Obama will restate his opposition to DOMA and support the Lieberman Baldwin Bill

[Thrill]

Today. Stay tuned.

Oh this is from Hillary Rosen

[billyoc]

1. Wow, they really don't want that gay DNC fundraiser to be cancelled.

[vaberella]

4. It was never going to be cancelled from what I read.

Just some people pulled out their money.

[billyoc]

7. Oh, thanks. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm for starving the Democratic party to death, myself.

[redqueen]

12. Really?

[billyoc]

14. Absolutely. They still have plenty of time to fundraise if they start doing what their voters want.

But for now, not one dime to any Democratic organization.
That should be standard practice after every election. Get to work, and no money until we see results.

[redqueen]

16. I'm sure that by using your tactic,

we're bound to be *much* more successful than than the right... and will surely bring about the much needed change we all want. Count me in!

[Neecy]

8. I think it would have been cancelled

Once HRC pulled out, that was the ballgame.

In fact, I think it may still be cancelled. Words are meaningless at this point - we've heard them before.

[David Zephyr]

9. Exactly. More words of what he's "going to do."

You wrote: "Words are meaningless at this point - we've heard them before."

And these words are just that: meaningless, and possibly lies.

[Neecy]

20. why?

He's already spoken to DOMA, and they turned out to be words without action. Lieberman-Baldwin once again only impacts federal employees, and it offers little more than what most private corporations already offer domestic partners. It's hardly groundbreaking stuff.

[David Zephyr]

23. Exactly.

I won't hold my breath for any of his promises. I agree with every word you wrote. If this was the "big June announcement" that MFA (my fierce advocate)had leaked was forthcoming for the GLBT community, if this is "big", then it doesn't take much intelligence to extrapolate what unbig will be.

[vaberella]

32. Nope. There was no words fo cancellation.

I'd rather have the words first. There was actual more proof that things were going on as planned with only a few key donaters pulling out. Actually I haven't heard they'd be coming back so its still in the works. I think people want it that way and I'll leave it there. However, I find it utterly false.

Because if it was going to be cancelled...nothing Obama would do now would stop it. As a matter of fact, after the public chastising by Barney Frank (which I still don't get) and even the admonishment of others---and the pulling out of many----there was still no confirmed talk that the fundraiser was shutting down.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terran]

13. I think she/he's just saying

that it's of note that this statement is coming from him now, given the shitstorm that hit after the court brief *supporting* DOMA. Possibly it indicates a realization by his staff that they really really cannot do without the support of GLBT people.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gcomeau]

2. In other news...

It turns out briefs filed by miscellaneous DOJ lawyers are in fact NOT White House Policy.

Gosh golly gee... who knew?

[atreides1]

6. It's someone's policy

The briefs were filed and the court accepted them, so who's held accountable, or is that subject to the State Secrets Act, also?

Just saying it isn't White House policy and pointing to mysterious DOJ lawyers don't cut it.

[merh]

36. Let me try to explain this again.

The DOJ is not "Obama's DOJ" they are the DOJ for all of the USofA. They represent the USofA when it is sued in a court of law and that includes Congress and the laws that Congress writes. Matter of fact, the DOJ is required to enforce the laws.

They are not Obama's flunkies, they are required by statute to defend the laws - all laws are deemed constitutional until the courts rule them unconstitutional.

That brief was not new, the Smelt case is not new. It was filed in 2000 when Smelt and Hammer were not married and the district court dismissed it because they had no standing, they had not applied for any benefits they had been denied. The 9th Circuit heard the appeal and sent it back to the district court - it was dismissed again. The "brief" filed in the 2nd Smelt case contains the same legal argument used successfully in the 1st Smelt case. It was not the bigoted and shameful language that is accused, it was valid legal argument.

DOMA is bad law, the Perry case has a better shot at getting it to SCOTUS so that SCOTUS can find DOMA unconstitutional. The Smelt case is weak, it runs the risk of setting bad precedent.

[zulchzulu]

3. Tammy is my rep! Woo hoo!!!

http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1557

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Are you really concerned about that?

n/t

[HopeOverFear]

15. Alright, looks like GLBT raised hell and Obama's listening

[redqueen]

18. No.

He only needed them for votes, and cast them aside immediately after being sworn in.

I know cause I read it here on DU.

[cauliflower]

19. LOL!!!

[QC]

29. Wow! Deleted already. Last night he made it to about 20 posts bfore the hammer fell.

You'd think he would learn to come on a little less strong at first and stop stalking he same four or five people every time he signs up.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Watch and learn

Or keep whining about every activist you see. He will not be getting much slack for this last minute sun bleached bone toss, so don't get too excited. You will still be forced by God Almighty to read threads that are critical to the one you feel like protecting. And If you don't like it, if you do not or can not learn by example if you can not or will not simply nose out and go focus else where, no one really cares about your bitter snark, you know that?
We are fighting for our families. Do you really think that your nose tipped to the air is a powerful tool against people who have faced down the worst of the worst? That your disapproval means a thing to anyone but you and your playmates? You will stop nothing, change no one. Not one tactic will be mitigated for the sake of weak willed outsiders. Understand? Folks like you just make it more fun to ratchet up the necessarily hard core tactics, just pissing off the squares has always been half the fun.
So snit away. Pout away. Snark away. I've dealt with far better than you on any front you care to serve up. No worries there.
But the best thing you could do is watch, learn, and apply the same tactics to an issue that matters to you. Or just whine, complain, and continue to see little progress on your own issues, what ever those might be. All I see out of you is jumping on teh gay, with what you think are clever words and barbs. I never see you post what you think about anything that is not steeped in personalized remarks and inside clique talk. But if you DO care about something, anything, just sit back and watch your betters work.
Have a love based day!

[CakeGrrl]

24. Is your fight really well-waged in the relative echo chamber of an internet message board?

To the above post's point, your comment:

"He will not be getting much slack for this last minute sun bleached bone toss, so don't get too excited"

effectively supports the implication that even if progress is made in a positive direction, you appear to be dead-set against crediting the President for turning things in that direction.

You've already decided to support the idea that this, and likely other future moves to change DOMA/DADT by this administration are nothing but political band-aids.

That's all the poster, I believe, was implying in that no matter what gains the administration makes, some will simply attribute negative motives while not accepting that it's a good goddamn lot better than they got under Clinton (who ushered these policies into existence) or Bush.

[Cha]

21. Good, there was action instead

of hatin' on an internet board.

[vaberella]

33. Obama's always been listening and this has been going on for MONTHS.

So this is not something new on his part. If he wasn't listening from the beginning we wouldn't have this memorandum stating this has been in the works for months.

[Thrill]

25. well Obama just came out strongly against DOMA. Said he wants Congress to repeal it

And said he Supports Tammy Baldwin's bill.

Now its on Congress to get it to his desk

[jenmito]

26. Where did you see this? TIA.

[Thrill]

28. It was just on CNN in the Oval Office

[jenmito]

31. OK. Thanks!

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

30. Aww, its cute watching the trolls desperately cling to their failing talking points.

[vaberella]

34. Ha!. n/t

[struggle4progress]

35. Dozens of replies -- but nobody actually cares what the bill is?

S.1102
Title: A bill to provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (introduced 5/20/2009) Cosponsors (23)
Related Bills: H.R.2517
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

H.R.2517
Title: To provide certain benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.
Sponsor: Rep Baldwin, Tammy (introduced 5/20/2009) Cosponsors (76)
Related Bills: S.1102
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02517:|/bss/111search.html|