, followed by a string of bad news items. It appears tha 'something' worked. Now if Congress works. I feel better about not having received my pony

It was a thanks for the information.

Trust is hard to win back.

I always saw him as someone who listened and he has said in the past that he does hear our voices, he is doing what he can do within what's allowed and what he feels won't rock the boat. Remember he's dealing with many enemies (Dem and Repub alike), so if he seems restrained in his fight for Gay Rights, it's not that he doesn't sincerely believe in them. It's that he wants to make sure that he can get things pushed through and not burned at the stake as we're seeing with Health care. Now even Progressives are turning on him in regards to this.

In the end he has to work with these other powers and he's not a monarch so he's doing what the can. Remember DOMA and DADT was passed by many of the same people in Congress. In any event, I was happy when I heard the news on this two days ago. And to answer your question it was discussed on this board and I was surprised I hadn't seen your response to the news earlier.

I mean, if He were the center of the Universe... that might make sense... but the fact is that Obama is the one who has started to give ground on the idea of a "public option".... the progressives haven't turned on him... He's turned on the progressives... and they've apparently finally had enough of this sort of bullshit. They're apparently ready to consign a bullshit healthcare "reform" bill that doesn't include a public option to the toilet in which such a "reform" belongs. I say more power to them. I'll vote and donate money to my congresswoman if she joins in (as she's said she will).

That you could call this standing up for progressive values a "turning on" Obama is appalling... and it seems suspiciously characteristic of those who seem to believe that Obama is some sort of mythic center of righteousness... redefining truth in some sort of devotional way that transcends the values that have, heretofore, been characterized with terms like "progressive"... how dare those of an old label fail to fall in line with the new Overlord of Truth??

Accusations of Progressives turning on Obama, when it is Obama making policy shifts, is delusional... and folds in nicely with those who seem to think that LGBTers who successfully turned the Obama Admin's view on DOMA legal defenses owe an apology to those who argued that the Obama administration had nothing to do with the Obama DOJ, and STFU anyway, because you're distracting from more important concerns (as if the Republicans and their lackeys would've been more supportive of health care reform if only LGBTers hadn't raised the "icky" issue of DOMA repeal)...

Vabarella... I frankly am disappointed... I expected a more nuanced and broad viewed perspective from you... but instead I hear echoes of how Obama's power is limited, which... means what when considering changes of tone of DoJ briefs?? And, concerns about health care battles?... they're showing up armed to protest... how is catering to the concerns of the right by being vitriolic toward the LGBT folk that voted for him going to be useful in the eyes of the gun nuts who think that denying the right of the HMOs to throw their redneck asses off their health insurance plan if they are actually going to use it is un-American... going to be of any use to anyone but those self same rednecks that being vitriolic toward the LGBT folk is supposed to "bring aboard"?

The train of thought is labyrinthine... Kafka himself would become nauseous in the face of it... and still it can't quite make sense of an argument that you are arguing.

On the other hand... the OP's point, that Obama was wrong before, and has now corrected his perspective, and is now right... is agreeably simple and elegant. The only difficult point, for some, is that first little bump... "Obama was wrong before"... I agree with the OP... saying it is therapeutic. Try it. I believe your mind is broad enough. Prove me right.

"Obama was wrong before... but he has since changed his mind, after recognizing having been wrong."

It's still an accolade. It'll be alright...

and, to be truthful, I wondered if the move was a way to deflect from other stuff. But, I'm willing to keep watching and listening to what he does.

so the GLAD and LAMBDA legal teams are to be commended. Smelt is a weak case as the couple have very little standing. THere are far stronger cases coming up (the Massachussetts one being an example, which is backed there by the State Atty General). Should a Federal District Court rule DOMA unconstitutional in any of these cases, then we will see whether Obama's guys at DOJ have the right stuff, as at that point they could absolutely completely refuse to defend DOMA further.

So you're right. Watch and wait.

A simple argument of "standing" was compelling enough, in the Smelt case, to justify not bothering with ANY OTHER arguments, if one wanted the law to be overturned. "Standing" is a legal defense. Throwing in the rest of the "kitchen sink" aspects of the defense, which did in many cases sound like something a Bush holdover would've come up with, was completely unnecessary.... and the notion that, after the issues of the campaign, including the "fierce advocate" comment... the notion that no one thought to inquire into upcoming DOMA issues??? Serious ball dropping... (to give more credit than is due given other considerations)

I can only smile seeing that Obama was willing to listen... even if the DUmb weren't able to hear... or willing to listen...