WTF? Obama Defends DOMA Like a Right-Wing Nutjob

Filed in National by on June 12, 2009

David Anderson must be loving Obama today (in a totally hetero way).  Obama has betrayed same sex rights with his defense of DOMA in court.  Obama didn’t need to defend DOMA.  He also didn’t need to invoke incest and child marriage in the argument.  Read the link.  There is some left-wing anger headed Obama’s way now.

Crap.  Forgot to h/t A1

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

Comments (42)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. This is highly disappointing. Obama needs to do something positive about gay rights. Repeal DADT now!

  2. anonone says:

    This is the exact opposite of what he promised in his campaign. He has done nothing – NOTHING – for the GLBT community. Instead of being a friend and supporter as he promised, he has actively opposed their interests at virtually every opportunity.

    The irony is that it happened on the 42nd anniversary of Loving v. Virginia.

    Next he’ll be trying to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    This is why we need a viable party on the left of the Dems.

    Somebody Else in 2012!

  3. liberalgeek says:

    I’m not going all that far, but this is pretty F’ing bad. One could certainly try to make the case that he has to at least file a brief defending a law (that part is certainly part of the job description) but it’s like he had John Yoo write something up for him.

  4. anon says:

    lg, just give it time, you wil be ready for a progressive in 2012, Obama is not your guy, way too center.

  5. liberalgeek says:

    I was pissed at Bill Clinton most of the time he was President.

  6. Bob says:

    It is no suprise. Obama wont stick his neck out for anyone. He wont act, his is incapable of doing so.

  7. jason330 says:

    I don’t get it.

    It is not like he is going to lose African Americans if he is nice to teh gay, nor is he going to pick up and wingnuts by harshing on teh gay.

  8. jason330 says:


    No offense, but go fuck yourself.

  9. DOMA is the correct way to leave the issue to the states. I personally like to end the drama with a constitutional amendment.

    President Obama would lose a lot of swing voters, Latinos, Independent and conservative blacks, Catholics, and young white evangelicals who were just desperate because of the economy and uneasy about the war, and every southern and rocky mountain state. Ohio could flip and his reelection would be next to impossible.

    Just accept that President Obama is smarter than you and President of all the people.

    It may be the second time today that I say he is right.

  10. anon says:

    AA is 17% of voters voting 98%-2% (on issues of course) so Obama needs white, latinos, women, WAY more than AA base.

  11. Bob says:

    why so sensative jason ? Feeling abandoned and alone ?

  12. No, it is just that they (our DL friends) can’t call the first African American President who is pushing through hate crimes protection for gays and looking to move beyond Don’t ask; Don’t tell, a bigot. Nor can they back down and admit that the mainstream position is actually reasonable.

    It is tough being a reactionary PC type.

    Remember AA that 98 to 2 is an artifical number. One it is inflated because a lot of African Americans would not want to tell an exit pollster they voted the other way on such an historic day. Two, Bush got a who lot more votes. The AA vote actually gave him Ohio. The reason for a higher than normal voter turnout is because President Obama is an historic figure. Voting for him was a vote to turn the corner on 350 years of racial struggle. That is not true of every election.

    On issues, AA are as conservative on social issues as Republicans according to Gallup.

    On economic issues not so much.

    Nonetheless, of course he needs everyone’s vote. As I pointed out, the swing groups that could be offended by opposing DOMA would shift a number of states. VA, NC, OH, CO, IN, FL, NM, and PA would be in danger. He has enough on his plate. Switching his stated position on this would just kill everything else.

    Bye to healthcare reform, energy reform, tax reform, and just about everything domestic. Blue dog Dems would be finding every issue they could to separate themselves from him.

    Considering that he never believed in same sex marriage, it would be crazy to risk everything else for it.

  13. Bob says:

    Maybe, but it seems more likely that the truth hurts, watching their dear leader march them down another path he promised to lead them away from must be painful as it was watching Bush screw up everything he touched. It is just that jason rather than debate seems to prefer to just spit venom from the corner then hide under his blankie.

  14. anonone says:

    David, isn’t it time to write your love letter to Kim Jong-il thanking him for having a real law-n-order country where they imprison and torture lawbreakers like those pesky American journalists?

    And, yes, Obama’s DOJ DOMA defense was written by a Mormon Bush hold-over attorney and it is a homophobic and bigoted diatribe. And bigotry and denial of equal rights is wrong, mainstream or not.

    Slavery was once mainstream, but I am sure you would have supported that, too.

  15. anonone says:

    Yeah, Bob, unlike you “Dear Leader” Bush worshipping repubs, we aren’t bobble-headed jackasses who could only nod up and down every time he made up some pathetic lie.

    The blow-back from the left on this is going to be fast and furious. Watch, and you’ll see how it is done.

  16. Marriage has lifted up humanity. Slavery degraded humanity. Marriage is a voluntary covenant. Slavery was forced at the point of torture and even death. Marriage is the central civilizing power in society worldwide. Slavery was about making money for a narrow elite.

    I see the similarities. Thanks for explaining it.

  17. anonone says:

    David Wrote:
    Marriage has lifted up humanity. Marriage is a voluntary covenant. Marriage is the central civilizing power in society worldwide.

    Which are exactly some of the reasons that people should be allowed to marry the one they love, gay or straight. I am glad you’re beginning to see that.

    By the way, your god was a strong advocate for slavery in the Old Testament and there is not a word in the New Testament from Jesus condemning it. I have no doubt that if you were around before the civil war you would have been an advocate for slavery. No doubt. After all, those were the laws and we all know how you feel about laws.

    Don’t keep Kim Jong-il waiting. I am sure he wants to get your letter.

  18. I hope that you are right. That would be called self destruction. I can only hope that you are that stupid and short sighted. You would be laughed out of the public square.

    DOMA is so overwhelmingly supported by the American people that even some people who support Gay marriage support it. It is about allowing the individual states to determine their own laws.

    You don’t care about that. You don’t respect the process. That is why you want the President to use the courts to overturn DOMA even though it is constitutional on its face. Article Four says that Congress shall determine what public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings are protected under full faith and credit. That is up to Congress alone not the President or the Courts. We went through this with the Mormons in the 1800’s. That issue is settled law. The President isn’t making some statement. He is just following the law.

  19. The Old Testament was not pro-slavery. It allowed people to voluntarily make themselves paid indentured servants for not more than 7 years.

    That is not slavery.

  20. anonone says:

    The Old Testament was not pro-slavery.

    David, you are so ignorant, even of your own religious heritage. Get a Concordance, and look up the word “slave” and “slavery.” and then you’ll find all of your god’s handy dandy little laws such as instructions on selling your daughter into slavery and how to beat your slave so you aren’t punished. How to treat your slaves even made it into the 10 commandments.

    Slavery has been an accepted part of Christianity for most of its history. It would have been nice if the New Testament authors had Jesus utter even a token condemnation of this fundamental evil of his day, but that never happened.

    Someday, people are going to look back in disgust at homophobia and discrimination in the same way that most people look at racism today.

  21. MJ says:

    David needs a lesson in (a) reading the Bible and (b) how to stop being such an asshole.

    A constitutional amendment to take away rights from a group of citizens? David, when are you going to start your beer hall putsch?

  22. I hope Obama gets some massive blowback on this one. That brief by the Bush holdover compared LGBT to pedophiles.

  23. Gabriel says:

    I suggest you people read DOMA first before you comment. David is correct. It’s NOT about taking any rights away from anyone (pay attention, MJ). It’s about maintaining individual states’ rights to make their own rules.

    Why do you all insist on allowing the Feds to control everything and call people names when they don’t agree with you, despite the fact that your argument isn’t even valid? Do your homework.

  24. pandora says:

    My first reaction to this was pure outrage, and then I read this.

    “Rather, here’s the promise he is keeping: He is keeping his promise that he will serve and act as President as if America is a nation of laws, which it is. He is keeping his promise to uphold the law…

    I want to address the brief filed in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. That Act preceded Obama. He inherited that law. It was on the books when he came into office, and because it has been challenged, he and his DOJ have an obligation to defend the law if there is a legal basis to defend it.

    That’s exactly what I want my President to do.

    Consider this hypothetical:

    A Democratic Congress passes a gay marriage act, permitting gay marriage. It is signed into law by a Democratic President. A few years later a Republican President is elected. The gay marriage act is challenged in federal court. What should the President, or, more precisely, what should the DOJ do in that situation?

    (a) Consider whether there is merit to the lawsuit, and whether the Act is legally defensible. If it is defensible under the law then the DOJ should defend the law, even if they disagree with it. Remember: this means a Republican DOJ must defend a law establishing gay marriage because there is a reason to defend against the lawsuit attacking the law; or

    (b) The DOJ should determine whether the law is good policy, and, if it is not good policy in the eyes of the Republican President or his Administration, they should not defend it. Even if it is defensible. Remember: This means the law dies in a courtroom, despite it being a legally defensible law, all because the Republican President promised to fight gay marriage. Sorry, Congress, better luck next time.

    Answer b is what we did for 8 years. Oh, maybe we didn’t do it by not defending lawsuits against arguably valid laws. Maybe we did it more frequently with signing statements that said, “Well, forget the law, I’ll interpret it my way.” Or simply by ignoring the law; or refusing to apply it.”

  25. MJ says:

    Asshole David – Here is the Word of G-D from the Tanakh, what you call the Old Testament:

    Leviticus 25 :

    I, the LORD, am your G-d, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your G-d.
    “When, then, your countryman becomes so impoverished beside you that he sells you his services, do not make him work as a slave.
    Rather, let him be like a hired servant or like your tenant, working with you until the jubilee year,
    when he, together with his children, shall be released from your service and return to his kindred and to the property of his ancestors.
    Since those whom I brought out of the land of Egypt are servants of mine, they shall not be sold as slaves to any man.
    Do not lord it over them harshly, but stand in fear of your G-d.
    “Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations.
    You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels,
    and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen.
    “When one of your countrymen is reduced to such poverty that he sells himself to a wealthy alien who has a permanent or a temporary residence among you, or to one of the descendants of an immigrant family,
    even after he has thus sold his services he still has the right of redemption; he may be redeemed by one of his own brothers,
    or by his uncle or cousin, or by some other relative or fellow clansman; or, if he acquires the means, he may redeem himself.
    With his purchaser he shall compute the years from the sale to the jubilee, distributing the sale price over these years as though he had been hired as a day laborer.
    The more such years there are, the more of the sale price he shall pay back as ransom;
    the fewer years there are left before the jubilee year, the more he has to his credit; in proportion to his years of service shall he pay his ransom.
    The alien shall treat him as a servant hired on an annual basis, and he shall not lord it over him harshly under your very eyes.
    If he is not thus redeemed, he shall nevertheless be released, together with his children, in the jubilee year.
    For to me the Israelites belong as servants; they are servants of mine, because I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I, the LORD, your G-d.

    Further, the great scholars Rashi and the Rambam interpreted Vayikra 25 to mean that even slaves purchased from amongst the alien races were to be set free after 14 years of service.

    Bible Boy, if you’re going to quote the Bible, do it correctly. The problem with you so-called evangelicals is that you pick and choose parts of the Bible to further your empty arguments to strip people of their rights. It’s wrong and sinful.

  26. MJ says:


    When you restrict a segment of society from exercising the rights that others in society take for granted, in this case marriage, you are indeed taking away those rights.

    Gabriel, go blow your horn somewhere else, preferably in Dumbass David’s ear.

  27. Sad reality, you are asking Obama to exercise leadership when he is incapable of doing so.

    When you float to the White House on “hope and change” you forget that being President is also being tough as nails. Without the assistance of catchy ads, teleprompter and campaign rhetoric you get Obama at his norm-empty suit.

    The Obama administration is funnier than David Letterman.

    Perhaps we need a Czar for DADT? There are more Czars in the Obama Administration than Russia had in over 300 years of rule.

    Mike Protack

  28. FSP says:

    “I suggest you people read DOMA first before you comment. David is correct. It’s NOT about taking any rights away from anyone (pay attention, MJ). It’s about maintaining individual states’ rights to make their own rules.”

    You obviously haven’t gotten the memo. States don’t have rights anymore. They sold them for stimulus money.

  29. MJ says:

    I’m always amused when Protack writes something he thinks is profound. Pornstache – it isn’t.

    Then you have folks like Dumbass David who agitate against “activist judges” who interpret the Constitution. Here’s a government lesson – 3 branches of government. The legislative branch writes the law, the executive branch enforces the law, and the judicial branch INTERPRETS the law. I’m sure Dumbass David would have been in the crowd throwing rocks at the black students who integrated the schools in Little Rock, because desegregation was the law and he obeys the law. He probably would have helped pay for the lawyers arguing against Brown v. School Board of Topeka and opposed Miranda rights.

    You’re a disgrace, David, plain and simple.

  30. FSP says:

    MJ — You do realize David is an African American, right?

  31. MJ says:

    Yes I do, which makes his rants even sadder.

  32. anonone says:


    Repub David wouldn’t be out throwing stones or doing any kind of protest because it would breaking the law.

    David would likely be at home teaching children that segregation and discrimination were the law that must be obeyed and represent the natural order of things as defined by god just as he preaches that discrimination against gays and lesbians is godly.

    I wonder if he finished his letter to Kim Jong-il thanking him for giving the two American journalists what they deserved.

  33. MJ says:

    A1 – I heard from a travel agent that he’s already booked passage to Beijing so he can travel to North Korea and deliver the letter in person.

  34. anonone says:


    I suggest you read DOMA first before you accuse others of not reading it:

    From Wikipedia:

    “The law has two effects:
    1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

    2) The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.”

    Clearly, it takes rights away from gay couples that are guaranteed by the federal government to heterosexual couples. So, for example, even if you were to be a legally married gay couple in New Hampshire, you could not file a tax return as a married couple.

    FSP, do you support this?

  35. anon says:

    Are you liberals finally coming to the conclusion that Obama is a neo con….center right all the way?

  36. cassandra_m says:

    Obama is not a neo-con by any stretch of the imagination. The only people who thought that he was a run away liberal are 1) wingnut radio hosts who have been feeding that line to their acolytes for more than a year now and 2) old school lefties who saw a very good thing and let their hopes get away with them.

    Mounting a defense of DOMA may or may not be a defense of the status quo, but it is certain that the status quo denies rights to gay people AND it is certain that this brief using language and wingnut frames that were completely unnecessary to try to defend said status quo.

  37. “When, then, your countryman becomes so impoverished beside you that he sells you his services, do not make him work as a slave.
    Rather, let him be like a hired servant or like your tenant, working with you until the jubilee year,

    Doesn’t sound pro-slavery to me.

  38. anonone says:

    Exodus 21:7
    “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.”

    Exodus 21:20-21
    “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.”

    ‘Nuff said.

  39. callerRick says:

    A politician renege on a campaign promise? Impossible!

  40. Actually, the President kept his campaign promise. They assumed that he was lying. Imagine that. The left values dishonesty more than honesty.

    Unfortunately, the President has made good on a lot of promises. At least this one benefits America.

  41. Phil says:

    All I can say is 1oth amendment.

  42. Clyde says:

    It’s unfortunate that Obama has indicated himself to be at least partially the classical politician. Here are some points about it at Pandalous.