Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Obama Administration defends DADT policy; opposes injunction

Timothy Kincaid

September 23rd, 2010

Today the Justice Department filed an opposition to Log Cabin Republicans’ request for injunction on the application of the Military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy which a federal judge found to be in violation of the US Constitution. The White House has made clear that this decision was made with the President’s blessing.

The DOJ argues against a world-wide injunction because it would deny them the opportunity to get a conflicting decision elsewhere. Even an injunction which covers the Ninth Circuit is unacceptable because then they would be unable to move forward with their case against Margaret Witt.

Therefore they argue that an injunction should be limited only to current Log Cabin members. No, I’m not making that up.

In addition to opposing injunction, this filing illustrates that it is the intention of the Obama Administration to appeal the ruling. Irrespective of political speeches about support, the Administration will not be following Governor Schwarzenegger’s example and accepting the determinations of the court as to the policy’s unconstitutionality but will instead seek to retain their ability to apply the policy for as long as is politically expedient.

And, as if it was not at this point abundantly clear, President Barack Obama is not now – and has never been – a fierce advocate for our community.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

RobF
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Does this really shock any of us. Do we not KNOW this spineless, two-faced charlatan by now?! Wow. It’s breath-taking how this joker has gone from the second coming of Jesus to “a republican president MIGHT be worse” in less than two years.

Jim Burroway
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Therefore they argue that an injunction should be limited only to current Log Cabin members. No, I’m not making that up

No, you’re certainly not. Here’s the DOJ response.

I’m holding out a smidgen of hope that the request to limit the injunction to current LCR members was an intentionally ridiculous request that was calibrated for rejection. But I’d like to clarify that this is only a smidgen of hope.

Yes, I’m grasping at straws. They are all I have left.

Tone
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

I just don’t understand. I thought Barack Obama was our friend and ally. The current administration is starting to resemble the pigs in Animal Farm.

Chris McCoy
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Back during the Primary I noted that Mr Obama would never be the Fierce Advocate that Mrs Clinton has been.

People chose to ride the wave of change and elect this charlatan.

I voted for him in the General Election because he sucked less than Mr McCain.

Mark F.
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

But, but, but, but…. he’s better than John Mc Cain!!!!!

No wonder the Democrats are about to get their heads handed to them on a platter.

Matt
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

See me voting Green in 2012- and sooner.

EZam
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Too bad, Obama. You could have been to the LGBT community what Lincoln is to the black community. Now you’re just going to be known as “the first black president” and nothing more.

John in the Bay Area
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

I guess Obama figures that he doesn’t need GLBT votes in 2012. He might be right. At the rate he is going, he will lose with or without GLBT voters.

Rossi
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

I’m by no means happy with Obama’s approach to LGBT issues. However, I’ve been paying pretty keen attention to this and you might want to listen to Rachel Maddow’s guest last night who writes for the Advocate (can’t remember her name).

She predicted exactly this, but not because Obama hates the gays. Mostly because the admin. wants to get through one more time legislatively, and in an election year, we already saw how the politics play out for these folks who say they were for repeal then suddenly vote for a filibuster. They have 60 days to fulfill their intention. That’s all this is, a notice of intent.

Now, I’m not a lawyer and there could be all kinds of reasons to dispense this argument and go right back to to “I’m voting for Palin in ’12 because I want revenge!” But I also understood that the 9th has already opined on this and would again immediately, throwing this out in a “New York Minute”, and that the limited scope of this judge not having jurisdiction over the whole US military, whose global injunction would surely create a firestorm of outcry from the idiots who still favor this dated pernicious policy. And in an election year, to boot…. guess what that means. More people drop off.

So I’d ask that when you read stuff like this article which is wrapped in “he hates us as I suspected”, that you attempt to look at the politics of it, how the case might be heard, and that there are still the same scenarios to play out that everyone expected.

Contrary to the tone of this article, those following this closely were NOT surprised, and no hint of dripping sarcasm is needed.

This isn’t over.

tristram
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

A guest on Rachel Maddow’s show earlier this week said that the Justice Dept was sure to appeal the injunction but that this would not be indicative of an intent to appeal the decision itself. Apparently this buys the Administration 60 days before it has to decide whether or not to appeal the actual decision – taking it past the elections and end of the (in)famous Pentagon study.

If this is accurate, the move makes a certain amount of sense in that it gives the Senate another chance to pass the defense authorization/DADT appeal (which I consider preferable to depending on a court-ordered resolution) before Obama has to file (or decline to file) an appeal of the District Court decision.

tristram
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

@Rossi – I think the guest was Kerry Eleveld. I was waiting for her to comment about the John McCain hissy-fit that she had helped precipitate. Maybe BTB could ask her to provide her analysis.

Ryan
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

The chances of repeal are basically none at this point. What will change in sixty days? After the election, there will be more Republicans on the Hill, meaning no chance of repeal. Is Harry going to schedule some lame-duck vote right before the holidays? Unlikely. The Administration had an opportunity here and squandered it. is it because Obama “hates” gays? Nah, probably not. But we’re definitely at the very bottom of a very long To Do list. At this point, there’s nothing left to do but wait until 2016 or 2020 or even 2024 until there’s a new Democratic president in charge and huge majorities in both Houses and try again. It’s incredibly frustrating to have one party openly treat you with contempt, and another barely reach apathy.

Ryan
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

I just belatedly did the math on sixty days from today, and that will take us to November 22nd, still preceding the meaningless “study” that no one will pay any attention to, and only twenty days after the election that will give Republicans control of the House and about 7 or 8 senate seats. There will obviously be no vote by then. So it makes even less sense that Obama is still undecided on appeal.

Lindoro Almaviva
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK


No wonder the Democrats are about to get their heads handed to them on a platter.

And you know what? The more I hate that idea the more I believe that is exactly what they deserve. When they were the party in opposition, they were a spinless bunch that allowed the Republican party to bully them. Now that they are the party in power, they continue to behave as if they are the party in opposition and STILL allow the republican party to set the agenda. Sol we might as well have the Republican’ts

Erin
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

How about this? How about we vote for other candidates outside the 2 major parties? I know I know. It’s a long shot.

Tommy
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

The more I hate that idea the more I believe that is exactly what they deserve.

The Democrats did this too themselves. They behaved like spineless cowards, they caved to big business, they refused to police their own party, and they failed their base time and time again. They always do this, rather than relying on their base, they mad grabs for the middle which only serves to alienate their base and the middle.

tristram
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

@Ryan – a lot of things will change in 60 days, and there will definitely be a “lame duck” session after the election and before next year when the new Senators are seated. Harry Reid and Blanche Lincoln will have won or lost their elections – as will several other Senators who might switch their votes.

If tying the Dream Act to the defense authorization bill was (as many allege) an attempt by Reid to pander to the hispanic voters in Nevada, that motivation will be gone and he should be more willing to allow the Repubs to propose amendments – which would (unless she’s lying) garner Susan Collins’ vote for repeal.

There are a number of plausible scenarios under which DADT gets repealed this year. Am I optimistic? No, but I have to remain hopeful.

tristram
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

@Ryan – I have to “walk that back” a bit – as many as 4 Senate seats could change right after the election. Here’s a link to an article on TPM reviewing the possibilities.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/forget-january-several-new-senators-may-be-seated-shortly-after-november-election.php

As I said, hopeful – not optimistic.

Ryan
September 23rd, 2010 | LINK

Well, of the four listed only two (WV and IL) have a chance of flipping. But if they do, then that will be two more votes against repeal, which would make it 55-45, which means no chance of repeal at all, even if Collins was telling the truth. There’s simply no way there are five decent Republicans in the Senate. I might have believed three, but not five. Obama will be defending this ruling, and there will be no repeal. There’s hope and then there’s realism.

Alex
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

@Ryan is totally correct. There will not be any progress on gay rights under Obama. The Obama DOJ is now the most homophobic department of government. And the irony is lost on our “first black president.”

Gays who support Obama are politically stupid, but not as bad as the bottomless bottom submissiveness of the self-haters who support Log Cabin and GOProud.

GetEqual is the only game in town for any1 serious about equality.

Mark F.
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

And here’s another thing: If a Republican is elected President in 2012 and wins a second term, we will likely have no pro-gay legislation at the Federal level in this decade.

The Democrats had two years to give us something, and all we got was a largely symbolic hate crimes bill which is not even being used to prosecute anyone.

Dan L
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

Just curious, but if the injunction is limited to members of LCR, could any gay service member just apply for membership in Log Cabin and immediately be protected by the injunction?

Greg
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

@Alex, the irony is lost on our first Black Attorney General. The AG has autonomy when it comes to investigating other Executive Branch agencies. It does not with defending laws. That’s why they’re not prosecuting against the medical marijuana states.

Matt
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

This leads me to believe that Obama’s DOJ will take the same tack when Prop 8 reaches the Supreme Court level.

customartist
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

Consider this:
It makes no sense to me at all to vote out a whole group of Legislators who are mostly on my side, and to vote IN a whole group who are mostly Against me, just to spite a few of them. Makes no sense.

What Does make sense is for me (I suggest others) to vote on individual Senators and Congressman who side with us. I will not abandon the Dems categorically. I WILL encourage them to grow stronger, while voting against those individuals who are DINOs.

A number of very interesting reports are culminating for me this week about the Religious and Worldwide Powers That Be who are not in our favor. Jeff Sharlett has written another book about C-Street and The Family, and the overall religious contingents that infiltrate and affect our Government, at all levels.

There was also programming which described the current change of financial power moving from the Banking System to Investments held by Wealthy Nations [such as Saudi Arabia (which has the death penalty for Gays)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

I was particularly disturbed with Supreme Court Justice Scalias remarks this week saying that gays are not protected by the Constitution.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/09/20/26371

*Very Interesting*
NPR reports on the overwhelming dominance of Christian Evangelism in the Military:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130070569

Bibles distributed to Service Members:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4772331
__________________________________

This all adds up to the growing Religious Domination over Individuals Rights. Exactly what Colonists were trying to escape when coming to the new world.

cd
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

The more I hate that idea the more I believe that is exactly what they deserve.

This bunch of elected Democrats has probably done all the good they’re collectively capable of doing.

The People is voting out the least useful/most obstructive/most expended and obsolete ones this election. Same story as in 1994 and 2002.

The partisan cycle in American politics runs from one midterm to the midterm eight years down the road, when it repeats. According to it 2012 will probably continue the purging, see more Democrats defeated but (like this cycle) few of the defeated will be mourned or worth mourning. 2014/16 will then see more Democrats elected and likely ones of better quality.

Republican voters seem to prefer their politicians to be like daipers- does the job demanded uncompromisingly for the required period of time. And is then entirely disposable without sorrow.

Rossi
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

I take umbrage at the comment that gays are stupid for supporting Obama. Perhaps when he was running against Clinton in the primaries that was a fair argument. But today it’s almost farcical. And certainly “stupid”.

Those who see the politics behind all of this are the ones who are closer to the real reason all of this failed. At this time of year, find me one sane political observer who DOESN’T think that every single step is done with calculation not for what’s right but what the optics are for elections.

It’s pretty obvious in this thread the optics for the gay vote are pretty bad. But we’ve been calculated as not being as important as the Hispanic vote, as the independent voter, the union member, the sr. citizen, the corporation (now a person!), or just the lazy Democrat voter who may or may not show up at the polls.

But this isn’t going to change until the gay vote surpasses the other interest groups with sheer numbers (well, not at least until the indoctrination efforts are complete) or the money reaches a level of influence beyond a bunch of enabling twits at HRC who just want to have yet another underwear fashion show for Barney Frank.

Until then, count me among the folks who are not surprised at any of this, who saw it coming, but are willing to hold hope that there is actually a whole shitload of time left in 2010 to get a lot done and I’m not going to be impatient.

And also take articles like this one, tuned for maximum anger-building effect, with a huge grain of salt. (Sorry, Timmy, you’re pushing the histrionic button here.)

JT
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

Republican politicians fear their base, and those who lose touch eventually lose, generally. Can the same be said to be true of Democrats? Isn’t there something to be learned here?

AlexH
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

@Rossi — I’m with you on this one. We shall see if this is just political maneuvering or if Obama is throwing us under the bus. I’m still laughing at the “enabling twits at HRC” and the Barney Frank underwear show!

Dan L. raises an interesting point about the clause in the injunction only applying to LCR members. If one were to join the LCR, could they then join the military, free and openly?

My guess it there’s probably a stipulation stating that members must have been members prior to the filing of the suit.

Rob San Diego
September 24th, 2010 | LINK

I am so sick and tired of voting into office these spineless P’thak’s (klingon curse word) into office just so they can keep me in the closet without equal protection. I’m a Californian and even though I’m liberal, I’m glad to see our Governator not appeal.

customartist
September 25th, 2010 | LINK

This isn’t the end of things. we’re still in the news regularly.

Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.