|
| News Tips? Calendar Info? |
Press/media, organizations, and individuals send your time-based event info to: calendar@phblend.net
Full size PHB Calendar
| Best of the Blend |
|
Blog Posts
Special Events and Interviews
| Blend-o-licious endorsements... |
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego)."Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"
|
Support the Blend
|
|
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
|
Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 15:21:26 PM EDT
|
UPDATES: A joint statement from the ACLU, GLAD, HRC, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Task Force is below the fold. I also added excerpts from Box Turtle Bulletin's take, Obama Administration Moves To Uphold DOMA Before Supreme Court. Here's Chris@ Law Dork, "Obama's DOJ Did Not Have To Go This Far."
 I'm sure this post will be updated quite a bit today...
"We are surprised and profoundly disappointed that the administration has chosen to defend DOMA - using many of the same arguments the Bush Administration used - plus some new arguments that make no sense and are discriminatory."
-- Jenny Pizer, director of Lambda Legal's marriage project Today is the anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision that struck down state laws against interracial marriage. How has the Obama administration recognized it? By lobbing this bomb right into the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. The U.S. Justice Department has moved to dismiss the first gay marriage case filed in federal court, saying it is not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by a couple already married in California.
The motion, filed late Thursday, argued that the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer does not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questions whether their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage. 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. (Americablog):  But the real PR disaster for the administration is how can they explain away the virulent anti-gay defense it is presenting. Among the highlights offered by the "most pro-gay administration" in history (please read all of John's post for the citations, I'm drawing the thumbnail sketch here of the horror):
* Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.
* The Obama admin argues that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional
* DOMA is good because it saves the federal government money
* DOMA is constitutional (!!!). "DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles." This is important because it means that Obama wasn't content to simply argue, based on technicalities, that this case should be thrown out. He went out of his way to argue that DOMA is actually constitutional, and then went into detail destroying every single constitutional argument we have for opposing DOMA in court. This will screw us on every lawsuit we file on every gay issue, in every public policy debate we have in the states on any gay issue. * Gays have no constitutional right to marriage, or recognition of their marriages by other states
* The defense, by default, argues against Loving v. Virginia. For the child of an interracial marriage and a Constitutional scholar, this is beyond belief. Loving v. Virginia is not to the contrary. There the Supreme Court rejected a contention that the assertedly "equal application" of a statute prohibiting interracial marriage immunized the statute from strict scrutiny. 388 U.S. 1, 8, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to "interracial marriages involving white persons," was "designed to maintain White Supremacy" and therefore unconstitutional. Id. at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the "supremacy" of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be "traced to a . . . purpose" to discriminate against either men or women. Personnel Adm'r v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272, 99 S. Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). In upholding the traditional definition of marriage, numerous courts have expressly rejected an alleged analogy to Loving. * Gays don't deserve same scrutiny in court that other minorities receive
* Provides legal argument against gays' right to privacy
* DOMA is rational and reasonable for our society
There's plenty more but this one stings -- it parrots the playbook of the religious right: DOMA doesn't discriminate against gays - all they have to do to get the benefits is get married... to someone of the opposite sex. DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits. To the contrary, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in federal employment and in a wide array of federal benefits programs by law, regulation, and Executive order.... Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage. Has your breath been taken away yet? I could not believe what I was reading.
The administration is trying to argue that it is "forced" to defend DOMA as the law of the land, but, as John and Joe explain, this looks like bullsh*t, since prior administrations have declined to defend fed cases of this sort. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that ยง 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice. But I'm not a lawyer; I wanted to hear from our professional gay advocacy organizations to see how they view this incredible document. I fully expect a whole lot of our "progressive friends" to make all sorts of technical excuses to defend DOMA, but they sure as hell cannot defend the homophobia laced throughout this brief.
HRC's response (via The Politico): HRC ... has grave concerns about the arguments that the Administration put forth in this case, arguments that simply do not reflect the experiences that LGBT people face or the contributions that they make. The Administration's brief claims that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress's power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental. The brief further claims that DOMA is a "neutral" federal position on same-sex marriages, and permits the states to determine on their own whether to recognize same-sex marriages. The most alarming argument, grounded neither in fact nor in law, reads as follows:
[DOMA amounts to] a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage. DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize.
"Same-sex couples and their families are not seeking subsidies," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "We pay taxes equally, contribute to our communities equally, support each other equally, pay equally into Social Security, and participate equally in our democracy. Equal protection is not a handout. It is our right as citizens," he said. OMG. Jesus, where's the outrage about the dehumanization of lesbian and gay couples detailed in this brief with abandon? Sorry folks, you need a do-over -- this is DC speak. FAIL.
Rea Carey, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund: "DOMA is and has always been an immoral attack on same-sex couples, our families and our fundamental humanity. This law has only served to discriminate against Americans and belittle our nation's heralded values embracing freedom, fairness and justice. The Task Force Action Fund demands President Obama and Congress immediately repeal this hateful law, which has left a moral scar on our nation and its worthy pursuit of equal justice for all.
"Unfortunately, the malicious and outrageous arguments and language used in the Department of Justice's marriage brief is only serving to inflame and malign the humanity of same-sex couples and our families. This is unacceptable.
"This ugly chapter in our nation's history must come to an end now with the repeal of DOMA." 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. |
| Pam Spaulding :: The Obama admin defends DOMA in a brief comparing marriage equality to incest |
Joint statement from the ACLU, GLAD, HRC, Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Task Force:We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act against Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits. The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.
We disagree with many of the administration's arguments, for example that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress's power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental.
We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be "neutral" with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states. There is nothing "neutral" about the federal government's discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states. This notion of "neutrality" ignores the fact that while married same-sex couples pay their full share of income and social security taxes, they are prevented by DOMA from receiving the corresponding same benefits that married heterosexual taxpayers receive. It is the married same-sex couples, not heterosexuals in other parts of the country, who are financially and personally damaged in significant ways by DOMA. For the Obama administration to suggest otherwise simply departs from both mathematical and legal reality.
When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.
Signed:
American Civil Liberties Union
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
Human Rights Campaign
Lambda Legal
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce Geoff Kors, Equality CA: San Francisco -- In a recent California Federal Court challenge filed by a couple legally married in California, the United States Department of Justice under the direction of President Barack Obama filed a brief supporting the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and justifying discrimination in government benefits against same-sex couples. In response, Equality California (EQCA) Executive Director Geoff Kors released the following statement:
"We are outraged the Obama Administration filed a brief defending the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act -- a law Obama promised to repeal when running for President. It is unacceptable that he is defending DOMA instead of supporting its repeal as unconstitutional. And the justification that Congress has the right to deny one minority equal benefits as a way to save money is truly offensive. We not only call on President Obama to order the Justice Department to file a supplemental brief reversing its position and instead urging the repeal of DOMA, but we also demand the president demonstrates that he is the 'fierce' advocate he once claimed to be by publicly calling for the end to all discrimination against LGBT Americans -- including the immediate repeal of this law so same-sex couples legally married in their home state receive the same federal benefits and protections as opposite-sex couples." Also:
For another take, surf over to BTB: Obama Administration Moves To Uphold DOMA Before Supreme Court. Jim Burroway believes that the incest claim is debatable, but that the brief is problematic on so many other levels precisely because it represents a fundamental betrayal by this administration. It does mention that different states do regulate the qualifications for marriages differently with regard to kinship or age of consent, emphasizing that some states allow some marriages while others don't. But trying to figure out if second and first cousins or sixteen-year-olds should marry isn't the same as pedophilia or incest as Aravosis claims. If you really want a good example of how such a comparison has been made, go back and remember Rick Warren's comparison and his reiteration that he does see it as equivalent. The Justice Department brief is not even close to being in the same league.
...And the mere fact that the Obama administration sees fit to try to justify the constitutionality of DOMA is very troubling. When Obama ran for the Democratic nomination for President, he distinguished himself from other front-runners by declaring that he was for DOMA's full repeal. That contrasted with Sen. Hillary Clinton's position of advocating for only partial repeal of DOMA and leaving intact the provisions allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. When Obama became president, the new White House web site repeated his call for repealing DOMA. But that commitment has since been quietly dropped when the web site was revamped in April. Here's the incest issue cited: See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); |
|
|
