Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congressman Frank Corrects Media Reports on his Response to DOMA Brief

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 10:52 AM
Original message
Congressman Frank Corrects Media Reports on his Response to DOMA Brief
I felt this needed its own post rather then just an update post in another thread so here goes

When I was called by a newspaper reporter for reaction to the administrations brief defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, I made the mistake of relying on other peoples oral descriptions to me of what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first. It is a lesson to me that I should not give in to press insistence that I comment before I have had a chance fully to inform myself on the subject at hand.

Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.

It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bushs refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example. It is the Presidents job to try to change the law, but it is also his obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.
I strongly opposed DOMA when it was adopted and I will continue to fight for changes. I support very strongly the lawsuit brought by the people at Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) that make the cogent argument that DOMAs provision denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages blatantly violates the equal protection clause. And I will work with the Obama administration as they have promised to do to enact laws protecting LGBT people from hate crimes, from job discrimination, and from discrimination in the military. I will also be critical when I think inappropriate language is used. But after rereading this brief, I do not think that the Obama administration should be subject to harsh criticism in this instance.

http://www.house.gov/frank/pressreleases/2009/06-17-09-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Barney Frank is a homophobe. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. Barney Frank! A homophobe!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
55. barney Frank is a homophobe!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Oh, Good Lord!
You don't know his history, do you?

Barney Frank is nowhere NEAR being a homophobe!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. lol. seriousness is the refuge of the shallow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. That is what reasonable and rational DUers have been saying.
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 10:57 AM by merh
They are called homophobes and they are mocked and ridiculed.

Will that same thing happen to Barney Frank now?

Or will apologies be forth coming?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Its mostly what i have been arguing myself
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 10:59 AM by Bodhi BloodWave
so i am relieved when somebody of Franks stature agrees with my stance after having read it

John Aravosis seems to have tossed Franks under the proverbial buss tho(when it comes to this case atleast)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Avarosis' writings about the Smelt brief have been filled with distortions and lies
He apparently writes because he doesn't litigate which is a good thing given his intepretation of the brief and his ignorance of case law and legal issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Yeah. He always has to include that "me and Joe are lawyers." BFD
so is half the population, many of which are ambulance chasing lowlifes.

I have to add that I am not desparaging attorneys in general. I'm one of the few people who respect good attorneys and think they do a great service to the country, with the exception of Aravosis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Seriously, Yoo, Beebe and others are lawyers too
That isn't saying much.

His poor interpretation of the brief and his twisting of it and prior case law is pretty disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well.......
Probably not, and I'm not one to use that kind of response anyway so I probably am not a good person to answer. What I will say is that I've found Frank's approach to often be at odds with much of the community. He's as responsible for DADT as anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
41. Wow....just wow. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
69. how long before barn is labeled as a "self loathing sellout"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #69
72. I believe that some in this thread are labeling him as such.
That is why the author's of the blogs that inaccurately portrayed the brief did such a disservice to the civil rights movement. They created a divide that was not necessary. I would hope that those same writers would take the time to go through the congressional report on DOMA and would shame congress for the language found in same. Let today's congress make a choice, either they agree with that hateful and stupid report or they reject it and DOMA.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
5. I won't call him a homophobe but I will call him wrong
He, like many others, are conflating the existance of the brief with the contents of the brief. Had the DOJ written a brief that argued that the plaintifs lacked standing I wouldn't have said one, single solitary word. Had they merely argued standing and that marriage is an issue different issue than other civil rights I likely wouldn't have said a word about that. Instead they wrote a brief that will be used to argue against any and every advancemnt for gay rights till the end of time with the words even the Obama administration says . . . That is what we are pissed about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. You have shown that you don't understand the civil rights issues.
That you haven't a clue about the fight for equality that has been on going for centuries.

And what you and other critics miss about that brief is a simple truth, it DOES NOT argue against the validity of same sex marriages. The conflicts of law portion of the brief, the part that has been twisted by bigots who say it is comparing gays to pedophiles and incest, is acknowledging the validity of same sex marriages as conducted in states that have passed laws to allow it. The previous admin would never recognize as valid a same sex marriage. The previous admin used the repugnant argument (which cannot be found in the Smelt brief) that children of raised in heterosexual married households are better off than those raised in same sex households.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. actually that isn't what I was referring to, as you well know because we have had this discussion
before. My main problem with the brief was the dismissal of gays as a suspect class or even quasi suspect class which will have bad effects for decades to come. Again, I have made that crystal clear in posts which you responded to. And yes, I do know that using that standard makes the 14th amendment not apply to gays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. Um, why would you even qualify not calling him a homophobe. He is openly gay!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. read the OP and first post
it is their word, not mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
51. Do you not understand sarcasm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
66. without facial expressions and voice intonation, yes...
unless i know the person who is being sarcastic real well.

You need an emoticon here if you want people to recognize your sarcasmic jokes...

:eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. Unless Barney Frank sets a new record in self-loathing, there's no way he's a homophobe.
You don't need to see facial expressions or hear voice intonations to get the sarcasm in that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
6. He STILL needs to point out that this was NOT the (Obama) administration's brief
The brief was filed by DOJ (theoretically, a NON-PARTISAN, IMPARTIAL federal agency) upholding a lawfully enacted federal statute (the contents of which I'm NOT defending BTW) and which had NOTHING to do with President Obama whatsoever.
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Did you see Gibbs' statement?
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 11:19 AM by Starry Messenger
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/todays-...

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.


Sounds like Gibbs doesn't agree with you.

edit: removed apostrophe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. It may be the "President's DOJ"
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 11:45 AM by Proud Liberal Dem
insofar as Holder, an appointee of President Obama, is the head official (Attorney General) of a FEDERAL AGENCY and Obama happens to be POTUS right now (which is probably what Gibbs meant). However, as other people have pointed out here, according to federal statute, Presidents don't sign off on briefs (or even hear about them in most cases) unless the case has to do with national security issues or other critical issues related to their official duties. If I'm wrong about this, please direct me to the correct information and, please, give me some examples from the Clinton/Gore administration of Clinton's DOJ refusing to uphold challenges to existing federal laws.

And, really, WHAT was Gibbs supposed to say in his role as WH spokesman? "No, we don't have to/want to defend that law because President Obama doesn't like it"? :shrug: He also SAID, according to the excerpt you provided, that President Obama supports a repeal of the law, which he himself has consistently stated (just the other day in fact). So, WHY exactly would he be supporting a brief supporting DOMA, in a particularly offensive way no less, when he actually doesn't even support the law and wants to get rid of it? What's the operating theory out there about this seemingly glaring contradiction? Weakness? Cowardice? Duplicity? I would be interested in knowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. I addressed the point I came to address.
Why? I'm not sure either. It would be nice for the President to address that point. I'm interested in knowing as well. There's a lot of speculation out there and the silence is getting painful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. I am so sick of this ludricrious argument
Yes, the DOJ has some level of independence but the notion that a politically sensitive appellate case didn't get some polticial vetting (it was signed by an Obama appointee) is absurd. It is the job of the political appointees of the DOJ to be sure the President's legal philosophy is represented accurately in court. It is his administration's brief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. So you approved of Yoo's and Beebe's memos
finding that the GCs and the federal laws against torture didn't apply and that Bush could legalize torture and abuse because he was CnC.

You have no problems with them "making law" or advising that others could ignore the law because, in their view, the laws did not apply to bush and the admin and violated the constitutional duties of the Cnc in a time of war? You have no problem with them acting without first going to the courts and getting the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the laws?

It is the DOJ's brief, they are to defend and enforce the laws of the USA, the USA includes Congress. Laws are deemed constitutional until the courts rule that they are unconstitutional. Dealing with the facts will help you better fight against injustice.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. my problem isn't with the existance it is with the content
and again, you know this because we have discussed it before. They had no business whatsoever including arguments that gays aren't a suspect class in that brief. It wasn't needed and will set back gay rights by decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. That is standard argument on the equality issue.
If you accepted the fact that a woman is a minority and if you were truly involved in the Equal Rights fight as you like to think and claim, you would know that women have been struggling to be considered part of the protected class that is afforded the "increasingly strict review" by the courts.

To tell you that the contents are not what you make them out to be is not to tell you to not be angry, it is to tell you to use facts and to try to understand the law and the legal arguments made.

One must understand these things to argue against them and to change them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. sorry but that is baldly false
women are in a quasi suspect class you are out and out lying when you state that that brief is giving the same standard of scrutiny to gays as current is operative with women. I think women should be beneficiaries of strict scrutiny and suspect class but you are lying when you say they are currently on an equal legal footing with gays or that brief. You might, just might, wish to take some time way from giving me civic lessons and use it to study civics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. It is not an lie.
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 12:15 PM by merh
How funny that you defend the lies of ameriblog and others while trying to explain your own ignorance of the law and the facts.

And worse yet, you distort my post. I can see the trouble here, you don't understand what is written, you just take what you want in the words and twist them.

The brief is arguing that same sex partners should not be considered the protective class that is afforded people of race, national original and religious affiliation. It is arguing that laws relating to same sex marriages should only be required to meet the standard that there be a "rational basis" for the law, just as gender discrimination cases are reviewed. That is where the conflicts of laws argument comes into play in the brief, that is to say that one state can refuse to recognize the lawful marriage recognized in another state if it believes the marriage to violate public policy.

Now for me to explain to you the legal argument and the use of case law is not to defend the brief or the positions it advocates. It is to explain to you why the arguments are made so that they can be properly challenged.

What that brief argues incorrectly is that the laws of the states have always held that marriage is between a man and woman. That is easily disproven if one were to look at the laws passed by states over the last 10 years that specifically define marriage as such. There is the "common law practice" and there is the statutory or constitutional law as written and adopted. The author does not makes the distinction and reaches flawed conclusions.

What the brief does not do, as has been done in the past under the previous administration, is argue that no same sex marriage is valid. It does not argue that children are better off if raised by hetrosexual parents as was argued by the previous admin. The Smelt brief recognizes as valid same sex marriages.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. that is baldly false
gender discrimination is subject to intermediate scrutiny not rational basis. It is established case law. You are evidently wholly ignorant of that which you accuse me of being ignorant of. Here is my link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_class

Intermediate Scrutiny
When intermediate scrutiny is involved, the courts are more likely to uphold the discriminatory law, particularly if it is based on real, fact-based, biological differences between the sexes, as opposed to sex-based stereotypes.


Rational Basis
When rational basis review is used, the government is, essentially, being given broad authority to enact discriminatory laws against that particular class, e.g. criminals. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court used rational basis review to strike down an anti-gay law in Romer v. Evans,<4> and did so again in Lawrence v. Texas.<5>

In reviewing discriminatory laws against independent or minor political party-affiliated citizens, (i.e. ballot access, debate participation and bans on electoral fusion) the Supreme Court has often claimed to be using strict or intermediate basis of scrutiny, but the result tends to show a level of deference to the government normally equated with rational basis.

end of quote

I said above and will say again, that women deserve strict scrutiny but they are a step above both the current law and that brief in regards to gays. As to the rest, they don't argue the stuff about children because they stick to benefits just give them time I am sure that will make a comeback when the case is about marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Go to page 32 of the brief.
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 01:01 PM by merh
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dis...

How does page 32 read???

D. DOMA Satisfies Rational Basis Review


You are mistaken and using wiki to prove something proves how uninformed you are and how weak your arguments.

Here read a more valid source:

With the defeat of the ERA, constitutional interpretation in the area of sex discrimination has been largely based on the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1971, in Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 92 S. Ct. 251, 30 L. Ed. 2d 225, the Supreme Court extended the application of the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the Fourteenth Amendment to gender-based discrimination in striking down an Idaho law that preferred men to women as probate administrators.

In Reed the Court appeared to be moving toward making sex a "suspect classification" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION doctrine holds that laws classifying people according to race, ethnicity, and religion are inherently suspect and are subject to the STRICT SCRUTINY test of JUDICIAL REVIEW. Strict scrutiny forces the state to provide a compelling state interest for the challenged law and demonstrate that the law has been narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose. Although strict scrutiny is not a precise test, it is far more stringent than the traditional RATIONAL BASIS TEST, which requires only that the government offer a reasonable ground for the legislation. Therefore, making sex a suspect classification would have dramatically improved the chances that sexbased laws would be struck down.

The Supreme Court, however, has declined to make sex a suspect classification. Nevertheless, it has invalidated a number of sex-based policies under a "heightened scrutiny" or "intermediate scrutiny" test. In Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976), the Court articulated its intermediate standard of review for sex-based policies. According to this test, "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives." Presumably, this test is stricter than the rational basis test but less strict than the compelling state interest test.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/10196/Sex-Discrimination-Jud...


And again, to try to explain to you the legal arguments as presented is not defending the arguments. There is a huge difference between "explain" and "defend". For one to properly defeat or overcome the arguments one has to understand them first. You told a female poster she was not a minority that makes it pretty clear you do not understand the Equal Rights struggles that have been on going for decades.

I believe DOMA is unconstitutional, I see using the weaknesses of the arguments in the brief to the opponents advantage and I see that by understanding the arguments.

Equal Rights should be for all, excluding those who have been battling for them for decades harms that struggle. Realizing that the fight for gender rights is the same battle for same sex rights will better enable you to champion the rights - to fight the fight.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. I never said they said women were a suspect class
I said they were a quasi suspect class and even your link states in black and white, that laws which discriminate on the basis of gender are subject to intermediate scrutiny which is again exactly and precisely what I said. You are either incapable of reading or out and out lying about what I said, you can pick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Wrong again - read the full article that was linked
Equality issues for women have been viewed using the various standards, no one standard applies and the last case discussed notes that SCOTUS does not apply the intermediate scrutiny standard.

See, you would rather continue to attack me and call me a liar than admit your mistakes and/or read to understand the source material provided.

In other cases, however, the Court has upheld gender-based policies. In one of its most controversial decisions, ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S. Ct. 2646, 69 L. Ed. 2d 478 (1981), the Court upheld the constitutionality of a male-only draft registration law, the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) of 1980 (50 U.S.C.A. App. 451 et seq.). In his majority opinion, Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST rejected the idea that the MSSA violated the FIFTH AMENDMENT by authorizing the president to require the registration of males and not females. Rehnquist noted that the statute involved national defense and military affairs, an area that the Court had accorded the greatest deference. He concluded that Congress had not acted unthinkingly or reflexively in rejecting the registration of women. He pointed out that the question had received national attention and was the subject of public debate in and out of Congress.

Rehnquist noted that "women as a group, unlike men as a group, are not eligible for combat" under statute and established policy. These combat restrictions meant that Congress had a legitimate basis for concluding that women "would not be needed in the event of a draft." Therefore, there was no need to register women. The law did not violate equal protection because the exemption of women from registration was closely related to the congressional purpose of registration as a way to "develop a pool of potential combat troops." In upholding the draft law, the Court avoided applying the intermediate scrutiny test.


So stop with your pathetic attacks and realize we are on the same side, I just see the big picture and you have closed your mind the facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. The military is different and you well know it
The military is permitted to ban yamokas which would get any other entity a huge lawsuit that they would lose. I would bet a huge sum you can't find any non military cases from the modern era which doesn't apply intermediate scrutiny. Oh and since you didn't like wiki here is another link which again, agrees with me.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw...

By the 1980s, attention shifted from racial segregation in the public schools to separate education based on gender. In the 1982 case of Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the Court narrowly found the female-only admission policy at a state nursing school to be a denial of equal protection of the laws to a male who had sought admission to the program. The Court said the Mississippi could not justify the policy as an affirmative action program because it failed to show Mississippi females were disadvantaged in seeking nursing jobs--in fact, the evidence suggested that the policy had the effect of reinforcing gender stereotypes. The Court hinted that a female-only admission policy for a business or engineering school might have fared better. iThen, in 1996, the Court found Virginia to be in violation of the Constitution in the closely-watched case of United States v. Virginia, a challenge to the male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute. The Court ruled that a somewhat similar program for women, the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership, was not "substantially equal" to the program of VMI, as required by the Equal Protection Clause.




In Rostker v Goldberg, the Court, by a 6 to 3 vote, rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment's equal protection aspect was violated by the Selective Service Act in its "authorizing the President tp require the registration of males and not females." Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion emphasized that congressional decisions affecting the military were due great deference. The Court nonetheless applied heightened scrutiny. It found the law substantially furthered the government's important interest in raising a combat-ready military. Accepting the government's contention that women are less suitable for combat, the Court concluded that the "classification is not invidious, but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. It is about women in the military and you know that.
And the argument in the brief is about a suspect class, not a protected class. Each case is argued as an individual case, just like each case is decided on an individual basis using case law as supportive law when necessary.

As I said, explaining the brief and the law is not defending it, it is explaining it. I try to do so without personally insulting you as you so enjoy doing in your posts to me. The arguments in the brief are valid legal arguments which have been argued to the courts for years. Don't agree with them, understand them and use facts and your wits to attack them, not emotions and insults.

I understand the brief is considered insulting to many. I find it insulting and I resent the hell out of the fact that you don't recognize women as a minority, I resent the hell out of the fact that I have yet to read a post by an LGBT member that says "Equal for all, means all LGBT citizens and womean" - I resent the hell out of no one pushing the Equal Rights Amendment through all of this, and amendment that would restore the rights to all and would defeat DOMA and DADT.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Women are not a minority as I have been told several times
when I have called them one. They are the majority of people. but I clearly said that gender discrimination should be subject to strict scrutiny in this thread so your clear implication that I don't find discrimination against women objectionable is false. Oh and go tell some of our lesbian posters that they don't support equal rights to their face, bet you don't have the guts. You have repeatedly told bald faced lies about what I said and I have had enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Oh dear god, you need to stop now.
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 02:50 PM by merh
Stop digging the hole you will never be able to climb out of .

We are talking the law - yes, population wise, women are a majority - when it comes to equality, we have a minority status and don't even rate as a "suspect class" - we have protections, just not all of the protections. See, posts like the one you just made, the one I am responding to now prove you don't comprehend what you read. It goes over your head. It discusses that women are a minority, that gender rights are not equal.

Point to me where anyone in the LGBT community has posted about the Equal Rights Amendment and the common plight that women and LGBT community face when it comes to enjoying equal rights.

And stop with the name calling and insults, it is childish and it reflects badly on you than it does on me. You are better than that.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
52. So we should have the Justice Department running through political channels now?
You really, really want justice to be applied with a political filter?

Sounds awfully Bush-era to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. Bless you Barney, I know that was not an easy thing to do....
.... his comments will probably anger a lot of his friends and supporters.

Perhaps we all need to follow his lead and read the thing.

I'll admit I had to read some of the passages a few times to fully understand them, but read it I did.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dis...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
10. ROLF! Whatever will AmericaBlog say about Frank now?
Damn betrayer! He's going down.

:*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Atleast one will say this
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 11:23 AM by Bodhi BloodWave
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/barney-frank-throws-...

4 parts as is the permitted limit

Well, it seems a trip to the Oval Office is all openly gay congressman Barney Frank needs to stab his community in the back. After criticizing the DOJ's anti-gay DOMA brief this morning, Frank did a 180 this evening and lauded the brief, which invoked incest and pedophilia. Frank now thinks the brief is just super.
-snip-
Did you catch that? Barney Frank, our senior gay elected representative, and a lawyer himself, claims that he was giving legal opinions on a legal brief that he hadn't even read. At least Joe and I, who are also lawyers, read the brief before commenting on it. How many other issues has Barney opined on about which he's been knowingly willfully ignorant? (Of course, I don't believe Frank for a minute - he read the brief, but the president got him to recant.)
-snip-
Barney is far too smart to be this stupid. Perhaps Barney is worried that everyone is dropping like flies from his DNC gay fundraiser next week. More likely, President Obama made him an offer he couldn't refuse. And before you think Obama promised some gay rights advance, he could have just as easily promised Frank a highway project in his district, or a presidential appearance at his next campaign fundraiser.
-snip-
Actually, there's another document Congressman Frank didn't bother reading before commenting on. He didn't bother doing a Google search on what our president has actually said about DOMA. Obama didn't say he disagrees politically with DOMA. He said he thinks it's abhorrent and discriminatory. Big difference. So now, according to our hero in congress, our civil rights are just "politics" - and we really don't want our president arguing in favor of our civil rights in court. Astounding. Simply astounding.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. So, a bunch of conjecture imagining what happened between Frank and Obama.
And of course, don't forget the "Joe and I, who are also lawyers,..." line.

Lawyers have different opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. That seems a very accurate view of Aravosis blog i think(well done cutting it down to 3 lines) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
62. Anyone who disagrees with Aravosis is a homophobe. Sorry Barney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
17. Barney is a good soldier
He knows how much the DNC stands to lose if this fundraiser collapses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. ---->
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
43. LOL!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
67. Oh my God!! I don't know whether to laugh or pity the fools who truly feel this way!!
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 08:48 PM by Number23
Best post EVER

Oh, my sides!! Oh my God!! :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
54. He is now the President's bitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. Eh, I still have some respect for the guy
But, just like Obama, he's a politician first, everything else second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. I could easily get my respect for him back, but it's gone now.
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 03:20 PM by GodlessBiker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. Well it seems everyone is throwing everyone under the bus. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
29. RTFM
Any Information Technology professional could tell you that's a good way to help you get things right the FIRST time.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
44. As Obama has said in the past, "He likes to know what he's talking about."
Barney missed it yesterday...he understood it today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
36. Thank Goodness and Barney Frank! There's so much
misinformation around here that people jump on..it's really nice to have some of it cleared up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Tiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
37. I knew Barney knew better! K & R! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. Stop reading my mind. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
38. It's too bad so many believed this lie
in the first place ,but the truth is starting to prevail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #38
64. It's interesting though
People will believe something without hesitation or question because it reinforces their world view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
39. I knew Barney Frank knew better. Thanks for this..bookmarked and K*Red. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
48. kick. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
53. Yet average DUers that said the EXACT same thing - labelled as homophobe
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Yup. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #53
63. Name calling is the last resort of those who can't win a debate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
65. Well well well. Imagine that. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solstice Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
70. Barney can rationalize it all he wants. I'll remain just as critical of Obama for what I see as his
total failure on this issue.

All the bullies on this site can gang up on me and pretend things are just hunky dory - I don't give a shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
71. Time to retire Barney...if you're so out of touch you can defend this..
...your time in the sun has come and gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC