In the NYT Magazine, there is one of those little Q&A profiles that asks random questions of newsmakers, and this time around Janet Napolitano, the head of Homeland Security, is in the chair. How about this exchange (notice the deftly posed questions):Is there anything you'd like to say to Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who said you would be perfect for your current job because you have "no life."
It takes one to know one.Men don't know what to make of women who choose to be single. Rumors of lesbianism have dogged women in politics like you,Condoleezza Rice and Ann Richards.
Right. I think the more people get to know a person, the less that becomes an issue. It's interesting. In Arizona when I first ran for public office, that's when the rumors were going around, and of course I'm sure they go around now.In 2002, during your gubernatorial campaign, you publicly denied rumors that you were a lesbian.
I just happen not to be married.Are you seeing anybody now?
Yes, my staff.
The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it.What is left to evolve on this issue? The only thing evolving is marriage itself, which the fundies continually state hasn't changed in 2000 years or some such BS. Good news also mentioned in the article is that the U.S. government will not defend using the blatantly ridiculous notions that procreation or raising children needs to be tied to government interest when it comes to marriage.Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year.
In court papers, the administration said it supports repeal of the law. Yet the same filing says the Justice Department will defend fend the statute in this case because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional.
..."DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," according to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.
The White House statement:
THE WHITE HOUSEThe brief and statements from it are below the fold.
Office of Media Affairs
______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August 17, 2009Statement by the President on the Smelt v. United States Brief
Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.
From the brief itself:
"With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here. And in this case, plaintiffs' constitutional claims are unavailing. In their opposition brief, plaintiffs offer only a token response to the United States' arguments on the merits. Indeed, they say nothing at all in response to the argument s concerning their "full faith and credit," right to travel, right to privacy, First Amendment, or Ninth Amendment claims. On that basis alone, those claims should be dismissed."Via Americablog:"Courts have held that challenges to DOMA are subject to rational basis review. Under that deferential standard of review, this Court should find that Congress could reasonably have concluded that there is a legitimate government interest in maintaining the status quo regarding the distribution of federal benefits in the face of serious and fluid policy differences in and among the states. That there is now a debate taking place in this country about same-sex marriage does not make Congress's belief in this regard any less rational. Basic federalism principles allowed Congress in 1996, and allow Congress now, to take this uniform approach based on a traditional definition of marriage that all 50 states recognize while the states grapple with the emerging debate over same-sex marriage. Under rational basis rsis review, Congress can reasonably take the view that it wishes to wait to see how these issues are resolved at the state level before extending federal benefits to marriages that were not recognized in any state when Congress tied eligibility for those benefits to marital status.
"Unlike the intervenors here, the government does not contend that there are legitimate government interests in "creating a legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents" or that the government's interest in "responsible procreation" justifies Congress's decision to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman (Doc. 42 at 8-9). Since DOMA was enacted, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and the Child Welfare League of America have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting because they concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 605 (2003), Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent that encouraging procreation would not be a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples under the reasoning of the Lawrence majority opinion - which, of course, is the prevailing law - because "the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry." For these reasons the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA's constitutionality."
NOTE FROM PAM: Lieutenant Dan Choi, the active duty Infantry officer, Iraq vet, and Arabic speaker who came out and was sent on the discharge path because of DADT -- under Commander in Chief President Barack Obama -- has penned a piece for the Blend about his view that a march on Washington is essential.
Why I support the March on Washington
By LT Dan Choi
On Thursday, at Netroots Nation, former President Bill Clinton made it plain. The gay community did not deliver the political support in 1993 to prevent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and DOMA. I personally take that as a challenge. I am marching on Washington.
I recognize that my perspective is different from others. I am new to the gay rights movement. It was less than two years ago that I fell in love and realized the true cost of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – that my family was not really part of the Army family I had come to believe in. And it was only a few months ago that I came out publicly and, much to my surprise, found myself considered a “gay activist.”
And my experience working against Prop 8 in my home state of California was eye-opening for me. It turns out there are many others like me, young LGBT people who have been galvanized by the visible injustice of DADT, Prop 8, and DOMA. We are horrified, we are electrified, we are ready and eager to enlist in this fight – but like any new recruits, we need to be trained, and we need to be mobilized.
The Equality March is absolutely essential to me for two reasons.
First, because, for so many of us, this is our first time raising our voices. We need to stand together, in our nation’s capital, and claim our place as part of this magnificennificent national movement, at exactly this moment. More experienced activists and leaders need to mobilize, motivate, and train the less experienced – we all have to feel in their bones how critical this work is. And we need to come together as a community, so that when we go back to our cities, suburbs, and small towns, we remain part of the larger effort that spans the country.
Training is critical, and Equality Across America is committed to using this valuable time to provide information, workshops, and networking so that those who attend will go home ready to make things happen in their communities and states.
Second, the Senate hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” convene in October. For LGBT veterans, NOW is the time to be visible for those who are invisible, to be heard while others must stay silent. This is a “mandatory formation” for all vets who gave up their service because they could no longer live a lie, or who were hounded out because of who they loved, and for those who support them.
I understand why veterans of the LGBT rights movement feel that we don’t need a national march. The concern that this will divert effort from other important work – passing marriage equality at the statehouses, for one.
But I disagree with the notion that making the trek to DC will take away from our other efforts. In fact, it will focus and re-energize the work we will do when we get home.
2009 can be a milestone, a tipping point. This is the year when we step up to our full citizenship as Americans: marrying and raising families, serving in our military. Join us in Washington on October 11 to tell the whole nation.
Related:
* LT Dan Choi's Open Letter To Congress and President Obama
* Knights Out Calls For President To Issue Stop-Loss Order
* Dan Choi's appearance on Rachel Maddow:
Please join the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) For a weekend of intimate events in Portland,featuring Kate Kendell, Esq., NCLR Executive Director and Jeana Frazzini, BRO Executive Director
The State of Our Unions: LGBT Legal & Policy Briefing Saturday, September 12, 2009 3:00 pm â€" 5:00 pm
Flying Cat Coffee Company 3041 SE Division Portland, Oregon
The legal landscape for LGBT people is ever-changing, and this year, that has proved to be especially true! With new victories and defeats occurring at a faster pace than ever, it’s hard to keep track of where our struggle for justice stands, and how and whce stands, and how and where our relationships are protected. Join us for a presentation and discussion on the latest legal and policy issues affecting the LGBT community, including an update on moving forward with marriage equality in Oregon and other states and federal legislation and litigation. There is no cost to attend. No RSVP necessary.
A Social for Social Justice: Benefit Party with NCLR and BRO Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:00 pm â€" 5:00 pm
Nostrana Restaurant With award-winning Chef Cathy Whims 1401 SE Morrison Street Portland, Oregon So much has happened over this past year â€" we hope you can join us for a fun and intimate afternoon to catch up with NCLR and BRO and find out more about our current work and what lies ahead in the fight for our LGBT civil and human rights. Suggested Donation: $25, payable at the door. Please RSVP by September 4th to Dena Zaldúa-Hilkene at dzalduahilkene@nclrights.org with subject line “NCLR Portland Event†or call 415.365.1303. Reservations will be held at the door.
www.GayTalkRadio.org
No comments:
Post a Comment