Epic Obama FAIL
Jun. 12th, 2009 06:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmatonakSo the Department of Justice filed a brief that amounts to a defense of DOMA in federal court on Thursday. A married gay couple wants federal benefits; I assume it's because one of them is a federal employee. More here.
I write regarding a recent filing in federal court in California.
A full-throated defense of DOMA is not consistent with a claim to be an advocate of gay rights, much less a "fierce" one. With that said, this matter is too important to reduce to political campaigning.
I understand the President feels compelled to enforce the law, but favors its repeal. I believe DOMA (and DADT) to be bigotry that has no place in the law. I recognize there are others who feel differently, and that they have as much right to their beliefs as I do to mine.
The President has long argued that mere belief, no matter how strong or sincere, should not dictate policy, and I think he right in this. When we disagree, the law, and ultimately the Constitution, must govern. I will therefore ask:
Does the President really believe this application of DOMA is "due process of law" under the Constitution, and specifically under the Fourteenth Amendment?
I understand (and appreciate the reasons for) the President's desire to see this matter resolved through legislation and not judicial or executive fiat. Nonetheless, I submit that the President's duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed includes and requires discretion and judgement. The President should not, and indeed may not, act to enforce laws repugnant to the Constitution. I am appalled by the contempt for the Fourteenth Amendment (not to mention the Ninth!) expressed in the government's brief.
The government's brief mentions incest and financial ruin and all manner of red herrings that are foolish at best, and smack of bad faith. No one is arguing, I trust, that incest has occurred in this case. To use *that* as an example that legislation is permitted in this area is a shameful appeal to emotion that reflects poorly on the President and his administration.
The Supreme Court, in "Loving v. Virginia", called marriage a "fundamental civil right." I do not understand why Congress (and therefore the Justice Department) feels free to treat those words as a meaningless rhetorical flourish. I also wish to remind the President and his administration that this is not a matter of dry legal formalism; the defense of fundamental civil rights is at the core of the Constitution. Civil rights are a vital part of the American values the President champions forcefully in statements at home and abroad. This is another case where our actions must match our values.
Thank you for your attention.
Looking at it now, I feel I was too reasonable. What I've seen of the brief is shameful, and the idea that the DoJ "must" enforce it is horseshit. I suspected it was, and now I have proof. This is just crap piled on crap. Epic fail is too mild.
The President does a lot of stuff I agree with, and I admire him. But not for this. This is bigotry and bullshit, and he should know better.
I write regarding a recent filing in federal court in California.
A full-throated defense of DOMA is not consistent with a claim to be an advocate of gay rights, much less a "fierce" one. With that said, this matter is too important to reduce to political campaigning.
I understand the President feels compelled to enforce the law, but favors its repeal. I believe DOMA (and DADT) to be bigotry that has no place in the law. I recognize there are others who feel differently, and that they have as much right to their beliefs as I do to mine.
The President has long argued that mere belief, no matter how strong or sincere, should not dictate policy, and I think he right in this. When we disagree, the law, and ultimately the Constitution, must govern. I will therefore ask:
Does the President really believe this application of DOMA is "due process of law" under the Constitution, and specifically under the Fourteenth Amendment?
I understand (and appreciate the reasons for) the President's desire to see this matter resolved through legislation and not judicial or executive fiat. Nonetheless, I submit that the President's duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed includes and requires discretion and judgement. The President should not, and indeed may not, act to enforce laws repugnant to the Constitution. I am appalled by the contempt for the Fourteenth Amendment (not to mention the Ninth!) expressed in the government's brief.
The government's brief mentions incest and financial ruin and all manner of red herrings that are foolish at best, and smack of bad faith. No one is arguing, I trust, that incest has occurred in this case. To use *that* as an example that legislation is permitted in this area is a shameful appeal to emotion that reflects poorly on the President and his administration.
The Supreme Court, in "Loving v. Virginia", called marriage a "fundamental civil right." I do not understand why Congress (and therefore the Justice Department) feels free to treat those words as a meaningless rhetorical flourish. I also wish to remind the President and his administration that this is not a matter of dry legal formalism; the defense of fundamental civil rights is at the core of the Constitution. Civil rights are a vital part of the American values the President champions forcefully in statements at home and abroad. This is another case where our actions must match our values.
Thank you for your attention.
Looking at it now, I feel I was too reasonable. What I've seen of the brief is shameful, and the idea that the DoJ "must" enforce it is horseshit. I suspected it was, and now I have proof. This is just crap piled on crap. Epic fail is too mild.
The President does a lot of stuff I agree with, and I admire him. But not for this. This is bigotry and bullshit, and he should know better.
