This is important: the flap over the DoJ brief in Smelt has hit CBS news -- yes, the MSM, which has been blind to our concerns for how long now? Via John Aravosis, this story:
The anger from gay rights advocates toward President Obama is starting to boil over. . . .
The Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, mandates (1) that the federal government not recognize same-sex marriages and (2) that states not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
Mr. Obama vowed to repeal DOMA as a presidential candidate but he has not taken any action to do so since becoming president. The Justice Department brief calls the legislation a "valid exercise of Congress' power" and says it is "reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage."
And CBS starts connecting the dots:
As CBSNews.com reported earlier this month, the president has also declined to take action on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military, despite campaign promises to do so. While the administration has suggested it is working with the military to repeal the policy responsibly, the Pentagon says there have not been any serious discussions along those lines.
And, from Aravosis again, Congress ain't gonna do shit. (And exactly what did you expect from Harry Reid, anyway?)
It's a scathing story, and frankly, with all the news coming out of Iran, as well as the developing fight over health-care reform, I'm surprised it got this much notice. The trick is to keep up the heat.
Aravosis also notes the lack of coverage, but has some striking news: people are starting to pull out of the Democratic fundraiser scheduled for later this month -- most significantly, David Mixner, one of the real gay power centers in this country. Aravosis' post has a lot of good information -- a must read. (Aravosis has been on top of this one.)
Update: A strong editorial from NYT that characterizes the brief as a "fumble." You can say that again.
Update II:
And, believe it or not, a story in WSJ:
A prominent gay-rights organization, long supportive of President Barack Obama, sent him a scathing letter Monday to protest the administration's recent legal backing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The frustration, expressed in an emotional letter by the president of the Human Rights Campaign, also stems from Mr. Obama's reluctance to move on other issues on its agenda, such as allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
As a candidate for president, Mr. Obama said he would try to repeal the law known as DOMA. It prevents same-sex couples married in states where gay unions are legal from benefiting from federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security spousal benefits.
But on Friday, the Obama administration filed a brief seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a California couple married during the brief period when gay marriage was legal in the state, who are challenging the 1996 federal act.
This story's pretty uninflected, but the mere fact that it happens is instructive: if NYT and WSJ are starting to notice, things are really hot.
2 comments:
How long, then, do you think it will be before Obama actually begins to pay attention (a) to the flap and (b) to our community? The longer this goes on, the angrier I get -- not to the point of voting Republican, but certainly to the point of withholding campaign contributions.
The Democrats figure we have no place to go, but they also need our money and effort. Mixner's setting the best possible example. (Andy Towle also pulled out, according to Aravosis.) (One could see this as a very effective way of doing what the right wing tried to do with Colorado's Amendment 2 -- just cut us out of the mix completely. I doubt that's actually up in anyone's forebrain, but the effect is the same.)
Obama take notice? Not until it starts costing the Democrats. He's too busy appeasing a bunch of losers who represent 20% of the country. (I start to have doubts about his "vision.")
I'm waiting to see if Frank, et al., pull out of this fundraiser -- and if not, I think their gay constituents had best be prepared to ask some hard questions.
As soon as I have a moment to sit down and draft something rational (take a deep breath, Robert), you'd best believe that Schakowsky, Durbin and Burris are getting letters wanting to know why they haven't said boo on these issues, especially about this absolutely heinous brief. And "the economy" is not an answer that's going to satisfy me.
I am also considering for the first time in my life becoming politically active to the extent of working for a challenger to an incumbent who has not come down on the right side of this.
Post a Comment