Saturday, June 13, 2009

Obama Betrayal Of Gays Continues With Pat Robertson-esque Defense of DOMA

It seems like only yesterday when Barack Obama, Fierce Advocate for the rights of lesbians and gays, said "we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)."

Alas, that was when Fierce Advocate Obama was a mere candidate. Today the Obama Administration is sounding like Pat Robertson in its defense of DOMA.

And over at Americablog, they've come full circle. Former fiercely loyal Obot, John Aravosis has a round-up and lots more posts about the Obama Administration's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. And, no, a President Hillary Rodham Clinton would never in a million years have committed this betrayal.

Pam Spaulding:
This is a President who said he is a "fierce advocate" for our rights. This doesn't look much like an advocate, it looks more like an enemy pulling the pin on the grenade and tossing it at us. While this may not be the perfect test case for DOMA, the Obama administration, in its defense of the Act, has filed a brief that is a roadmap for every fundnut anti-gay argument against the right of same-sex couples to marry.... Friends, is this is the watershed mark, the line in the sand, the utter moral betrayal of this administration in black and white? Does this mean that we are not only expendable to this Administration, but that it has decided we can also be vilified as a constituency at will and not receive any blowback? That's balls. A brief with language like this could have been written by Liberty Counsel it's so homophobic; that it's written in legalese doesn't blunt the arguments being made here. It will be used to cause lasting damage to future civil rights gains.
Andrew Sullivan:
[T]o file an actual brief re-stating some of the worst and most denigrating arguments against gay civil equality is just bizarre. They could have argued for a narrow ruling or kept the "reasonable" arguments to a minimum. What they did - without any heads up to any of their gay supporters and allies - is unconscionable. Citing incest precedents? Calling gay couples free-loaders? Arguing that our civil rights are not impinged because we can marry someone of the opposite sex? Who on earth decided that that was a great idea? Marc is right that this will be simply incomprehensible to most gay people. To have unloaded it after refusing to do anything on DADT, after failing to lift the HIV travel ban, after punting on even pure symbolism like hate crimes - well, it's no way to treat those who worked their butts off to elect you, as all the major groups have now said.... I'm baffled by this, I really am. The content of this brief is a massive political error from an administration that is making it impossible for its gay supporters to stay supportive. What's next? A Clintonian political ad boasting of these arguments?
Jed Lewison, DailyKos:
[W]hether or not it was appropriate to defend DOMA, the DOJ did so with extraordinary zeal, making arguments that could only make Pat Robertson smile. (If you're looking for a bright side, at least the legal brief didn't compare same-sex marriage to bestiality.)