Yet again the Obama DOJ has defended DOMA in court. This time it asked the court to throw out a discrimination suit bought by gay couples legally married in Massachusetts.The closer you look at the story, the stranger it gets.The lawsuit, filed on behalf of seven same-sex couples and three survivors of same-sex spouses, says it is unconstitutional to bar them from enrolling in federal healthcare programs, receiving certain retirement and survivor benefits and filing joint income tax returns.This time the Obama DOJ did not use child molestation and incest as legal reasoning to discriminate against gays...so I guess that is progress. The DOJ insists it must defend laws on the books. This is a suspect theory. Besides, Obama promised to repeal this law. He has taken no action to do so. None. Zero. Zilch.
In June, Obama extended some benefits to gay partners (non-married) of federal employees. But the married gays in Massachusetts want to have full federal benefits, including the right to file joint tax returns. Obama's Justice Department says that it is bound by precedent, and that "no court has found such a right to federal benefits based upon marital status to be constitutionally required."
Huh? Does that mean straight couples have no right to file a joint tax return?
I mean, look at the wording here. The Justice Department spokesperson refers only to "marital status." Nothing about gay or straight. Is it really so difficult to find a previous federal court case which has addressed a spouse's right to file a joint tax return or to receive pension benefits? I found a number of such cases after hitting Google. Took me, what, maybe 90 seconds...?
The statement also refers to a constitutional requirement. Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the right to make laws regarding taxes, and those laws are quite clear regarding marital status and the filing of of joint returns. See U.S. Code Title 26, Section 6013.
So the Obama administration's legal justification is simply weird.
But here's the kicker...
Obama's position on gay marriage mirrors the controversial views of beauty queen Carrie Prejean -- who has suddenly become a right-wing superstar by claiming to be a persecuted Christian. No less a personage than Donald Trump has noted the convergence between the Prez and Prejean.
And yet Prejean allied herself with a right-wing group called the National Organization for Marriage. NOM sends out propaganda designed to convince the populace that Obama supports gay marriage. I'm not making this up:
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: HALT YOUR TWO-FACED ATTACK ON THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACTBarack Obama thus finds himself demonized by all sides. Both gays and the NOMers consider him a traitor on DOMA. How did he get into this position? By not matching his deeds to his words.
During the campaign, as you will recall, there was a furor over California's Proposition 8. Gays sought the opinion of candidate Obama, who had sent mixed signals. His response:
In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group’s annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.”Tell it to the folks in Massachusetts. The Prejean fans can point to the words quoted above and say "Obama is our enemy." Gays can point to the deeds in MA and say "Obama is our enemy."
By the way: Carrie Prejean was once simply a woman with an opinion. Now she is a woman with a movement. How did this transformation occur? Blame progressives.
In 2008, in the heat of the primaries, progs decided on a new strategy: They now felt that that they had both the right and the obligation to out-crazy the Republicans. Thus, their instincts told them to pile hatred on Miss California, a comely but not-terribly-significant personage who had committed the "sin" of espousing a prog-unapproved viewpoint -- even though she had spoken hesitantly, and even though she had kept her opinions to herself until forced to voice them. The arrogant ninnies at HuffPo and similar venues never considered the possibility that their attacks could backfire.
Evangelicals love to claim what I call the "false underdog" position. Now, thanks to the progs, they have their peroxide Martyrella.
Newcomers to this blog may not be familiar with my own stance on gay marriage. I'm against it. I'm also against heterosexual marriage. You may think that I'm being flippant, but I'm serious. How can gays fairly ask me to defend their right to participate in a tribal mating rite that I think everyone should avoid? I suppose I could offer up such an argument as a purely abstract exercise in legal theory. I could also defend, in a purely abstract and theoretical sense, your right to eat ground glass. But I surely would not encourage you to do so.
10 comments:
I know it's kinda off topic, but speaking of Prejean, she was speaking at the "Values Voters" event.... and while prog's might suck ass, look at these absolute freaks. They don't even know who to hate anymore. There ought to be testing and a license to become a voter in America.
Obama reminds me of Gray Davis. Our former governor forgot which party he belonged to.
When the GOP launched the recall the Democrats also forgot which party Davis belonged to and elected a real Republican instead.
"Ya gotta dance with them that brung ya."
What are you against here, the ritual or the orderly transfer of property, taxes, end of life decisions, and guardianship of minors?
As has been said before about people:
"He tries to be everything to everybody, and ends up bein' nuthin' to nobody."
It true that when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one, and it's amused me for a while that the Aesop's fable that bears that moral ends up with the drowning of a donkey.
I guess that Obama and his advisers never studied their Aesop. Screw the DNC for forcing these wet noodles upon us.
Inky
As with everything else Obama, a vacuum of leadership.
"As with everything else Obama, a vacuum of leadership."
IOW - He sucks like a Hoover.
Of course the impact of opposing gay and straight marriage is what matters and the impact is very different.
Opposing straight marriage has no consequence-there is no chance of changing the right of straights to marry.
Opposing gay marriage has an impact, it denies a portion of the population a lot of economic rights and tortures a lot of young gay people and makes them feel like they will always be left out of society.
So you can say you are equally opposed to both, but you are kinda not treating both groups equally in reality-are you.
I am still amazed at the demo nizing of Miss California who states her personal view when it makes no difference yet Obama, who does have power and influence can get away with his non-actions and be forgiven - he's just too busy you know.
You've nailed this one. As for Martyrella, I think the bit with Rupert Murdoch was funny. Maybe someday we'll have a pop band called Rupert-Rupert but hopefully she'll just do ironic soft-porn/sci-fi.
For something completely different, have a look at this: http://manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2009-01-09.shtml. I missed it last spring, not sure if you talked about it. But is runs deep and I'd bet is entertaining with your imagination if you think of it from Iran's POV.
Post a Comment