'Happy Loving vs Virginia Day! (And How Obama Just Lost My Support)'

[Bluebear]

from a kos diarist, in answer to the "only the far loony left wing of DU is upset about this" crowd:


=====
As some you know, today in 1967, the Supreme Court struck down state law prohibitions on interracial marriage, securing marriage equality for couples regardless of what state they resided in. Loving v. Virginiawas a landmark civil rights case, akin to Brown v. Board of Education, and came at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans did not support these couples' right to marry one another.

The courage of the Court to buck national opinion on the matter is a stark contrast to the Obama Administration's cowardice in standing up for gay and lesbian equal rights.

In fact, the Administration's actions go beyond mere cowardice. They are despicable and hypocritical. Taking our money and labor in one moment, then stabbing us in the back the next.

I learned today that the DOJ has filed multiple briefs to dismiss lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. In these briefs, the Obama Administration argues that DOMA is perfectly constitutional, there is no fundamental right to marriage, and that states should be allowed to restrict gay marriage just as they restrict marriage to minors and incest.

What is so troubling about these briefs is that they are so avoidable. First, the Obama DOJ could have simply argued that since DOMA is unconstitutional, it will decline to uphold the law. This would not be an unusual move as every president since Reagan has made these arguments, and the Obama DOJ has made similar arguments regarding the federal prohibition against medical marijuana licensing.

Second, even if the administration didn't want to draw the line in the sand over this issue here and now, it had the option to argue against the suits on technicalities. The DOJ could have raised "improper standing", or some other issue, and avoided taking sides on the matter. But that's not what Obama did.

Call it the Audacity of Nope....My time and money will no longer go to helping him pursue his agenda.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/12/741698/-Happy-Loving-Day!-(And-How-Obama-Just-Lost-My-Support)

[Bluebear]

1. whiner!

:)

[Kitsune]

2. .....wow.

I didn't think it was possible for me to be more pissed off, but dang.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kath]

4. Hey, don't be mad!

Obama's just playing chess - his brilliance knows no bounds.

"The Audacity of Nope" - love it.

[nichomachus]

5. The only problem is

it's not a chess match.

[Bluebear]

7. Plus his puppy is cute

[kath]

8. And his wife is wonderful, and she wears such cute clothes, and...

[Dragonfli]

20. ...and he's just soooo Dreamy Isn't he? (as I swoon and faint on the floor)

[kath]

25. Yeah, well don't mention Tiger Beat, 'cuz it makes some people pissed.

:eyes:

[bvar22]

9. Chess...

A game where pawns are sacrificed to protect Royalty.



...Sucks if you're a pawn.

[leftstreet]

10. "A game where pawns are sacrificed to protect Royalty"

Say it loud!

:thumbsup:

[Rockholm]

17. Him's smart.

He's a homophobe at heart. It is now so frigging obvious.

[Dragonfli]

18. How many pawns does the master have to sacrifice to win this "game" again?

I'm just asking, being one of the pawns and all I am not feeling as secure as I'd like to.

Damn my luck not to be born royalty! (hell even a bishop or something would stand a better chance in this game)

[Rockholm]

21. Only the gay pawns silly.

We are only needed to decorate, throw fabulous dinner parties, be the funny friend, etc. Otherwise, I guess we aren't really needed.

[QC]

23. And he let you see his abs. Isn't that enough for you people?

:sarcasm:

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Very good! K&R

[LooseWilly]

11. What offends me most is the use of Michael Steele's argument.

One of the DoJ's arguments was about the costs to Social Security of surviving partners... and I couldn't help remembering the Michael Steele argument that was so universally mocked.

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

And now the DoJ is using that same argument... there was a short little while there when I thought the Democrats and Republicans were going to be different at last... I was wrong again...

[solstice]

12. That's exactly how I see it. And I don't vote for homophobes. No matter what

party they are.

[vaberella]

14. You've been doing this on every thread before the DOMA thing.

You hate everything about the Pres so I don't see what your point is. I think you're just moving with the crowd to instigate more anger than call for answers.

[solstice]

22. Wow, I've got a stalker! Oh and I don't give a shit what you think.

I have every right to my opinion.

[vaberella]

26. Please, you don't have a stalker my life is too short for that nonsense.

However, in regards to this topic and in past topics that criticize the actions of the President your name comes up...and it's not a name I forget easily considering I actually like the name solstice. You're posts on the other hand are a another story.

[Bluebear]

27. 'You hate everything about the Pres' - that is known as blaming the victim

[Starry Messenger]

29. And also known as

"poisoning the well", a logical fallacy often employed on DU. I'm sick of it.

[Bluebear]

33. You said it,

[vaberella]

13. Well instead of losing my support. I'm going to complain to the WH and DOJ to ask what's up..

I probably won't get a response. However, with enough emails about it maybe Obama will make an announcement for this move.

[Merryweather]

15. I always thought the case's name was poignantly appropriate

Virginia vs. Loving. Because that was exactly what it was - Virginia against two people being able to freely love each other as a married couple.

I'm incredibly disappointed with President Obama for this. He, of all people, should understand or at least empathize with what gay people have to endure because a small, bigoted section of the country deprived them of their rights. :banghead:

[ColbertWatcher]

16. "there is no fundamental right to marriage" Damn.

Has anyone told Obama, Holder, etc that the government has no reason to prevent two American citizens from getting married?

The Constitution says nothing about gay people, so what legal document are they using to base these opinions on?

I've tried to say it before and I'll try to say it again: no American citizen should be invisible to the Constitution.

[ohheckyeah]

19. As I posted on another post:

Yes, I know the scope of the two cases below did not encompass gay marriage, however, the language used was not exclusionary in it's language. How could the Supreme Court, in light of these findings in other cases, find differently in a case challenging DOMA without showing a bias and bigotry? Maybe that's why the Supreme Court to date has refused to hear any challenges.

In Meyer v. Nebraska the SC states:

‘No state … shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’

While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

The United States Supreme Court heard Loving v. Virginia and it’s ruling stated:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

[redqueen]

24. Exactly the same thing I've been wondering.

But of course, by doing so, I'm just showing a half-hearted effort at compassion. Mea culpa.

[LWolf]

28. "The Audacity of Nope."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Bluebear]

32. I know huh!

[JimGinPA]

30. I Always Enjoy Your Anti-Obama Vitriol Here

:puke:

[Behind the Aegis]

31. boink!