I don't have much to add to John Aravosis' take on the recent Obama Administration about its recent defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, except to note one thing:
When the basic theory of the case is nearly identical* to those arguments used to defend the outlawing of interracial marriage, you really suck.
Particularly when the president--and the buck does stop with him--is not only a former professor of constitutional law, but is the child of an interracial marriage.
And for extra shitheaditude, guess who wrote the brief for the Obama administration? A Mormon Bush administration holdover. I guess this is what is meant by transcending partisanship....
Politically, this is a self-inflicted wound: the theopolitical conservatives will never support Obama, and all he has done is alienated part of his base.
*The Obama administration argued that individual states have the right to "refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy." Two examples were given: incestuous marriage, and marriage to a minor (i.e., child rape). Similar arguments were made in the Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage case. Disgusting.
- Log in to post comments
Obama's a raging fraud.
Lately, I'm finding that this picture describes my feelings for Obama.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2007/10/02/but-i-luvs-you/
There is no excuse for this.
Bear in mind that several LGBTQ-positive attorneys have read the brief and withdrawn their initial opposition to it (including Barney Frank, I believe?). I haven't read it, so cannot yet comment, but I very much doubt that Obama had a personal hand in it. Five direct reports is considered all a manager can competently handle, and if you're going to get angry, go yell at Eric Holder, fer cryin' out. Not that you shouldn't let Obama know how you feel, but it's pointless to blame him when he hired someone to oversee that department. Also, without reading the actual brief. And the mole factor. Also. Youbetcha.