HRC says Obama administration is reinforcing 'ridiculous, offensive stereotypes' about gays

[Bluebear]

by John Aravosis:

The Obama administration yet again has defended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in court. And yet again they're doing it in an incredibly offensive way that attempts to undercut our civil rights movement. Don't forget, the courts are indispensable to any minority community's efforts to gain its civil rights. The fact that the Obama administration keeps opposing our civil rights in court, when they don't have to, risks causing us serious damage.

As Richard Socarides, a lawyer who was formerly a senior adviser to President Clinton on gay issues, recently noted - what happens when these cases finally get to the US Supreme Court? Will President Obama direct his "Justice" Department to continue opposing our civil rights before the Supreme Court? Because if that happens, this White House won't know what hit it.

From HRC's press release:

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today criticized the Justice Department’s continued defense of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, “Don’t Tell” (DADT) law by filing a motion for summary judgment in Witt v. Department of Air Force. In their motion, the Justice Department, after acknowledging in a footnote the president’s opposition to DADT as a policy matter, again vigorously defends the statute, and among its arguments is that Congress was reasonable in barring open service by lesbians and gays over concerns about deployments involving forced intimacy and a lack of privacy. The Justice Department goes on to contend that it needs a uniform rule to apply for DADT discharges, and rather than agreeing with the higher burden imposed by the Ninth Circuit in the Witt case in 2008, argues for a standard that will allow the Defense Department to more easily remove dedicated service members based on their sexual orientation.

“Once again, the Justice Department insists on defending an indefensible statute, and in ways that reinforce ridiculous, offensive stereotypes about LGBT people and demeans the service of the thousands of men and women discharged under DADT,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “We agree on one point, though – there must be a uniform standard for the enforcement of DADT: repeal. President Obama must fulfill his promise to the country and work with the Senate to finish the job repealing this arcane and discriminatory law now.”

Now, why does this statement from HRC matter? Because HRC over the past year or so has been as close as you can get to an appendage of the Obama administration. For them to be using words like "ridiculous, offensive stereotypes" about the Obama administration's language on DADT is significant. A lot of gay people will now say "even HRC is pissed" at the administration, and "even HRC says the President is permitting his minions to promote offensive stereotypes about gays." HRC's statement will help even the final holdouts in our community understand that all is not well in Obama-land.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/07/hrc-says-obama-administration-is.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Chulanowa]

4. Careful there, feller

Using facts in an outrage thread is like crossing the streams. And you don't want to cross the streams, do you?

[NJmaverick]

20. You certainly got that right

[ruggerson]

36. careful there missy

what you're calling facts ain't.

[Chulanowa]

40. I don't think I have ovaries

If I do, well, i'm calling guinness, 'cause that's gotta be something fairly uncommon :D

No, it is really and truly fact. In every court case, there has to be a prosecution and a defense. In a suit against the govenrment, the government is going to appoint someone to defend its position.

Sadly for the hate brigade, this is not Obama sitting in his cave, planning Gay Gulags and white slavery. it's the justice department doing exactly what the justice department always does in these situation. It's actually something hte justice department is supposed to do; can't have the court date unless both sides are opresent, after all.

[ruggerson]

42. They do not have to defend the statute

employing language which in part states that: "Congress was reasonable in barring open service by lesbians and gays over concerns about deployments involving forced intimacy and a lack of privacy."

This was the same problem with the first DOMA brief in the Smelt case. It was way over the top and potentially damaging to future DOMA suits. And guess what? Obama had it changed and toned down and the DOJ issued a REVISED brief which defended DOMA far less vigorously. And the WH even issued a statement to go along with the DOJ's revised brief.

Capiche?

The problem is not with the DOJ defending the statute (DADT has yet to be found unconstitutional) the problem is the vigor with which they defend it and the language they use, which then can be used down the road to oppose other gay rights cases.

So take the "hate" elsewhere because you wouldn't know a "fact" about any of this if you fell over one.

[Chulanowa]

43. Any other cases where the DoJ shouldn't do their job?

of course they're defending it with vigor and to the best of their abilities. They're supposed to. It'd be nice if they decided, just this once, to act like a pack of brainless doofuses, slack off, and willingly lose their case, sure. I in no way, shape, or form support the laws they are defending; I just realize that they have to defend it because that's the role their department plays.

It's shitty, but that's how it works. I'm very sorry that that's the way it is, but sadly, that is the way it is.

[ruggerson]

44. So Obama and the DOJ were wrong to revise the Smelt brief

and tone it WAY down, after the first brief caused a national firestorm?

You know better about this than they do and all the GLBT legal minds that have been fighting this fight for two decades?

[ruggerson]

54. ********CRICKETS*********

[Bluebear]

60. Even the crickets can't comment lol

[Chulanowa]

65. Yes

It would be better if the language had remained and the firestorm had kept going until action was forced. There has never been a moment in United States history where civil rights were recognized without the people in question forcing the issue; suits here and there will only ever get you Dredd Scott decisions.

The DOJ is going to defend the law in question with everything they have. I'm sorry that pointing this out to you sets your ass on fire and makes you assume that I'm set against you; I'm not. I'm telling you in plain english, that this is what they are going to do, that this is what you should expect them to do, and that you should realize that's how it's going to be. The task then is to make a stronger case than they do, and put pressure on the judiciary to recognize just what a fucking weak case the DOJ has, even at its "best."

I'm sure you'll still want to argue, so I'm going to ask you; since evidently you have all the answers, what exactly should the DOJ be doing here? You and I both know there will be no handouts from them, and you and I both know they're not going to play the Three Stooges to make you happy. So then what should htye be doing?

[ruggerson]

67. What they should be doing

is fighting both DOMA and DADT cases on a very limited basis and only to the extent to which they feel absolutely compelled. They should never employ language which could both weaken further appeals and/or utilize bigotry or stereotyping in their briefs.

What you're missing here is that if they go balls to the wall with inflammatory and/or pseudo-religious reasoning and the judge rules in their favor, future judges, on appeal, can point to the language and decisions of a prior case to further strengthen a ruling and/or justify upholding the law.

This is exactly why Obama (yes, Obama) ordered the DOJ to tone down the Smelt brief and why the DOJ lawyers held meetings (yes, meetings) with GLBT lawyers, including LAMBDA, in order to discuss the furor over the Smelt brief and plot legal strategy.

This is also why Obama issued a rare statement from the WH as a companion piece for the revised brief, reiterating his opposition to DOMA.

Now, I realize you know far more about constitutional law than Obama and the top lawyers at Justice, not to mention LAMBDA legal and a coterie of GLBT attorneys with Harvard and Yale law degrees, but since you give this President deference on so many other issues, I wonder why this particular one sticks in your craw so much that you feel compelled to enter almost every thread on the subject to spread misinformation and confusion about the actual jurisprudence involved in these matters.

[Hissyspit]

13. They don't have to defend the way they are doing it and they don't have to defend to the extent.

[Bluebear]

14. Thank you. Point the above 2 ignored to: "The Choice to Defend DOMA, and Its Consequences"

The article is a year old. Sadly, not much has changed since:

The Choice to Defend DOMA, and Its Consequences
by Richard Socarides

Like many other gay people who support the president, and as someone who had hoped he would be a presidential-sized champion of gay civil rights from the start, I was disturbed by his administration’s brief defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), filed late last week, in opposition to our full equality.

It had such a buckshot approach to it, a veritable kitchen sink of anti-gay legal theories, that it seemed expressly designed to inflict maximal damage to our rights. Instead of making nuanced arguments which took into account the president’s oft-stated support for repealing DOMA – a law he has called “abhorrent” – the brief seemed to embrace DOMA and all its horrific consequences.

I was equally troubled by the administration’s explanation that they had no choice but to defend the law. As an attorney and as someone who was directly involved in giving advice on such matters to another president (as a Special Assistant for civil rights to President Bill Clinton), I know that this is untrue.

No matter what the president’s personal opinion, administration officials now tell us that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) must defend the laws on the books, and must advance all plausible arguments in doing so. Thus, the theory goes, the DOJ was just following the normal rules in vigorously defending the anti-gay law.

I know and accept the fact that one of the Department of Justice's roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack. But not in all cases, certainly not in this case – and not in this way. To defend this brief is to defend the indefensible.

From my experience, in a case where, as here, there are important political and social issues at stake, the president’s relationship with the Justice Department should work like this: The president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.

Thus, the general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative – like everything in Washington. And even when the DOJ does defend a law against constitutional attack, it does not have to advance every conceivable argument in doing so (such as the brief’s invocation, in a footnote, of incest and the marriage of children). In fact, many legal experts believe that in this particular case none of the issues going to the merits of whether or not DOMA is constitutional needed to be addressed to get the case thrown out. The administration’s lawyers could have simply argued, for example, that the plaintiff’s had no standing. There was no need to invoke legal theories that were not only offensive on their face, but which could put at risk future legal efforts on behalf of our civil rights.

I am not suggesting that it is easy to get the DOJ to agree not to defend a law on the merits, because it is not. Someone has to be aggressive and make persuasive arguments to the president. Someone on a staff level has to believe strongly that it is the right thing to, not defending DOMA, and be willing to push hard. But it is doable. It does happen. It is one of the reasons the president needs to appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality (as I and others have previously urged).

On May 2, 2009, at the 100-day point of the Obama presidency, I wrote a Washington Post Op Ed, Where’s Our 'Fierce Advocate'?, bemoaning the president’s silence over our most significant civil rights court victory to date, recognizing marriage in Iowa. I thought, with a little push from the president, this could have been a marriage tipping-point for us. Call it a missed national growth opportunity.

Now, six weeks later, we seem to have gone from silence to outright hostility, and from our very own Department of Justice.

Based on my own White House experience, I know that these things are not always fully intentional. Signals get crossed. In an environment where events transpire at often breathtaking speed, mistakes are made. And in fact, I have heard from some who believe that an effort was made in this case to scale back some of the most offensive arguments in this brief (the Lambda Legal statement says this). Clearly those efforts did not go far enough.

Looking at the administration’s performance overall during these past five months, we see how little progress has been made to fulfill the president’s promises to our community, on even the most basic level. It is disheartening.

I am still hopeful that much can be accomplished over the course of this presidency. But I strongly believe that to do so we must make it loud and clear that we will not be sacrificed to the altar of political expediency, that there will be a steep price to pay if our constitutional rights are ignored or put off indefinitely, and that a deeply offensive brief like the one filed last week will not be allowed to go unchallenged.

As we approach the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, I’m reminded of something President Obama said during the campaign: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/choice-to-defend-doma-and-its.html

[NJmaverick]

19. You can't ignore the law, because it's convenient or you like that better

[Ignis]

33. Obviously, you are not a lawyer. Obviously, Richard Socarides is.

Why on earth should we take your legal opinion over his? :shrug:

I was equally troubled by the administration’s explanation that they had no choice but to defend the law. As an attorney and as someone who was directly involved in giving advice on such matters to another president (as a Special Assistant for civil rights to President Bill Clinton), I know that this is untrue.

(snip)


Thus, the general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative – like everything in Washington. And even when the DOJ does defend a law against constitutional attack, it does not have to advance every conceivable argument in doing so (such as the brief’s invocation, in a footnote, of incest and the marriage of children). In fact, many legal experts believe that in this particular case none of the issues going to the merits of whether or not DOMA is constitutional needed to be addressed to get the case thrown out. The administration’s lawyers could have simply argued, for example, that the plaintiff’s had no standing. There was no need to invoke legal theories that were not only offensive on their face, but which could put at risk future legal efforts on behalf of our civil rights.

Do you support the DOJ's decision to defend DOMA by using the scare tactics I've bolded above? If so, why?

[NJmaverick]

17. Yes they do, that how justice works. The lawyer defending a rape suspect

doesn't tank his/her case because rape is bad. You need to understand how our justice system works.

[Hissyspit]

27. "You need to understand how our justice system works."

That's your response to me?

There is nothing in a valid defense that allows the defense to use any and all unsound, immorality-based or possibly illegal tactics to defend unconstitutional behavior, in fact, it may function as BAD defense.

In addition, you ignore the wide leeway the Attorney General has in deciding how to defend a case and what strategies to use. If the Department of Justice is now supposed to be again "non-political," then it shouldn't be giving life to defense strategies that were politically formulated.

I understand how the justice system functions just fine.

[NJmaverick]

31. There was nothing illegal in the defense

and if you think it's correct for a AG to violate his oath you don't understand the system as well as you think you do. The AG's job is to defend the US to the best of his/her ability in the court system.

PS- what exactly is a "immorality-based"?

[Ignis]

37. THIS is immorality-based:

And even when the DOJ does defend a law against constitutional attack, it does not have to advance every conceivable argument in doing so (such as the brief’s invocation, in a footnote, of incest and the marriage of children).

How is that unclear?

[Bluebear]

41. Somebody is schooling you in the justice system? When this administration ignores torturers?

OK.

Glad my ignore list is properly stocked.

[dsc]

45. there is an immense difference in mission between a defense attorney and an attorney defending laws

A criminal defense attorney is required to zealously defend, bounded only by law and legal ethics, his or her client. Attorney's defending laws are supposed to be working for the Constitution, not a specific government official. They aren't supposed to use bad faith arguments, they aren't supposed to make stuff up, they aren't supposed to argue theories they don't believe. Defense attorneys are permitted, actually required, to argue whatever they think will work as long as they don't know it not to be true. That is a very different standard.

[USArmyParatrooper]

46. So let me get this straight

You're saying DOJ attorneys who represent the US government aren't required to argue their case with vigor?

Are you honestly suggesting President Obama is directly involved with the case and helping formulate their arguments and strategy?

Moving on to a broader picture - do you honestly believe President Obama agrees with DADT?

[Hissyspit]

52. "You're saying DOJ attorneys who represent the US government aren't required to argue their case

with vigor?"

No. That's not what he said.

[dsc]

55. there is a difference between arguing a case with vigor

and comparing same sex marriage to incenst and pedeophilia. The DOJ did the second.

[Ignis]

47. "supposed to be working for the Constitution, not a specific government official"

YES! :thumbsup: Thanks for spelling out that important difference.

[QC]

16. A most sensible observation! n/t

[NJmaverick]

18. Thank you! I will also add it's an accurate and honest one as well.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

66. Which is why the mods deleted it. D'oh!

[Hissyspit]

26. No, it's not. It's an oversimplification and a bad analogy.

[QC]

28. But that's what makes it so pragmatically sensible. n/t

[Hissyspit]

29. Oh, yes.

Got it. :)

[ruggerson]

35. And you continue to defend the indefensible

n/t

[Zhade]

61. Did you just equate being gay to being a murderer?

Wish I could say I was surprised.

[xchrom]

2. Gasp! Gee HRC -- ya think?!?!

Better late than never.

[Bluebear]

3. Late to the party, just as everything was being put away.

I guess we can still fix them a little plate of something lol!

[terrya]

9. I got another membership renewal thing from them.

Sounded like they were practically teetering on the brink of insolvency.

[Ignis]

30. Yeah, nice of them to wake up.

If they keep moving in this direction, they might even start seeing donations from me again.

[RKP5637]

5. fierce advocate ... n/t

[LostinVA]

6. Wow, the HRC grew a spine

And is actually advocating for GLBT rights!!!!!

*faint*

[Bluebear]

7. Be still...

my pony-wishing heart!

[LostinVA]

15. Time to buy

A saddle?!

[Bluebear]

56. =)

[terrya]

8. This is what I expect a gay lobbying/advocacy group to do.

And HRC is absolutely right.

DADT repeal has been fucked up from the start. It's more than a little goddamned ridiculous to hear about installing shower curtains and segregating gay troops. I'll ask...what is so fucking special about our military that we have to witness this crap? 24 other nations lifted their bans without this stupid, demeaning crap we're seeing right now.

[Prism]

10. People unfamiliar with the community don't understand how big a deal this is

The HRC is practically the Democratic Party's handmaiden. No matter how furious the community is on an issue, HRC and Joe Solmonese could always be expected to show up at photo ops with politicians and proclaim the most offensive shit sandwich a nutritious and hearty meal for the whole family.

It makes me wonder. I wonder if Solmonese and others aren't finally perceiving that the administration was somewhat less than forthright in how vigorous it was going to be in pursuing equality. Not only are we getting, for the umpteenth time, a silly, unnecessary, deeply offensive DOMA mistake, we see Lt. Choi discharged, this inhuman DADT survey, and the distinct sense that the administration would like nothing more than to punt LGBT issues as far down the road as possible.

Also, I think GetEqual is destroying HRC's credibility. Well, more than it already was destroyed. No one outside of D.C. actually thinks Solmonese and his operation are worth a good god damn to the LGBT people on the ground.

Fear of the loss of power are all these people know, and I think Solmonese is beginning to imagine that he's rapidly becoming irrelevant as the LGBT community starts discarding him and his organization like the subservient trash it is.

[RKP5637]

11. I quit the HRC, especially after they badgered me on the phone endlessly for more

donations via a creepy telemarketing outfit back aways.

[QC]

25. This is like Chris Crocker dissing Britney!

No one would ever have expected this.

[Bluebear]

64. ---

:spray:

[Touchdown]

12. HRC. It's about damned time! Welcome to the party, Pal!

[VMI Dem]

21. You need some straight disruptors in this thread to tell you the real story.

To protest the outrage and shit.

[Bluebear]

23. I saw six ignored posts, I figured that was covered

:toast:

[QC]

24. There are some things one can always count on. n/t

[Ignis]

39. Aw, that doesn't count.

Five were from a single poster. That's hardly enough to qualify for a good old-fashioned anti-gay dogpile!

Your standards are really slipping, Bluebear. :P

[hootinholler]

22. I was thinking Hillary

Not the Human Rights Campaign.

:shrug:

-Hoot

[UTUSN]

32. No, the HRC claims it is bi-partisan and NON-partisan. n/t

[Bluebear]

51. "No" what?

[USArmyParatrooper]

34. Hey Bluebear, I'm glad you agree with HRC! Here's their release

http://www.hrc.org/14492.htm


Human Rights Campaign Statement on the Justice Department’s Continued Defense of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" In Witt v. Department of Air Force

HRC Message to the Administration and the Senate: If You Oppose DADT, Finish the Job on Repeal

7/23/2010

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today criticized the Justice Department’s continued defense of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, “Don’t Tell” (DADT) law by filing a motion for summary judgment in Witt v. Department of Air Force. In their motion, the Justice Department, after acknowledging in a footnote the president’s opposition to DADT as a policy matter, again vigorously defends the statute, and among its arguments is that Congress was reasonable in barring open service by lesbians and gays over concerns about deployments involving forced intimacy and a lack of privacy. The Justice Department goes on to contend that it needs a uniform rule to apply for DADT discharges, and rather than agreeing with the higher burden imposed by the Ninth Circuit in the Witt case in 2008, argues for a standard that will allow the Defense Department to more easily remove dedicated service members based on their sexual orientation.

“Once again, the Justice Department insists on defending an indefensible statute, and in ways that reinforce ridiculous, offensive stereotypes about LGBT people and demeans the service of the thousands of men and women discharged under DADT,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “We agree on one point, though – there must be a uniform standard for the enforcement of DADT: repeal. President Obama must fulfill his promise to the country and work with the Senate to finish the job repealing this arcane and discriminatory law now.”

The plaintiff in this case is Major Witt, an Air Force reservist nurse who entered the service in 1987 and was discharged under DADT after 18 years of service. The district court originally dismissed the suit for a failure to state a claim and Major Witt appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court held that each individual service member’s discharge under DADT must be necessary to “advance an important governmental interest,” and remanded the case to the district court for further analysis. Today’s filing in the district court by the Administration requests that the district court acknowledge that Major Witt’s discharge was necessary in order for the Air Force to maintain military effectiveness and unit cohesion. This defense of DADT is completely at odds with the President’s previous statements advocating for repeal of DADT.

In another district court in California, the trial for another DADT challenge – Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America – is wrapping up. In Log Cabin, the Administration is relying on similar arguments to support the DADT law. HRC agrees with the plaintiffs in Witt and Log Cabin that DADT is unconstitutional and is optimistic that justice will prevail in both suits.

While the Justice Department defends DADT in the courts, Congress is moving forward with repeal legislation. On May 27th, 2010, with support of the President, the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted an amendment to the Senate FY 2011 Defense Authorization bill to repeal DADT. The amendment was offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Carl Levin. Later that same day, Congressman Patrick Murphy offered an identical amendment to the House FY 2011 Defense Authorization bill that was adopted by the House of Representatives by a vote of 234 to 194. The House passed its Defense Authorization bill on May 28th, 2010. The Senate is expected to vote on its Defense Authorization bill soon, and the President has committed to signing repeal legislation into law.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

They are chastising the Justice Department's defense of DADT, who's JOB it is to represent the Government in a suit just like it's a Public Defender's job to vigorously represent ALL alleged criminals.

[Zhade]

62. 1) You're wrong, they DON'T have to, as explained upthread.

2) HRC agrees with BB, not the other way around.

[ruggerson]

38. Notice how the DOJ files these motions so as to hit the late Fri news dump?

Remind you of anything?

[Bluebear]

48. Yes, I do. And it does. nt

[defendandprotect]

49. Obviously, Obama hasn't been much of a help -- personally or as president . . .

Didn't Obama say he didn't personally believe in gay marriage -- ???

I may be mistaken but I thought that's what he said???

[Bluebear]

50. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.” - Barack Obama

Sen. Obama said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” shortly after being asked if he opposed same-sex marriage, to which he responded, “Yes.” This positioning is not new for Sen. Obama. He has uttered those words plenty – during a debate with Alan Keyes in 2004, on the Senate floor in 2006, even in his 2007 Human Rights Campaign candidate questionnaire.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2008/06/20/Obama_and_One-Man,_One-Woman_Marriage/

Your recollection of his attitude on marriage equality is quite correct.

[defendandprotect]

57. So . . . IMO . . . none too helpful as far as a human rights issue . . .

and supporting human rights --

And I wonder -- as a Constitutional scholar -- what he bases that thinking on --

presuming it's not a political position/???

Would it be his reading of Constitutional rights?

Would it be some religious theory?

Maybe some day he'll tell us -- !!

[Zhade]

63. Ironically, Obama would be banned from DU for that stance.

Assuming the rules (unlike allowing Crist to be supported over the Dem in FL) were followed.

[Bluebear]

68. Indeed!

[QC]

69. Lately, that's a very iffy assumption to make. n/t

[Solly Mack]

53. K&R

[readmoreoften]

58. God, if the suck-up hot tub set known as the HRC is pissed at Obama, he must be pretty bad.

The HRC is the weakest, most selfish and opportunistic organization in all of LGBTlandia. They'll settle for any pretense of LGBT support. If the HRC is openly using language like this, he must be a real @!#$$*!

[amborin]

59. K&R