ENOUGH with the 24/7 news cycle about Michael Jackson

Holy Mother of God, Please make it stop.

author: Goombah

I’m about to lose my freaking mind with this non stop over the top reporting of Michael Jackson’s death.

Yes it is a tragic end to a sad story and I sincerely feel sorry for him, his family and most of all his children. No argument from me that Michael was one of the greatest entertainers of all time and has earned his place in showbiz history but enough already!!!

Isn’t this the same media that didn’t give a dam about being fair and balanced when Michael was alive? The same media that treated him like a freak show and never gave him the benefit of the doubt when he was accused of being a pedophile?

The same media that continues to put a spotlight on every wacko fan without a life that have no limits embarrassing themselves with this spectacle that has now crossed the line into the bizarre.

Where are these people when returning war heroes are coming home? Would we ever see this same passion to stand in line for hours when it comes to public service?

Isn’t it time to move on and put this story into its proper perspective and report REAL news that affect the lives of people? Maybe the story behind the story is the media’s deteriorating quality that has rendered it’s reporting of hard news impotent..

I’m not diminishing the death of Michael Jackson or his importance to pop culture but this over reaction now borders on the obscene.

Gay Bar Raid on 40th Aniversary of Stonewall in Ft Worth TX‎

Thanks to Jaysays.com & Dymsum's blog,
for being in the forefront of reporting this on their blogs. If you haven't heard about this yet, you will as this story continues to spread throughout the cyber world. In fact I was please to see this reported on the Rachel Meadow Show tonight.
I strongly encourage everyone to tell as many people as you know about this and not allow this story of intimation and harassment to be buried by the corporate media.
This is yet another reminder of the enormous hostility we face in this country as gays continue to move forward in our quest to attain equal rights. It is no coincidence that this raid happened at the same time that gays were celebrating and commemorating Stonewall.
The pathetic denial and cover up by the police will be exposed for what it really is.................... DISCRIMINATION!

Another First Hand Account Indicates Police Targeted Gays in Ft. Worth Raid.

29 June 2009 Author: jaysays

More and more eyewitness accounts of the police raid of the Ft. Worth gay bar, Rainbow Lounge, are being circulated, many via the Facebook page set up for information on the raid. One account by a straight ally who was not arrested or ticketed in spite of admitting to police that she was drunk indicates:

I was appalled to read the official statement issued by the police. The allegations of assault, groping, and resisting arrest were complete fabrications. Men parted like the red sea wherever the police were. No one was groping them.

I WILL NOT SIT BACK AND BE SILENT. I WILL CONTINUE TO SHARE MY STORY AND PROTEST ALONGSIDE THE COMMUNITY THAT HAS MADE ME FEEL SO WELCOME. I ENTERED THE BAR A PATRON ON SATURDAY NIGHT, AND BECAUSE OF THE POLICE BRUTALITY AND DISCRIMINATION I WITNESSED I LEFT AN ACTIVIST.

– [Alison Egert]

Yet again, witness accounts of the evening completely contradict the police allegations of resisting arrest, groping of officers and lewd sexual gestures by patrons.

Ft. Worth City Councilman Joel Burns released the following statement yesterday evening:

We want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws and ordinances of our great State and City will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement. We consider this to be part of “The Fort Worth Way” here. As elected representatives of the city of Fort Worth, we are calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the City of Fort Worth Police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning, June 28, 2009.

It is unfortunate that this incident occurred in Fort Worth and even more so to have occurred on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall protests. Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all of its citizens are protected. We are working together with our Mayor, Police Chief, the City of Fort Worth Human Relations Commission, and our State Legislative colleagues to get a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.

Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And know that the GLBT Community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.

Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and we are all working aggressively toward that end.

http://jaysays.com/

It’s All Just a Little Bit of History Repeated: Ft. Worth Gay Bar Raided

29 June 2009 Author: jaysays

Saturday night, I shut jaysays.com down to honor the 40th Anniversary of the Stonewall Inn riots. I sat there contemplating how life has changed for LGBT people since that night forty years ago. It was midnight central time. Little did I know that in less than an hour, history would repeat itself as police raided the Rainbow Lounge in Ft. Worth, Texas.

According to the Ft. Worth Police Department, officers were doing routine raids and the Rainbow Lounge just happened to be on their list. Reports indicate that six Ft. Worth Police officers and two Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission officers participated in the raid.

Now, I’ve been inside of a straight bar during one of these routine checks. Two agents walked the bar requesting identification from patrons. In this case, one man was under age and had been served with alcohol. A citation was issued to the bar and the agents left with the underage individual, presumably taking him into custody.

In this case, EIGHT officers entered the bar and arrested seven patrons for public intoxication. The Ft. Worth Police Department claims that those arrested were obviously very intoxicated and made sexual gestures at the officers. One man is hospitalized after, as police allege, he grabbed one officer’s groin (something any gay man might do in a similar situation). However, this man was then “taken down” by police, fracturing his skull.

Eye witness accounts of the raid differ greatly from the police accounts. One person at the bar has indicated publicly that he watched as the first arrest occurred. A man standing at the bar took a drink of his cocktail and was thrust down on the bar by the officer and handcuffed [police were using plastic detention cuffs].

Another eyewitness indicated that he was sitting with friends on the patio area when officers came outside. They then asked why everyone had gotten so quiet. When one group continued their conversation, officers then arrested one of the participants.

No eyewitness account currently publish has indicated any sexual gestures or other such behavior being directed at the officers.

This raid, coincided not only with the 40th Anniversary of the Stonewall Inn raid, but it marked the eve of the Million Gay March in Dallas. It is reasonable to say that someone on the Ft. Worth police department would have known that a massive march was underway in neighboring Dallas. Therefore, is it too much to conclude that the timing was no coincidence?

As the day progressed, the front page of jaysays.com, which had been a tribute to Stonewall 1969, changed from a symbol of peace to a symbol of outrage – the Ft. Worth Police Department sent a message to the LGBT community last night We must repeat the message of our predecessors, “Stonewall was a Riot; Now We Need a Revolution.”

http://jaysays.com/2009/06/its-all-just-a-little-bit-of-history-repeated-ft-worth-gay-bar-raided/

Fort Worth Police Statement Concerning "Rainbow Lounge" Raid

June 28, 2009

http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-rainbow-lounge-fwpd-statement-story,0,1536646.story

Police raid a gay bar in Texas on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/29/stonewall-texas/

Fort Worth police better start clarifying gay bar 'check

The Fort Worth Police Department still has some explaining to do about what happened early Sunday at a southside gay bar called the Rainbow Lounge.

Or some clarifying or some illuminating or some supplementary detailing – anything to mitigate the apparently self-administered public-relations shot-to-the-foot it suffered after what it keeps calling a routine "bar check."

'Cause – Problem No. 1 – bar patrons who were there say it wasn't a "check," it was a "raid." Problem No. 2, this particular "check" ended with a kid in the intensive-care unit with a head injury.

Problem No. 3, in what I can only hope is a spectacularly infelicitous coincidence, all this took place on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Raid.

The landmark date marks a 1969 clash between New York City police and club patrons, widely viewed as the catalyst for the modern American gay-rights movement.

The short version is this: About 1 a.m. Sunday, two Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission agents and six FWPD cops showed up at the club for an inspection.

These checks, which have gotten a lot of attention in the last few years, target bars in search of patrons who are obviously intoxicated.

Well, I'm certainly willing to believe it is possible to find a drunk in a bar at 1 a.m. The TABC carries these out with an eye to curbing public intoxication and drunken driving, as well as reminding bartenders that it is illegal to serve somebody who is already loaded.

At this point, however, accounts between patrons and police diverge.

Police Chief Jeff Halstead has said only that there will be a thorough investigation.

But in an earlier official statement, police said they encountered hostile, argumentative drunks, some of whom "made sexually explicit movements" (my imagination runs wild) toward the officers. One young patron allegedly "assaulted [a] TABC agent by grabbing the TABC agent's groin."

OK, hold on. First, witnesses say the officers showed up ready to make arrests, their fists full of plastic zip-cuffs.

"They were hyped up. They were loaded for bear," said Todd Camp, a veteran journalist who was there celebrating his birthday with friends. "They were just randomly grabbing people, telling them they were drunk."

Camp told me he has been in bars during TABC/police "checks" before, "and it was never anything like this." Usually, he said, officers discreetly walk through, looking for anybody who has had too much. This was different.

"They were shoving patrons," Camp said, "asking, 'How much have you had to drink?' "

Maybe you can call that a difference in perception, a disagreement over the degree of aggressiveness on both sides.

But there are flat contradictions about how Chad Gibson was injured. The Dallas Voice reported Monday that Gibson is hospitalized with bleeding around his brain.

"He was taken down hard," said Camp, with "four or five" officers wrestling him to the floor inside the club.

Cellphone photos shot by patrons and posted to blogs show a person being held facedown by officers in a short hallway inside the club, then show a dent in the wall where his head was apparently banged.

But a Fort Worth police spokesman told me Gibson was injured outside, when he fell and struck his head because he was so drunk.

"He was the one that groped the TABC agent," said Sgt. Pedro Criado. "He was injured by falling and hitting his head."

When I asked Sgt. Criado how he identified Gibson as the "groper," he said he was reading from a police report filed by cops on the scene. I asked for further details, but he said I'd have to file a Freedom of Information request.

"The truth will come out. We don't want to make any assumptions," he said. "We got to gather all the facts."

What Camp says, and what other people who claim to have been there say in comments posted to news stories, is that they were scared.

"I hate to say I was afraid of my own police department, but I was," Camp said.

His description of frightened, distraught patrons just does not seem to square with police accounts of being subjected to a drunken, groin-grabbing gantlet during a routine "bar inspection."

Fort Worth is a fine and tolerant city. The police officers I personally know over there are decent, stand-up people. But today, in the Twitter-and-blog-enabled process of rapid dissemination, they're getting an ugly reputation.

And the flames of indiscriminate opinion about Texas being a stagnant backwater of vicious, insular, hate-crazed xenophobes dance higher.

So, Fort Worth, we need some answers, please, and quickly.

This is no time to stonewall.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-floyd_30met.ART0.State.Edition2.4bb1df1.html

President Obama's Crumbs to Gays

Author: Goombah

The first time I saw Obama appear on the national scene I was dazzle by his eloquence, charisma, and his inclusion of gay people in his speeches from the very beginning.
During the campaign when he spoke of change he brought a new sense of hope for my community and I truly believed this politician if elected would be different.
I've been a democrat my entire voting life and volunteered at the Obama headquarters during the campaign and I absolutely will NO longer put a check mark on ANY candidate that doesn't support equality. Period end of story.
The DOMA brief went way beyond what was necessary and used language that would NEVER be acceptable towards any other minority.
I knew Obama did NOT support Gay Marriage and I had no problem waiting for the Obama administration to build enough political capital before he tackled gay issues BUT I never expected this from his administration.
(Though looking back he did have several homophobes that worked on his campaign that had me question how comfortable he really was with Gays.)
This lame ass attempt with the memorandum giving some rights to gay partners is another slap in our face and only happened after high profile gay donors and supporters pulled out of a democratic fundraiser.
The feeble attempts to explain this mess away has only compounded the problem and now
I question if we will ever see any of the advances that was promised.
I still have hopes for this President and want him to succeed for the sake of our country but I won't sit passively in the back of the bus and be taken for granted by my President or the democratic party.
Has the President and the Democratic party turned their backs to the gay community?
Well maybe it's time for us to do the same.

Below are some links I thought were interesting as this anger continues to grow in the gay community.

Angry Gay Democrats Pull Support For DNC

June 19, 2009 11:38 AM

Posted by Prerana Swami

(CBS/AP)

The Obama administration's decision to file a controversial brief on behalf of the Defense Of Marriage Act appears to have been the last straw for many gay and lesbians who were once enthusiastic supporters of the administration as well as the Democratic party.

Politico reports that the National Stonewall Democrats is the latest group to pull out of a June 25 Democratic National Committee fundraiser because of the Obama administration’s defense of DOMA and lack of action on gay issues.

The group said is "incredibly disappointed" in the party for a variety of reasons, including a perceived lack of support.

"The DNC has traditionally provided materials for the many Pride parades and festivals around the country to help educate the LGBT community about why the Democratic Party is the Party for full LGBT equality," National Stonewall wrote in an e-mail, according to Politico. "This year, we were informed that we would not be receiving any materials or support for producing materials for the various nationwide Pride activities. These decisions were very disappointing."

The e-mail also cited the DOMA brief as a reason to pull out of the fundraiser.

"The members of the Board and our membership put our hopes, our dollars and our time into ensuring the election of Barack Obama because we believed that he supported us. To now have his Administration refer to our relationships in the same terms used by our long time enemies such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson hurts on so many levels," National Stonewall wrote.

The government's pro-DOMA stance has already prompted many other high profile gay rights supporters to boycott the fundraiser.

Among them, as Newsweek reported Wednesday, is Vermont Senate President Peter Shumlin. As an early Obama supporter and leader of the marriage equality bill in Vermont, Shumlin was expected to be an honored guest at the event.

"I am shocked and disappointed at the level of insensitivity that the Department of Justice has shown towards gay and lesbian couples and their families," Shumlin said in an e-mail to Newsweek. “My disappointment in this has led me to the regrettable decision not to be a participant in the DNC event."

Shumlin also said he believes that the Department of Justice and the government's action will not only alienate the LGBT community but perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination as well. He expressed hope that Mr. Obama will "actively support" marriage equality.

The recipient of the National Stonewall Democrats' e-mail, the DNC's Tom Petrillo, responded with a short statement encouraging a continued relationship between the two groups. Petrillo pointed to the fact that the DNC plans to support a Stonewall activity later this year.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/19/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5097358.shtml

Stonewall Democrats Pull Support From LGBT Fund Raiser.

At the rate things are going, Vice President Joe Biden will be standing in a room surrounded by tables and talking to the paint. Some might joke that he does that anyway. However, this may be one of those cases where the real danger is in that actually happening. National Stonewall Democrats have pulled their sponsorship of the upcoming fund raiser headlined by Vice President Biden over a whole host of issues from funding for their activities to the recent Defense of Marriage Act brief. Ben Smith from Politico reported on this issue, including printing the email exchange concerning it.

When it comes to funding, one has to wonder if part of the problem is that the current head of the Democratic Party hails from one of the most homophobic and restrictive on gay rights states in the union- Virginia. What is more, even Governor Tim Kane is only part time when it comes to running the Democratic Party right now.

Money from the LGBTI community, also known as Pink Money, has been disproportionately heading towards the DNC over the years. Indeed, Governor Howard Dean of Vermont launched his 2004 Presidential bid using a substantial amount of money from the gays, lesbians and transpeople in the country. Indeed, the amount of money that the LGBTI community funneled into the Obama campaign likely tipped the scales in his battle to get the nomination. Yet, now, everything will be seen through the lens of this particular brief, and in light of President Obama’s lack of action on issues that many gays, lesbians and transpeople find important. For those who often state that President Obama has a lot to deal with right now, they forget that DOMA adds to the cost of living for gays and lesbians. They forget that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell often means finding oneself out of a job in a weak economy.

Somewhere lost in the noise is the fact that these issues effect the economy. Many gays and lesbians pay far more for health care than they can necessarily afford simply because of DOMA. For many transpeople, the costs of transitioning are so great that they are unable to do it at more than a snail’s pace, often risking their own lives in order to transition without the massive expense of the medical bills. Somewhere, lost in the Administration, is that gays, lesbians and transpeople have a greater interest in the reforms that President Obama proposed than the average person because we hurt so much from the discrimination that exists. It is time that President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid realize that those Christian Conservatives out there are not going to follow along if we delay rights for the LGBTI community and it is time that they stand up to those groups. Any and all religious organization, church, or group that donates to any political cause should have their tax free status revoked. If they have the money to fund advertisements, they have money to pay taxes. If they allow petitions to be signed in their churches, then they should pay the same taxes as I would if I allowed others to sign petitions in my house or place of business. It is time to put this intrusion of religion into politics to bed and tell these groups that they have the money to spare since they are wasting it not feeding, clothing and helping the needy at a time when charitable donations are on the decline.

Stampp Corbin, President Obama’s Co-Chair for LGBT Issues during the campaign, will not be attending the fund raiser on the 25th of June either. He stated emphatically “You really are talking out of both sides of your mouth and my community knows it.” Mr. Corbin will be joining a long list of people who will not be attending the fund raiser including Peter Shumlin, who is expected to run for Governor of Vermont, Andy Towle (Towle Road), David Mixner and Pam Spaulding. The National Stonewall Democrats join the Human Rights Campaign in pulling support from this fund raiser.

http://lezgetreal.com/?p=15024&cpage=1

June 19, 2009

More LGBT Leaders Pull DNC Support

By Amita Parashar and Michelle Garcia

Two more LGBT leaders have pulled their support from next week's Democratic National Committee fund-raiser dinner in continuing fallout over a brief filed by the Obama administrationlast week in support of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Representatives from the National Stonewall Democrats and attorney Mary Bonauto (pictured) of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders are the latest to have backed out of attending a June 25 fund-raiser with Vice President Joe Biden. Software mogul and philanthropist Bruce Bastian, activist blogger Andy Towle, longtime Democratic figure David Mixner, and a handful of others had previously pulled out of the $1,000-per-plate fund-raiser.

In an e-mail obtained by Politico.com, the Stonewall Democrats called the Obama administration's brief "incredibly hurtful." The group also cited an end to traditional party funding from the Democratic National Committee as a reason for backing out.

"Our membership put our hopes, our dollars, and our time into ensuring the election of Barack Obama because we believed that he supported us. To now have his administration refer to our relationships in the same terms used by our longtime enemies such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson hurts on so many levels," the Stonewall Democrats wrote.

GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto has also declined her invitation to the dinner. She called elements of the brief "startling," "silly, wrong, or offensive."

"Many states and our national government enforce existing antigay laws or simply fail to see discrimination against LGBT people as both personally devastating and a stain on our nation's commitment to equal justice under the law," Bonauto wrote in a post on Pam's House Blend.

Bonauto added that GLAD is prepared to defeat all arguments made in support of DOMA, and that the LGBT community is right to demand leadership from the Obama administration rather than accepting "arguments that reflect backward and unenlightened thinking."

Representatives Jared Polis and Barney Frank have not indicated whether they will refrain from attending the event. Frank called the DOJ's brief, a directive from the White House, a "big mistake." However, he also said the same thing about boycotting the fund-raiser. "I think it's a big mistake to deny money to the DNC," he said in the Boston Herald.

On Wednesday night's Rachel Maddow Show, Rep. Tammy Baldwin said she would be attending the fund-raiser.

A Friend In The White House? With Friends Like You Mr President Who Needs Enemies!

Author: Goombah

During the campaign you repeatedly said that we will have "A Friend in the White House" with all due respect Mr President with friends like you who needs enemies?

Your campaign promises to the gay community is looking less promising every day and this latest outrage over your administrations brief in support of DOMA is beginning to cement our worst fears....
Even though The Corporate media has ignored this story it continues to unfold within our community and we are starting to take notice of the number of broken promises on several key issues that affect our lives.
The defense of DOMA is NOT going to fade quietly into the night nor will gays continue to be patient and wait in silence to gain equal rights.
I supported you along with millions of my brothers and sisters and I cannot tell you how profoundly disappointed we are.
I refuse to accept that you have turned your back on us, I refuse to give up on you and my hope that you will be a leader in obtaining equal rights for gay Americans.
Below are the many voices that have expressed their hurt, disillusionment and rage over this issue and I will continue to update and add to this list.

Despite Not Supporting Your Marriages, Obama Says He's Your
Friend!

Who's your BFF ever? President Obama! How do you know? Because he said so himself! Asked about whether GLBTs "who wish to marry" should consider the White House an ally, Barack Obama (who's whooping it up celebrating gay pride!) insists: "I think gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House because I've consistently committed myself to civil unions, making sure that they have to visit each other in hospitals, that they are able to access benefits, that they have a whole host of legal rights that they currently do not have. I don't think it makes sense for the federal government to get in the business of determining what marriage is. That isn't traditionally the federal government's role."

Indeed, President Obama believes friends let friends have separate but equal rights.
You probably want to go grab a beer with him now, right? It would give him another excuse to hold out on doing anything substantial on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

And he's right about that whole "federal government" thing. You see, traditionally presidents are too cowardly to push for equal rights, and instead let the Supreme Court do it.

So when it comes to this "friendship" Obama thinks he has with America's gay community? It's of the sort where you run into a guy at a party, promise to get together for lunch next week, and never see each other except on Facebook.

http://www.queerty.com/despite-not-supporting-your-marriages-obama-says-hes-your-friend-20090604/

Obama and the Gays: Where's the Leadership?

Leah McElrath Renna Posted: June 13, 2009 04:56 AM

In the wake of the tragic murders of reproductive rights activist, Dr. George Tiller, and the Holocaust Museum security guard, Steven Johns, I know I was not alone among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans in thinking to myself, "Next it will be one of us." The time for outspoken leadership by President Obama on behalf of all of the targets of right-wing hate -- including LGBT Americans -- is here.

For some time now, many non-straight people have apparently been so relieved not to be in the bull's eye of the White House's political target practice that we have allowed ourselves to be blinded by Obama's cool. We have taken the risk of giving Obama a pass because we have chosen to believe that his personal views are not actually in alignment with his public declarations. We have allowed this belief to make us complacent.

Well, I am over the cool. The cool and the relief of not being under constant attack bought my complacency for only so long. Now, I am ready and waiting for actual leadership on the civil rights of LGBT Americans.

The fact is that we actually do not know what Obama's personal views are on marriage equality for same-sex couples. And that shouldn't really matter. Because we do know he was on record at one point as supporting marriage equality and then that changed. We also know that he now espouses the tired rationalization that so many Democrats rely upon: "Aw, gee, I'm all for equal rights, but my religion doesn't let me get behind the calling it 'marriage' thing for you all. Sorry."

But, for some reason, we allow -- without open challenge -- this Constitutional legal expert to use his personal religious beliefs as an excuse to espouse support for a separate but equal policy and not to speak out for civil equality for all Americans? Really?!

Are we that desperate?

Let's say, just hypothetically, that a meeting took place between certain administration officials and certain leaders of prominent LGBT rights organizations. And let's say, again hypothetically, that the administration laid out its plan for dealing with hate-crimes legislation, employment discrimination, and military discrimination in a characteristically controlled and pragmatic way. Further, let's say -- still talking hypothetically here -- that, within that plan, the repeal of the travesty of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) was scheduled to be addressed during the administration's presumptive second term. Let's also theorize hypothetically that some LGBT leaders were apparently so happy to be let behind the curtain that they simply nodded in response. Not acceptable.

Note to President Obama, his advisors and LGBT Grand Poobahs everywhere: that's NOT leadership. It's political strategy, sure, but it's not presidential leadership. And it's not enough.

We have a president capable of giving the most nuanced speech on race issues that our nation has heard in our lifetimes and maybe ever. We have a president capable of speaking out on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in some of the most clear-sighted, fair-minded and fully balanced language ever delivered by an American leader. We have a president who is not only intelligent, a Constitutional scholar and a gifted orator -- but one who has demonstrated the capacity for courage and unifying leadership at time when such leadership is sorely needed and lacking.

What better time is there than the 40th anniversary of Stonewall during a period in American history when state after state is also deciding in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples for the president to speak out on behalf of full civil equality for LGBT Americans? Strategy and pragmatism are useless without the flexibility to seize a moment.

In the spirit of pragmatism and domestic realpolitik, I'll even make a suggestion to President Obama and his advisors: you simply need to make progress.

If President Obama were to come out and say that the movement of more states in recognizing same-sex marriage equality highlights the unfairness of DOMA and the need to have it repealed or overturned, that would be progress. If President Obama were to come out and say that his own prayerful thought has led him to begin to reconsider his stance on marriage equality, that would be progress. If President Obama were to come out and say that the language in his own Justice Department's response to a legal challenge to DOMA was unnecessary, wrong and dehumanizing (invoking incest and child abuse, no less), that would be progress. It would be, in his words, change.

Should President Obama come out with unequivocal verbal support -- and even actual action -- on behalf of marriage equality and many other LGBT civil rights concerns? Yes. That would be truly courageous leadership and would be far superior to the carefully parsed language (and countless "umms" in the midst of other notable eloquence) to which we are currently subjected on our issues.

Nevertheless, incremental progress from such a highly visible and respected source has an impact beyond the incrementalism of the change itself. So, I'll take even that as a start.

President Obama, speak out and act now on behalf of the humanity and full civil equality of LGBT Americans. Be the leader you are capable of being. The moment is yours to seize.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcelrath-renna/obama-and-the-gays-wheres_b_215165.html

June 15, 2009 5:58 PM

Obama Faces Gay Groups' Growing Anger

Posted by Brian Montopoli

(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

The anger from gay rights advocates toward President Obama is starting to boil over.

On Monday, Joe Solmonese, the president of the establishment gay rights group The Human Rights Campaign, sent an angry letter to the president objecting to the decision by the Obama Justice Department to file a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

"I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours," Solmonese wrote. "I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you."

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."

"The government does not state why denying us basic protections promotes anyone else’s marriage, nor why, while our heterosexual neighbors’ marriages should be promoted, our own must be discouraged," Solmonese writes in his letter.

He goes onto single out a portion of the brief referencing a case involving "marriage of uncle to niece" to support the Justice position.

"I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones," he writes.

After the brief was filed, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that while the president has said he is committed to repealing DOMA, "until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

But the president, who is wary of opening up a fight over social issues that could endanger his ambitious agenda on health care and other issues, has not asked Congress to do so. And as blogger and gay rights advocate John Aravosis points out, Justice has chosen not to defend laws in the past, undercutting the implication that the department had no choice but to do so.

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.

Many of the staffers in the Obama White House also served under President Bill Clinton, and they remember well how much political capital taking on gay rights cost Clinton early in his administration. But while gay rights advocates signaled sympathy to those concerns early in the Obama administration, their patience appears to be running out. (The picture above comes from a gay rights rally late last month.)

It should be noted that there do appear to be efforts on behalf of gay Americans in the works: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he is looking to pass hate crimes legislation before the August recess, and the extension of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees is said to be on the way. But these are widely viewed as significant but relatively minor potential victories, and are not likely to quiet the growing anger among gay advocates if they do go through.

To do that, the president would likely need to take action on either DOMA or "don't ask, don't tell." And that probably won't happen anytime soon. On Sunday, John Berry, who is director of Office of Personnel Management and the highest-ranking gay official under Mr. Obama, told The Advocate that the administration plans to take action on both DOMA and "don’t ask," as well as an employment nondiscrimination bill, "before the sun sets on this administration."

Asked if that time frame included a second term, Berry said, "I say this in a broad sense -- our goal is to get this done on this administration's watch."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5090503.shtml



Gay Rights Group Tells President Obama That His Pro-DOMA Legal Brief Caused LGBT Community Pain

June 15, 2009 2:53 PM

The Obama Justice Department last week wrote a brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which as a candidate then-Sen. Obama called “abhorrent.”

The brief, which compared in legal terms same-sex marriages to incestuous ones, has met with some anger in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, among others.

Today Joe Solmonese, the president of the LGBT rights organization the Human Rights Campaign, wrote to the Presidentexpressing the feeling that “when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act, I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.”

Solmonese took issue with the Obama Justice Department’s use of “the well-worn argument that excluding same-sex couples from basic protections is somehow good for other married people.” (The brief said that “Because all 50 States recognize hetero-sexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage.”)

Solmonese goes on to take issue with a number of arguments in the brief, concluding by writing, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”

He says to the president that the “brief should not be good enough for you. The question is, Mr. President—do you believe that it’s good enough for us?”

-jpt

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/gay-rights-group-tells-president-obama-that-his-pro-doma-legal-brief-caused-lgbt-community-pain.html


This response from my friend Jaysays.com expresses exactly how I feel and I thank you for saying it so well.

PAIN!?!?! PAIN!?!??!
Author: Jaysays.com

The LGBT Community knows pain like no-one else. No other minority is at risk of losing family, friends, life, liberty, happiness simply by saying, "I'm in love with someone of the same sex." Could you imagine an Asian mother telling her child... I don't like you anymore since you are Asian!?!?!

Pain was picking a bloody man up off the ground after finding a group of punks beating him behind a gay bar because he was just a "faggot."

Pain was being removed by police officers after a group of skin heads threatened my life and watching as they were allowed to stay.

Pain was burying my friends who died from HIV because it was a "fag" disease and no one took action.

Pain was when I got a message the other day from a young man saying he envies me because I live my life "out" and he cannot.

Pain was watching my lesbian cousin go through conversion therapy with her minister father.

What the Obama administration did isn't "painful" to the LGBT community - it's outright unconscionable.

http://rappack.forumcircle.com/viewtopic.php?t=555

Latest UPDATE : 6/17/2009
I guess I can stop hoping that this is a mistake, it clearly is not and the excuses from this administration is total BULL-SHIT

Wednesday, June 17, 2009
My article in Salon
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/17/2009 04:57:00 PM



Gibbs: President stands behind incest/pedophilia brief
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/17/2009 04:04:00 PM
Yes, God forbid our president distance himself from a brief that argues that gay and lesbian marriages are akin to incest and pedophilia. I ask again, who is advising these people? From ABC:

TAPPER: Does the president stand by the legal brief that the Justice Department filed last week that argued in favor the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?

GIBBS: Well, as you know, that the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the president believes that that law should be repealed.

TAPPER: I understand that, but a lot of legal experts say that the brief didn't have to be as comprehensive and make all the arguments that it made, such as comparing same-sex unions to incestuous ones, in one controversial paragraph...

GIBBS: Well...

TAPPER: ...that's upset a lot of the president's supporters. Does the president stand by the content, the arguments made in that brief?

GIBBS: Well, again, it's the president's Justice Department. And, again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the president has stated and will work with Congress to change that law.

One more thing. The President will reportedly say tonight that he opposes DOMA. He's not going to oppose the law however, he's going to keep defending it in court. But in his heart he opposes it. Aw thanks.

Is Obama giving federal agencies a right they already have?
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/17/2009 02:59:00 PM
UPDATE: The answer is "yes." I just asked OPM Director John Berry, on a White House media conference call, whether in fact federal agencies already have the right to give these benefits to gay employees. The answer, "yes." So what's new about tonight? Obama is going to "tell" the agencies to give the benefits - as if any agency in the Obama administration would dare tell a gay employee no to a request for time off to attend their partner's funeral?
__________

We all now know that President Obama this evening will give some federal agencies the right to give some federal employees some benefits at some time in the future. The problem, as one reader writes, is that federal agencies already have that right, and in fact, are already providing the benefits. So what is President Obama actually giving us?

Regarding your latest post of the WH Fact Sheet -- here are some important facts that your readers may care to know.

The para (below) regarding "new" benefits available to domestic partners -- these benefits have been available for YEARS !!!!

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children.

Nothing new here.

1) See the OPM website which permits long term care to be extended "Qualified Relatives" that includes:

QUALIFIED RELATIVE- The term ‘qualified relative’ means each of the following:
The spouse of an individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4).
A parent, stepparent, or parent-in-law of an individual described in paragraph (1) or (3).
A child (including an adopted child, a stepchild, or, to the extent the Office of Personnel Management by regulation provides, a foster child) of an individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), if such child is at least 18 years of age.
An individual having such other relationship to an individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) as the Office may by regulation prescribe.

2) During the Clinton administration -- guidance was requested about whether sick leave could be used to take care of same-sex partners and/children. The answer came back that a federal employee could use their sick leave to take care of, attend doctor appointments, or even attend funerals for anyone who had the "close approximation of family". This was a guidance memo -- not policy -- but it has been available since the mid 1990's. The reason I know this is that I have worked for a DOD Agency for 23 years and even DOD allowed me to take sick leave to care for my partner and my non-bio child.

What a bunch of nothing.




White House announces what they're doing tonight, or not
by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/17/2009 12:55:00 PM
We just received from the White House some guidance on what the president is doing tonight regarding benefits for gay federal employees. It's not clear at all, other than the fact that day-to-day health care coverage (as compared to long-term care, i.e., getting old or infirm) is not included at all. What is included, well, they're not sure. The president is going to order the agencies to look at what benefits they can give us because, apparently, no one did it yet. Why not? Also, no mention of the military - are they getting benefits? Active duty members too? And if so, how are they going to get around DADT?

And, since this is a presidential memorandum, and not an executive order, some have suggested that it will sunset when Obama leaves office, leaving gay and lesbian employees out of luck again. Some fierce advocate.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2009

Fact Sheet: Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination

In an Oval Office event later today, President Barack Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination. The Memorandum follows a review by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management ant the Secretary of State regarding what benefits may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees in the civil service and the foreign service within the confines of existing federal laws and statutes.

Over the past several months, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State have conducted internal reviews to determine whether the benefits they administer may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees within the confines of existing laws and statutes. Both identified a number of such benefits.

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

The Presidential Memorandum to be signed today will request that the Director of OPM and the Secretary of State act to extend to same-sex partners of federal employees the benefits they have identified. The Memorandum will also request the heads of all other executive branch departments and agencies to conduct internal reviews to determine whether other benefits they administer might be similarly extended, and to report the results of those reviews to the Director of OPM.

The Memorandum will also direct OPM to issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.

PS Where's the apology for comparing us to incest and pedophilia, the commitment to actively work to repeal DOMA, DADT, the promise to oppose DOMA in court, and the institution of a stop-loss order?

Full Post

Posted Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:20 PM

Can Obama Win Back the Gay Community?

Holly Bailey

In what initially looked like a big deal for the gay community, the White House put out word last night that President Obama will sign a “memo” today to extend benefits to same sex partners of federal workers. Early reports suggested those benefits would include the right to health insurance, which, if true, would have gone far in soothing some of the tension between the White House and gay rights activists, who have accused Obama of breaking campaign promises to promote equality for gays and lesbians. But the president's move today likely won't be as far reaching as some had hoped.

While we still don’t know exactly what Obama will sign—he’s scheduled to sign the memo and talk to reporters at 5:45 this afternoon—it appears that whatever he does won’t go as far as providing health benefits. That’s because under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government cannot provide health insurance to same sex partners. And that’s where it gets very touchy. During the campaign, Obama vowed to repeal DOMA, calling it “abhorrent” and “unfair.” But last week the Obama Justice Department filed a legal brief in federal court defending DOMA against a lawsuit that claims the act is unconstitutional. In fact, in legal terms, the Obama aides equated same sex marriage to incest, a move that horrified gay rights groups including the Human Rights Campaign. Coupled with Obama’s silence on another campaign promise—his pledge to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military—several high-profile gay activists announced they would boycott a DNC fundraiser scheduled for next week featuring Vice President Joe Biden and several gay and lesbian members of Congress, including Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin. All the bad publicity prompted the White House to schedule Obama’s announcement today, though an administration official insisted to Newsweek that the “memo” had been in the works all along.

Indeed, privately, White House aides have been giving the wink and nudge treatment to the gay community for weeks, saying that Obama still believes everything he said in the campaign but he’s had to deal with other pressing issues. (Btw, that sounds a lot like what Obama has said about abortion.) But is that enough to keep the LGBT community on board with Obama? It’s unclear. The reaction to Obama’s “memo” has been pretty lukewarm so far. HRC, in a statement, described it merely as a “first brick.” But everybody is watching very closely to see what Obama will actually say. Will he repeat his vow to repeal DOMA in spite of last week's legal brief? That's one rumor going around today, though White House aides won't comment. Meanwhile, David Mixner, a prominent gay rights activist who campaigned for Obama, says he's still boycotting the fundraiser next week—unless he hears Obama say something amazing today. “I feel betrayed,” he told Newsweek in an interview this morning. “People are really angry.” He said it’s not enough for Obama and his aides to hint that they’ll do more for the gay community in the future. “We heard that during the Clinton years,” Mixner said. “Too many pressing issues? That’s code for never.”

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/06/17/can-obama-win-back-the-gay-community.aspx

Kreativ Blogger Award: "You like me, you really like me! ...

I needed a break from the political turmoil and this was a very nice surprise that was given to me by my pal Rebecca from
Truth And Love

Thank You.



Now I have to be honest and tell you this is the first time I ever heard of this Award but since I've never received anything in my entire 55 years of life I'm going to take it and run like hell with it.
Hopefully I have the rules correct and they won't kick my ass out!
Apparently I have to list 7 things I love, then list 7 blogs I love.


Seven things that make me happy.
( Please take note that I reserve the right to change the order of importance.
What seems like number 1 today could easily drop to a lower position like my testosterone level.

1. My Partner- Still together after 31 years. I hate to sound like a cliche but it really has to be about friendship and he’s still the guy I want to go to the movies with.


2 Our Son – My Son’s is a Cancer survivor (10 years)and I thank God and UCLA everyday.

3. Mario Lopez - Lets already establish that I’m a dirty old man and I need to take a COLD shower after posting his picture!



4. Caretaker – My partner and I have a Florence nightingale complex and we seem to take the care taking role very seriously and we're good at it.
We were fortunate enough to bring all four of our parents into our home for us to care for until their death. The first three died one year apart and my Italian Mother affectionately known as “Mama Terrorist” passed away a year and a half ago. True to form she was more work than all three of them put together! LOLO
Happiness is having NO regrets where our parents are concerned.

5. Our Dog- I've turned into one of those crazy dog nuts. Always had pets but this one makes me smile everyday.



6. GAY - Being A GAY BIG MOUTH WOP from Brooklyn with a mindset from the 60’s makes me extremely happy and irritating as hell to others.



7. Being 6 feet above ground instead of under.


My 7 Favorite Blogs

Pam’s House Blend
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/

Jaysays.com
http://jaysays.com/


AmericaBlog
http://www.americablog.com/


It’s a gay day (and night)
http://www.gaydayblog.com/

TUESDAYS
http://www.tuesdaysblog.com/

Dlisted
http://www.dlisted.com/

HuffingtonPost.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Obama Defends Doma: Betrayal Or A Really Bad Nightmare.

Author: Goombah
I'm posting as much information on this story as possible even though I'm desperately hoping that there will be some rational explanation for this total betrayal of the gay community by this president and his administration.
It's some sort of horrible joke from the far right or a nightmare that I can't seem to wake up from.
IF this is true it would be the worst betrayal that our community has ever had and by far more damaging than anything we have experienced from any politician including the far right.
I can't imagine that President Obama would approve of this.
Please Mr President come out of the closet and explain this to a community that overwhelmingly supported you.
I'm going to post as much information on this as possible and hope that soon there will be some sort of logical explanation. Why is there NO mention about this from the corporate media?

Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.

by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/12/2009 09:44:00 AM

UPDATE: Mormon Bush holdover helped write and file anti-gay DOMA brief.

UPDATE: Gay groups rip Obama.


UPDATE: Are gay politicians going to continue hosting gay pride fundraiser for Joe Biden?

UPDATE: Obama spokesman caught lying to Politico.

Joe and I have been trying since last night to get a copy of the government's brief just filed in this case. This is not the GLAD case that we've written about previously, it's another in California.

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.

Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.

Here is the entire document, and below are more excerpts:
Obama's Motion to Dismiss Marriage case

Publish at Scribd or explore others: obama doma

DOMA is good because it saves the feds money

"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 ("There is nothing irrational about Congress's stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal."); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) ("[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress' line drawing in this instance."). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."

DOMA is constitutional (thus screwing us on any future lawsuits):

The constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA is further confirmed by the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which expressly empowers Congress to prescribe "the Effect" to be accorded to the laws of a sister State. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, cl. 2. Although the broad contours of this provision have not been conclusively established, the power exercised by Congress in enacting DOMA clearly conforms to any conceivable construction of the effects provision....

Under this view, Congress obviously acted within its plenary effects power in enacting Section 2 of DOMA. If the Constitution itself does not declare "the effect" of the law of "one state in another state," McElmoyle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) at 325, but instead leaves that "power in congress," Mills, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) at 485, then Congress clearly had the authority in DOMA to declare that no State is "required to give effect" to the same-sex marriage laws of other States. 28 U.S.C. § 1738C.

"DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles." This is important because it means that Obama wasn't content to simply argue, based on technicalities, that this case should be thrown out. He went out of his way to argue that DOMA is actually constitutional, and then went into detail destroying every single constitutional argument we have for opposing DOMA in court. This will screw us on every lawsuit we file on every gay issue, in every public policy debate we have in the states on any gay issue.

DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles Plaintiffs further allege that DOMA violates their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, including its equal protection component. DOMA, however, merely preserves for each State the authority to follow its own law and policy with respect to same-sex marriage for purposes of State law. And it maintains the status quo of federal policy, preserving a longstanding federal policy of promoting traditional marriages, by clarifying that the terms "marriage" and "spouse," for purposes of federal law, refer to marriage between a man and a woman, and do not encompass relationships of any other kind within their ambit. Thus, because DOMA does not make a suspect classification or implicate a right that has been recognized as fundamental, it is necessarily subject to rational-basis scrutiny, see National Ass'n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000), which it satisfies.

Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states:

Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no.

Praises DOMA as "cautiously limited"

DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage.

Sounds to me like Obama just came out against the Loving v. VA case that ensured that people like his parents could marry

On the merits, plaintiffs' claims that DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause and their "right to travel" both fail as a matter of law. In allowing each State to withhold its recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, Congress was merely confirming longstanding conflict-of-laws principles in a valid exercise of its express power to settle such questions under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. That Clause ensures that each State retains the authority to decline to apply another State's law when it conflicts with its own public policies. DOMA is fully consistent with that constitutional principle, as it permits States to experiment with and maintain the exclusivity of their own legitimate public policies — such as whether that State chooses to recognize or reject same-sex marriages.

Gays don't deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities get

Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.

Argues Republican position on how judges should review cases

DOMA therefore must be analyzed under rational-basis review. Under the highly deferential rational basis standard, moreover, a court may not act as superlegislature, sitting in judgment on the wisdom or morality of a legislative policy. Instead, a legislative policy must be upheld so long as there is any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for it, including ones that the Congress itself did not advance or consider. DOMA satisfies this standard.

The twisted logic of this paragraph is sickening. Pat Robertson could have written this:

Likewise, Section 3 of DOMA merely clarifies that federal policy is to make certain benefits available only to those persons united in heterosexual marriage, as opposed to any other possible relationship defined by law, family, or affection. As a result, gay and lesbian individuals who unite in matrimony are denied no federal benefits to which they were entitled prior to their marriage; they remain eligible for every benefit they enjoyed beforehand. DOMA simply provides, in effect, that as a result of their same-sex marriage they will not become eligible for the set of benefits that Congress has reserved exclusively to those who are related by the bonds of heterosexual marriage. In short, then, the failure in this manner to recognize a certain subset of marriages that are recognized by a certain subset of States cannot be taken as an infringement on plaintiffs' rights, even if same-sex marriage were accepted as a fundamental right under the Constitution.

DOMA is a good thing:

It adopts on the national level, and permits on the state level, a wait-and-see approach to new forms of marriage. DOMA thus maximizes democratic flexibility under our federalist scheme, by simply preventing some States from requiring other States and the federal government to grant benefits to forms of marriages that, under their own constitutions, state or federal governments are not obligated to recognize. Because it is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, plaintiffs cannot overcome the "presumption of constitutionality" that DOMA, like all federal statutes, enjoys.

DOMA is rational and constitutional:

Its cautious decision simply to maintain the federal status quo while preserving the ability of States to experiment with new definitions of marriage is entirely rational. Congress may subsequently decide to extend federal benefits to same-sex marriages, but its decision to reserve judgment on the question does not render any differences in the availability of federal benefits irrational or unconstitutional.

Provides legal argument against gays' right to privacy:

Second, the right to privacy encompasses only rights that are constitutionally fundamental, and, as noted earlier, the right to receive benefits on the basis of same-sex marriage (as well as same-sex marriage itself) has not been recognized by the courts as a fundamental right.

It's reasonable and rational for Congress to defend "traditional" marriage - in fact, DOMA was actual a very "neutral" law, rather than anti-gay:

Section 3 of DOMA reflects just such an approach: it maximizes democratic flexibility and self-governance under our federalist system, by adopting a policy of federal neutrality with respect to a matter that is primarily the concern of state government. Because all 50 States recognize heterosexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage. At the same time, because Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States.

Again, Obama seems to states have the right to ban blacks from marrying whites:

[T]he public policy doctrine, which has long recognized the sovereign authority of the States to decline to give effect to the laws of a sister State at variance with their own legitimate public policy. Section 2 of DOMA merely confirms the specific applicability of that longstanding principle in the context of laws regarding same-sex marriage.

DOMA is entirely rational

Congress makes a wide array of federal financial and other benefits available to men and women united in marriage — to the exclusion of all other human relationships (save for that of parent and minor child), not just same-sex marriage. In enacting DOMA, Congress (1) recognized the right of some States to expand the traditional understanding of marriage while, at the same time, it (2) protected the rights of other States to adhere to their traditional understandings of the institution, and (3) maintained the longstanding federal policy of affording benefits to the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage. This measured response to society's evolving understandings of marriage is entirely rational. Indeed, under rational basis scrutiny, Congress is entitled to respond to new social phenomena one step at a time, and to adjust national policy incrementally. DOMA reflects just such a response.

DOMA wasn't motivated by a dislike of gays, silly.

Under our federalist system, preserving the autonomy of state and federal governments to address evolving definitions of an age-old societal institution is itself a legitimate governmental interest. Moreover, because DOMA protected "the ability of elected officials to decide matters related to homosexuality," including their right to recognize same-sex marriage, it plainly was not born solely as a result of animosity towards homosexuals.

Please don't confuse the gays with the blacks, and other "real" marriages:

Finally, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is appropriate policy, under current legal precedent there is no constitutional right to it, and that precedent is binding on these parties and this Court. While the Supreme Court has held that the right to marry is "fundamental," Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383-87, 98 S. Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978), that right has not been held to
encompass the right to marry someone of the same sex. To the contrary, in Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court dismissed a claim that the Constitution provides a right to same-sex marriage for lack of a "substantial federal question." 409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972) (Mem). In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected the contention that a State statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman violated federal due process and equal protection principles. The court found no "fundamental right" to same-sex marriage, 191 N.W.2d at 186-87, and concluded that the traditional definition of marriage effects no "invidious discrimination," and that the definition easily withstood rational-basis review. Id. at 187.

DOMA infringes on nobody's rights

In short, therefore, DOMA, understood for what it actually does, infringes on no one's rights, and in all events it infringes on no right that has been constitutionally protected as fundamental, so as to invite heightened scrutiny.

DOMA doesn't discriminate against gays - all they have to do to get the benefits is get married... to someone of the opposite sex! (This is an argument Obama stole verbatim from the religious right.)

Plaintiffs also maintain that DOMA discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of their right to the equal protection of the law, see Complaint, ¶ 20, but DOMA is not subject to heightened scrutiny on that basis. As an initial matter, plaintiffs misperceive the nature of the line that Congress has drawn. DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits. To the contrary, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in federal employment and in a wide array of federal benefits programs by law, regulation, and Executive order.... Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.

Please don't compare gay marriages to inter-racial marriages

Loving v. Virginia is not to the contrary. There the Supreme Court rejected a contention that the assertedly "equal application" of a statute prohibiting interracial marriage immunized the statute from strict scrutiny. 388 U.S. 1, 8, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to "interracial marriages involving white persons," was "designed to maintain White Supremacy" and therefore unconstitutional. Id. at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the "supremacy" of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be "traced to a . . . purpose" to discriminate against either men or women. Personnel Adm'r v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272, 99 S. Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). In upholding the traditional definition of marriage, numerous courts have expressly rejected an alleged analogy to Loving.

DOMA is downright reasonable

In light of society's still evolving understanding of marriage, the statute adopted what amounted to a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage. DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage their own States do not recognize. This policy of neutrality maximizes state autonomy and democratic self-governance in an area of traditional state concern, and preserves scarce government resources. It is thus entirely rational.

DOMA is reasonable and rational

Section 3 of DOMA reflects just such an approach: it maximizes democratic flexibility and self-governance under our federalist system, by adopting a policy of federal neutrality with respect to a matter that is primarily the concern of state government. Because all 50 States recognize heterosexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage. At the same time, because Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States. Given the strength of competing convictions on this still-evolving issue, Congress could reasonably decide that federal benefits funded by taxpayers throughout the nation should not be used to foster a form of marriage that only some States recognize, and that other States do not.

We wouldn't want the gays taking all of our money

DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review.

Obama was doing us a favor

On plaintiffs' view, even though Congress was under no independent constitutional obligation to recognize same-sex marriage before any State did so, once a single State legalized same-sex marriage, equal protection principles mandated that Congress extend federal benefits to such marriages, or withdraw them from all marriages. No constitutional principle, however, mandates such a result, which is fundamentally at odds with our federalist scheme of divided sovereignty, and which could be a substantial disincentive for States to recognize new rights and privileges as circumstances evolve.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

Obama's Minions Admirably Defend the Sanctity of DOMA in Federal Court

The Dept. of Justice, led by Eric Holder, is Barack Obama's personal litigation arm. So it should come as no surprise that, just as the Obama administration lobbied the Supreme Court not to hear a case regarding Don't Ask Don't Tell, it's also trying to get the first same-sex marriage case thrown out of federal court.

AP: "The U.S. Justice Department has moved to dismiss the first gay marriage case filed in federal court, saying it is not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by a couple already married in California. The motion, filed late Thursday, argued the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage. 'This case does not call upon the Court to pass judgment … on the legal or moral right of same-sex couples, such as plaintiffs here, to be married,' the motion states. 'Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") poses a different set of questions.'"

What you're seeing here is not (on its face) the federal government arguing against gay marriage — they just want to make sure it remains a state issue. And what they're tacitly doing as well? Defending the Defense of Marriage Act, by asking the federal court to toss the case because DOMA, as it stands, should keep these matters limited to state courts.

Either this means Obama has an awesome plan to repeal DOMA through Congress (and doesn't want the courts involved), or once again he's using taxpayer dollars to infringe upon our rights.

UPDATE: Upon further review by the smart folks at Americablog, it's clear Team Obama isn't just hoping to keep DOMA alive, but they've taken the position that gays=incest, DOMA is good for the nation (and neutral, not anti-gay!), DOMA is a good fiscal policy, gays have less of a right to privacy, and — here's the kicker — "DOMA, understood for what it actually does, infringes on no one's rights, and in all events it infringes on no right that has been constitutionally protected as fundamental, so as to invite heightened scrutiny."

This is the president we voted for?

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2009/03/obama-dont-doma-prop-8-h8.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.queerty.com/friday-forum-can-we-start-calling-obama-gay-friendly-yet-20090320/&usg=__AbSeVo50obxVvuCT-cjihyKeU9c=&h=309&w=400&sz=23&hl=en&start=1&sig2=jECKqpUmXf_iTSOJrRjgtg&um=1&tbnid=77EbiWi588puSM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3DObama%2Band%2BDoma%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1B3GGIT_enUS308US308%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1&ei=mpc0SpT6JZrqtQPjqfnUBg

As I add the different stories and links to this unfolding nightmare I must confess that I do so with a heavy heart. I'm still hoping that President Obama will make a statement concerning this issue and explain to our community that none of this is true.

Despite Not Supporting Your Marriages, Obama Says He's Your Friend!

Who's your BFF ever? President Obama! How do you know? Because he said so himself! Asked about whether GLBTs "who wish to marry" should consider the White House an ally, Barack Obama (who's whooping it up celebrating gay pride!) insists: "I think gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House because I've consistently committed myself to civil unions, making sure that they have to visit each other in hospitals, that they are able to access benefits, that they have a whole host of legal rights that they currently do not have. I don't think it makes sense for the federal government to get in the business of determining what marriage is. That isn't traditionally the federal government's role."

Indeed, President Obama believes friends let friends have separate but equal rights.
You probably want to go grab a beer with him now, right? It would give him another excuse to hold out on doing anything substantial on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

And he's right about that whole "federal government" thing. You see, traditionally presidents are too cowardly to push for equal rights, and instead let the Supreme Court do it.

So when it comes to this "friendship" Obama thinks he has with America's gay community? It's of the sort where you run into a guy at a party, promise to get together for lunch next week, and never see each other except on Facebook.

http://www.queerty.com/despite-not-supporting-your-marriages-obama-says-hes-your-friend-20090604/

Obama's Motion to Dismiss Marriage case

Publish at Scribd or explore others: obama doma

L.A. gay pride parade darkened by U.S. stance on marriage
As they celebrate the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the gay rights movement, gays feel let down by Obama.

Mayors Villaraigosa and Newsom take their side against Defense of Marriage Act.
By Michael Finnegan
June 15, 2009
The mayors of Los Angeles and San Francisco joined gay rights groups Sunday in raising concerns about the Obama administration's defense of a federal law restricting same-sex marriage.

"I think it's a big mistake," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said shortly before he and his Los Angeles counterpart, Antonio Villaraigosa, kicked off the annual L.A. Pride parade in West Hollywood.





The mayors, potential rivals in next year's Democratic primary for governor, were each careful to avoid direct criticism of President Obama.

But their mutual disapproval of a Justice Department brief filed Thursday in support of the Defense of Marriage Act comes amid growing discontent with Obama among gay rights groups.

The battle over same-sex marriage added a serious note to the West Hollywood celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village that launched the modern gay rights movement.

"I'm concerned about some of the arguments being made by the Justice Department," Villaraigosa told a cluster of news crews on Santa Monica Boulevard as motorcyclists in the "Dykes on Bikes" group revved their engines for the parade's start.

In his campaign for the White House, Obama pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed into law during his 1996 reelection campaign. The law bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and enables states to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

The Justice Department brief, filed in opposition to a federal lawsuit arguing that the law is unconstitutional, says the act "reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage."

It was filed by Assistant Atty. Gen. Tony West, who was a San Francisco fundraiser for Obama, and two other Justice Department lawyers.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, called the administration's defense of the law unacceptable.

The Defense of Marriage Act "is and has always been an immoral attack on same-sex couples, our families and our fundamental humanity," Carey said.

Other groups denouncing the brief included the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union.

White House spokesman Shin Inouye said the Justice Department, in submitting the brief, was following its normal practice of defending a law on the books in court.

"The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] couples from being granted equal rights and benefits," Inouye said.

"However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

Obama, he said, "remains fully committed" to his proposals on gay rights.

Gay rights groups have called on Obama to act more quickly on the major ones, including abandonment of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars gays in the armed forces from disclosing their sexual orientation.

Rodney Scott, president of Christopher Street West, the parade's chief sponsor, said he was "deeply saddened" that Obama's administration was defending the marriage law.

"That's not the president I voted for," he said as thousands of people lining Santa Monica Boulevard cheered the procession of marchers and floats.

Bill Rosendahl, a gay member of the Los Angeles City Council and early Obama supporter, was equally blunt.

"I'm very upset with him on everything he's done regarding us so far," he said.

Among those vowing to fight for the repeal of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that barred same-sex marriage in California, were Villaraigosa and Newsom.

"We're going to do everything we can," Villaraigosa said, "to put this issue back on the ballot."

michael.finnegan@

latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaypride15-2009jun15,0,1449845.story

The Prom Queen and the humorless gay community!

by goombah

I’m amused by the overreaction over the gay high school student that was voted prom Queen. (Below is the entire story)

I’m NOT surprised by the intolerance from the conservative blogs and message boards (which I expected) but I have been surprised and disappointed reading some of the comments on GAY message boards and blogs.

Who in the hell are these gay people that are so freaking uptight they can’t see the humor of High School kids having fun? What section of Gay 101 said every gay person is required to become a role model for the entire movement……

It seems there is a sizable segment of the gay population that wants to conform to all things hetro and turn the more flamboyant members of our community into vanilla lite.

Correct me if I'm wrong but during the civil rights movement in the 60’s, African Americans didn't try to look more white to gain acceptance instead they proudly displayed their heritage defiantly. Out went the hair straighter and in came the afro hairstyle, african head-gear ( Gele) etc, etc.

My point being if other minority groups can include all aspects of their community then why not us?

Who gave these self appointed behavior monitors the authority to define what is appropriate for national display?

This is NOT what the gay movement is about to me; we are the most diverse minority in the world and with that distinction comes a whole host of conflicting, inflammatory, funny, and inspiring images. I for one embrace all of them.

I refuse to be part of a movement that doesn’t include all aspects of gay life and if gaining our equally means bleaching our rainbow flags to beige and distancing ourselves from all aspects of gay life then you can count me out of the revolution.

Being Gay is not a choice, but living our lives the way we want is.

I agree with this story I found on the internet below:

…..On May 23, Sergio Garcia, an 18-year-old gay male student at Fairfax High School in Los Angeles, California, was crowed Prom Queen.

The LA Times reports that when the school put up notices about running for prom king and queen, Garcia felt that running for queen would “better suit his personality.” He said this about his choice…

"I see myself as a boy with a different personality. . . . I don't wish to be a girl; I just wish to be myself."

What started as somewhat of a joke or a stunt, soon became so much more. Sergio’s campaign generated and encouraged dialogue among students about gender roles and stereotypes.

A few days before the election, each nominee gave a short speech on why they felt they should be chosen as prom king or prom queen. Sergio made these comments to his classmates…

"At one time, prom may have been a big popularity contest where the best-looking guy or girl were crowned king and queen. Things have changed and it's no longer just about who has the most friends or who wears the coolest clothes.”

"Sure, I'm not your typical prom queen candidate. There's more to me than meets the eye."

“I will be wearing a suit, but don't be fooled, deep down inside, I am a queen!"

His speech was concluded with much applause and support from the audience. Not everyone supported his choice to run for prom queen, thinking that if he wanted to be involved he should have just run for king. Ultimately though, Sergio won over enough of his peers to be voted prom queen.

Virginia Uribe, founder of Project 10, (“an on-site support program for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth,” in schools, which started at Fairfax High in 1984 and has “since been expanded to encompass the entire Los Angeles Unified School District.”) made this statement…

“I think that indicates where our society is right now. That the young people, they are not involved in this whole argument about gay rights. They think this whole fight is silly. They just accept people for who they are," Uribe said. "Gender- bending is just kind of in."

Speaking of dialogue on gender roles, how do you feel about Sergio Garcia being elected prom queen? What do you think it says about the younger generation’s views on gender and gay rights and visibility? What do you think of the nature of electing prom kings and queens at all?

Here’s what I think. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a guy being elected prom queen. Why? Because he was elected. It was voted on by the students of Fairfax High School, and he won. They voted for him. If they wanted a female prom queen, they would have had one. I think it’s fabulous that his peers supported him and voted for him. I agree with Virginia Uribe that today’s younger generation is much more open and accepting of LGBTQ people and of those who bend gender norms. The further benefit of that point-of-view is that those are the values that they will one day teach their children, who will therefore also grow up with open minds and hearts, dedicated to the equal treatment of all people. I think that eventually, (most) people of all ages will automatically view LGBTQ people as equal to heterosexual people. As for prom kings and queens in general, I don’t think there’s really anything wrong with the tradition. I agree with Sergio that it has largely been a “popularity contest,” but using this story as an example of how even this “tradition” may be evolving is encouraging.

So, what do you think?

~Samantha

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/Mahayana/2009/5/29/A-Gay-Male-Prom-Queen

Openly gay teen voted prom queen at LA high school

Thu May 28, 7:43 pm ET

LOS ANGELES – An openly gay teen has been voted prom queen at his Los Angeles high school in a campaign that began as a stunt but ended up spurring discussion on the campus about gender roles and popularity.

Sergio Garcia said he felt "invincible" when he was crowned queen of the Fairfax High School dance at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel on Saturday.

Days before the dance, Garcia told fellow students that he was "not your typical prom queen candidate. There's more to me than meets the eye."

He also promised that he would be wearing a suit on prom night, but "don't be fooled: Deep down, I am a queen."

And he made good of that promise Saturday, wearing a gray tuxedo topped off with the prized tiara.

Garcia, 18, said he saw fliers advertising the prom and the election but they didn't specify that the queen must be female. He thought the role would suit him better than prom king.

"I don't wish to be a girl," he told the Los Angeles Times. "I just wish to be myself."

Senior class president Vanessa Lo said she and other students were initially against the idea but became convinced he wasn't just an attention-seeking clown.

"It just goes to show how open-minded our class is," Lo said.

Unique Payne, 17, said she voted for Garcia because she supported the gay community.

Although many students were supportive of Garcia's run, others were upset and didn't understand why Garcia chose to run for prom queen.

"I'm not really happy about that," said 17-year-old Juan Espinoza. "He should've run for prom king."

___

Information from: Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090528/ap_on_re_us/us_male_prom_queen

California Supreme court has lost its moral compass

I’m profoundly disappointed in the decision of the California Supreme Court but NOT surprised. The 6-1 decision to uphold discrimination and strip away rights from an entire class of people is shameful. Thank you Justice Carlos Moreno for your courage and eloquent dissent . Here are some interesting views on the subjects with their links.



What Did the One Dissenting Justice Say About Prop 8?
by Michael A. Jones

Published May 26, 2009 @ 10:59AM PT

Lest the news of Proposition 8 be the ultimate buzz kill for today (which it sort of is), it's worth reading the opinion from California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, who was the only judge dissenting in today's 6-1 decision upholding Proposition 8. Moreno, who was actually rumored to be on Obama's shortlist for the open Supreme Court vacancy that this morning went to Sonia Sotomayor, had this to say:
In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.
It's nice to know that at least one Judge has their wits about them. Proposition 8 contradicts California's equal protection clause.
Prop 8 lives on today, but there's no denying the fact that it smacks right up against California's constitutional guarantee of equal rights for all.
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/what_did_the_one_dissenting_justice_say_about_prop_8p[



Proposition 8 Ruling is a Catch 88
Tommy Christopher
Posted: 05/27/09

In rendering its decision to uphold Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court ignored not only their own precedent but their reason for existing. Upon advice of counsel, I decided to bite the bullet and try to wade through the 136-page Prop 8 decision to find out where the whole thing went wrong. After doing so, I can only conclude than that the court wrote their decision to fit a pre-ordained outcome.

That outcome was best described by Below the Beltway's Doug Mataconis (and others, I'm sure) as "splitting the baby," a reference to the story of Solomon as directed by Quentin Tarantino.

In order to arrive at this decision, the court faced a number of obstacles, but I have isolated the moment at which they went from torturing logic to putting it out of its misery.

As Ed Rawls noted, the court rests its entire decision on the distinction between a constitutional amendment and a revision. This is sleight of hand, however, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion. The real issue is whether Proposition 8 violates the inalienable rights of liberty and due process. If it does, then Proposition 8 is necessarily a revision, not an amendment. Furthermore, the distinction is rendered moot, because it is unconstitutional on its face.

To illustrate, you couldn't amend, revise, or Martinize a constitution to legalize the murder of a certain class of people.

The court had already ruled, in the Marriage Cases, that marriage inequality makes same-sex couples a suspect class, that it violates the privacy, liberty, and due process clauses of Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court even cites, extensively, the decision in the Marriage Cases.

Furthermore, in the Marriage Cases, the court made a clear distinction between the right to marry, and the right to be afforded the rights and privileges of marriage without calling it marriage, which already existed. In other words, the point of the Marriage Cases was the right to marry, not the right to separate but equal marriage. That means that the Prop 8 court had to escape its own precedent in order to uphold Prop 8.

In order to do so, the court relied on this bit of Orwellian logic: (page 34-35)
Because in common speech the term "right to marry" is most often used and understood to refer to an individual's right to enter into the official relationship designated "marriage," and in order to minimize potential confusion in the future, instead of referring to this aspect of the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process as "the constitutional right to marry," hereafter in this opinion we shall refer to this constitutional right by the more general descriptive terminology used in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases - namely, the constitutional right to establish, with the person of one's choice, an officially recognized and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.
In other words, just because you have the right to marry doesn't mean you get to call the product of that marrying a marriage. It would be like a defense attorney saying, "Just because my client murdered the victim doesn't mean you get to call it a murder. We prefer soul/body disunion."

There are a host of other problems with this decision, but this is the poisonous tree.

As Rawls points out, Judge Moreno's dissenting opinion clearly explains how the majority has given undue deference to the amendment as "the will of the people":
The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent. ...

The equal protection clause is therefore, by its nature, inherently countermajoritarian. As a logical matter, it cannot depend on the will of the majority for its enforcement, for it is the will of the majority against which the equal protection clause is designed to protect. Rather, the enforcement of the equal protection clause is especially dependent on "the power of the courts to test legislative and executive acts by the light of constitutional mandate and in particular to preserve constitutional rights, whether of individual or minority, from obliteration by the majority."
Finally, the court's contention that Prop 8 doesn't violate Article 1, Section 7, but rather "carves out a narrow exception," is a terrifying prospect. Will the court approve future amendments to re-dub children of same-sex unions "fagbabies," or to narrowly exempt individuals in same-sex unions from the designation "human?"

The California Supreme Court has twisted itself into disgraceful knots in order to avoid doing its job. Perhaps in a thin-skinned attempt to avoid the label of "activist," they have created a new one, the "inactivist court."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/27/proposition-8-ruling-is-a-catch-88/




Prop 8: California Gays are Now 2nd and 3rd Class Citizens

The California Supreme Court’s ruling has created a new, lower class for its gay citizens to occupy. 1st class is for teh straightz! Lotsa legroom and right to get married, plus a velvety sleep mask. 2nd class are the 18,000 gay couples who lucked out and got married before the passage of Prop 8. They get a bag of peanuts and a TV to share with the whole row.
Then, there are the 3rd class, teh regular gays, who get stuffed in the luggage compartment.
In all seriousness, I do wonder if a mini-martyr-movement will spring up, with married LGBTQ people burning their marriage certificates in solidarity with their unmarried brethren and sethren. Maybe, or maybe just burning a symbolic copy.
This is the problem with “splitting the baby.” You just make a bloody mess.
P.S. This guy is dead wrong. Prop 8 may indeed be good for gay marriage in the long run, but not for the reason he says. Kicking the ball back to voters is the opposite of progress, and the essence of the flaw in the court’s ruling.
If Prop 8 is good for gay marriage in the long run, it will be because it brings on a successful equal protection challenge in the US Supreme Court.


http://tommychristopher.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/prop-8-california-gays-are-now-2nd-and-3rd-class-citizen

California Prop 8 Took Civil Rights Away - but legally.

26 May 2009 One Comment Author: jaysays

The California Supreme Court released its opinion in Strauss v. Horton, today to a roar of dissatisfaction from marriage equality supporters. Although the Court was not asked to rule on “gay marriage” directly, the process by which a constitutional revision/amendment can be made was questioned. In so focusing on the procedural aspects of Proposition 8, the Court, almost wholly, lost touch with the humanitarian aspects of Proposition 8.

While 18,000 marriages sat waiting to hear whether or not they were “valid” in the eyes of the law, hundreds of thousands of future unborn marriages waited to hear whether they would be allowed to be made. The California Supreme Court answered, essentially, that the will of the majority, tyrannical or not, supersedes the future rights of a minority:

Neither the language of the relevant constitutional provisions, nor our past cases, support the proposition that any of these rights [constitutional right to equal protection of the laws and equally long-standing and fundamental constitutional principles whose purpose is to protect often unpopular individuals and groups from overzealous or abusive treatment that at times may be condoned by a transient majority] is totally exempt from modification by a constitutional amendment adopted by a majority of the voters through the initiative process.

As I read the court’s opinion written by Justice C. J. George with concurring opinions from Justices Kennard Baxter, Chin and Corrigan, I keep looking for the “but.” Seems the Court painted the opinion with language about the rights of people and long-standing principles to protect people from a “transient majority” while finding that majority has the right to tyrannize the minority class - so WHERE’S THE BUT!?

The only “but” came in the concurring and dissenting opinion written by Justice Moreno:

The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.

Justice Moreno seems to be the only Justice that recognized that a “right” had been stripped from the people and focused his attentions, not on solely the procedures of stripping away rights, but that rights were indeed, taken away.

To put that another way, let’s assume that you suddenly lost your first amendment right to free speech. Suddenly, you could no longer “say” what it was you wanted to say. The Court comes back and says, “Sure, the majority took away your right, but they did so within the confines of the law.” Is it solace that the “letter of the law” was followed to remove those rights?

So, to Justice Moreno for understanding that this is not just a issue, this is not just a revision issue, this is not just an amendment issue, this is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, I tip my hat.

http://jaysays.com/2009/05/california-prop-8-took-civil-rights-away-but-legally-repealprop8-prop8/