Obama Disregards Promises, Defends DOMA

I'm still hoping for change I can believe in.

Here we are in the first Obama-declared LGBT Pride month, where Obama called upon
1) "the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."
2) ..."the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists."

And now he's had his Justice Department go out on a limb to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act! Their brief to discourage the US Supreme Court from hearing a federal challenge to DOMA from a CA couple includes these arguments:

1) Granting married "homosexual couples" federal marriage rights will cost too much money!
2) DOMA doesn't deny gays anything because they're still entitled to all the benefits that heterosexuals get -- if they act heterosexually!
3) Awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages!
4) A union between a man and a woman is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage!"

Isn't this the very definition of doublespeak? Or is the Obama administration itself exempt from "turning back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists"?

Where o Where is Obama?

The LGBT community is growing impatient with Obama and now this.

The US Supreme Court did not take up a challenge to Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- granting a request from the Obama administration, as this AP article reports.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168203/

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

What is going on here? Could it be that the Obama administration does not want the Court to rule as it does not expect a favorable ruling? Or are they appearing to actually support the discriminatory DADT policy they said they would get rid of?

Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else

This just goes to show that one has to read the Bible with a pound of salt. It's far from the "family values" ascribed to it today, and the alleged "one man and one woman" is not the main or only Biblical definition of marriage. Not exactly a foundation for equality in marriage - of any kind.

Even Cheney Supports Marriage Equality

So you were surprised about Ted Olson, conservative lawyer, jumping on the marrige equality lawsuit? Well, now that torture-tolerant Cheney is free of the Bush administration's chains to the religious "right", he can come out for the for marriage equality -- at least at the state level.

http://www.365gay.com/news/cheney-on-gay-marriage-freedom-for-everyone/

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. “I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.”

At least the value of freedom seems to resonate with Cheney.

Hopefully Cheney has been influenced by his gay daughter. It is so important that people know gay people so that they can overcome the stereotypes and mythologies cast by those who would would dehumanize and demonize LGBT people.

California Fades, Ninth Circuit Ascending

As the dust settles on last week's CA S Court ruling upholding both 18,000 same sex marriages and Prop 8, the legal LGBT community and allies are uncertain about and feel the Boies/Olson federal lawsuit is premature.

I consulted a former political science professor of mine at UC Santa Barbara, Dr. Gayle Binion. She said that if the strategy is to go to the S Court, she doubts the justices will support gay marriage as a 14th Amendment right unless Sotomayor and two others are confirmed during Obama's time. Otherwise, it will become a precedent that needs to be overturned.

A unified statement of several LGBT organizations also expresses caution about such risky actions:

They say: "Pushing the federal government with multiple lawsuits before we
have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren’t ready is likely to lead to bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer."

In response to this question, 4. Shouldn’t we try to bring a federal case and get it to the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible to settle the issue once and for all?, this group is clear.

"No. The history is pretty clear: the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws
requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court finally invalidated Texas's law."

Dr. Binion added: "The Boies/Olson strategy could be to get a sympathetic judgment from the 9th Circuit, indeed possible if they draw the right judges, then worry about what will happen (i.e. the S. Ct. would then likely take the case.) If the 9th Circuit holds that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution (perhaps both on Equal Protection and substantive Due Process grounds, then it would be the law for all of the 9th Cir. states unless/until the S.Ct. reverses or "stays" the ruling, while it decides whether to grant cert."

I'm not happy that these two presumably straight white men did not seem to collaborate with the leading voices in the movement in taking their actions. It makes me wonder if they are seeking to be the heros themselves or seek the best path to victory with those who have been walking it for a long time.

CA S. Court's Deference to Voters

Many agree that it's easy for voters to amend the California constitution.

I used to think that a lack of clarity in the legislative process on what was a revision and what was an amendment was the problem, but now I think it's the CA S. Court's own fault.

This LA Times article outlines how the Court defines it, saying that

UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar agreed, saying the court defined an illegal revision as a measure that changes the structure of government, not one that takes away individual rights.

In her separate concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said that the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.

And get this, from Bruce Cain at UC Berkeley

While there is in principle an important legal distinction between a revision and an amendment with respect to the quantity and quality of proposed changes, the reality is that the California courts have not been very concerned about enforcing the line between them.

Cain also pointed out that even Prop 140, which imposed term limits on the state legislature, was not considered a major change.

In the May 27, 2009 ruling upholding Prop 8, Chief Justice wrote:

"If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted, this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."

This seems ludicrous. Will the voters really vote to give themselves less power?

Conclusion: While the Court acted boldly in May's decision allowing same-sex marriages, let's not expect much more from them in terms of protections of minority rights; they will defer to the voters every time. And as such, they are not an adequate check or balance against the tyranny of the majority.