I've had a chance to think about this one a little, and I think that my initial suggestion may have more to it than it might seem at first. I don't think this is the product of the Obama administration. This is not a case that would be under the direct scrutiny of any of Obama's high-level appointees, as nearly as I can figure, and the whole tone of the brief just reeks of Bush loyalists. Lest I be accused of conspiracy thinking on this, remember, that's exactly what Bush was doing in his final weeks in office, especially at Justice, which was the most heavily politicized department of his government. If you want to screw up the country forever, what better way to do it than stuff the part of the government charged directly with enforcing the laws with right-wing ideologues? Particularly if it's going to make clowns out of the Democrats (not that they need much help). (John Aravosis has another with some of the reaction from the blogosphpere that makes me think I'm on the right track here: the language and arguments are so completely out of the Focus on the Family hymnal that I don't see how a progressive could have written this brief.)
Jim Burroway initially had a take close to mine: take another look, after he noted some of the more colorful reactions from the blogosphere. (I'm not going to get into the incest/pedophilia argument here, except to note that, as Burroway says, it's not a direct comparison, but at this point it's a conditioned response: say the words, particularly in relation to gays, and two decades of right-wing, homophobic bullshit come right back to you. They don't need to make a direct link -- it's already in people's minds.) His most recent post highights some of the "official" reactions from the major advocacy and lobbying groups. Andrew Sullivan has a short, sharp rejoinder to what he calls "the most egregoius line." Frankly, I'm hard put to pick out my own most egregious -- the brief seems to have been written by a committee headed by Maggie Gallagher and Rick Warren. John Aravosis has a follow-up post demolishing some of the rational for filing this brief. I think Aravosis is on solid ground here -- the precedents he cites are convincing, and there are probably more.
I'm not letting Obama off the hook on this. If lawyers in his DOJ prepared and filed something like this without review by someone senior enough to quash it, then it's his fault. Cases challenging DOMA, DADT, and any other gay-related legislation should be automatic red flags to this administration.
Look at it this way: this is a win/win for the Republicans:
1. It further marginalizes the gay community;
2. It erodes support for the Obama administration (What's the reaction of any minority going to be when something like this sinks in?). (Sullivan twigged to this one in a follow-up.) ;
3. It may very well serve to derail gay civils rights (I'm not so nearly convinced of that as Aravosis is, but I don't think it can be completely discounted), or at least make it harder to effect changes on a state level, which is where the real battle is happening. It's becoming more and more apparent that any action at the federal level will happen in spite of Obama.
Here's the brief:
Obama's Motion to Dismiss Marriage case
No comments:
Post a Comment