Skip to content

What Does The White House Think About Comparing Same-Sex Unions To Incestuous Ones?

June 17, 2009

Timid…..way too timid.

The news that will be announcved shortly from the White House concerning gay federal employees is less than weak, it is almost spineless.  After all, I think it hard to think that any  agency in this administration would suggest informing a gay employee that they do not have time off to attend their partner’s funeral.  On top of everything else this morsel tonight is a memorandum, and will ‘sunset’ at the end of Obama’s time in office.  What is needed is real concrete, bold, decisive legislation.  The end of DOMA.  The end of DADT. 

Today ABC’s Jake Tapper asked the White House Press Secretary some questions about the famed memo from last Friday.  While I did not blog on the memo, it is linked below and will make your head spin.

TAPPER:  Does the president stand by the legal brief that the Justice Department filed last week that argued in favor the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?
GIBBS:  Well, as you know, that the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the president believes that that law should be repealed.

TAPPER:  I understand that, but a lot of legal experts say that the brief didn’t have to be as comprehensive and make all the arguments that it made, such as comparing same-sex unions to incestuous ones, in one controversial paragraph…
GIBBS:  Well…
TAPPER:  …that’s upset a lot of the president’s supporters. Does the president stand by the content, the arguments made in that brief?
GIBBS:  Well, again, it’s the president’s Justice Department. And, again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the president has stated and will work with Congress to change that law.

  1. Solly permalink
    June 18, 2009 9:03 AM

    you are way too kind Deke, that’s why God created me, to balance the cosmos. Timid? My description would be lame-ass. This is typical of what I’d be called to do after the top dogs in a goverment agency made a promise, and then we’d have to come up with examples that correspond with the promise. Lame-ass. And gee, Obama’s ceremony was at the end of the day, only a few hours before the time Bill Clinton signed DOMA years ago in the middle of the night, how appropriate.

    I was disgusted to see Tammy Baldin smiling in the background when Obama signed his courageous “memo” and making apologies for him afterwords on Rachel Maddow. He could have done this on his first day in office. Fierce Advocate? I don’t think so. It must affect maybe 10, 20 people in the federal goverment. (not that I begrudge them any, even slight improvement in their employment)

    Next time I get a fundraising solicitation from the DNC, Senate Campaign Committee or Tammy Baldwin, the business reply envelope is going back filled with cardboard until there is some real commitment and progress. And no, I’m not some political neophyte who doesn’t realize how tough it is to change laws, I’ve been involved in politics since the 70s, and I recognize when we’re being patted on the head on the way to the back of the bus. Obama is treating us the way Reagan, Bush I and Shrub treated the anti-choice people, gin them up, get their votes and contributions, and do nothing but a few symbolic throw away gestures. This is WORSE than nothing. This is demeaning and insulting. This was my email yesterday to Tammy:

    Dear Congresswoman Baldwin,
    Please withdraw from the DNC LGBT fundraiser on June 25. After the Obama administration’s repulsive brief in the DOMA case, and lack of effort, much less progress on other issues, they do not deserve our further support until they produce. How did candidate Obama say it? OUR TIME IS NOW! I’m hoping for a little audacity, not a stinkin’ proclamation!!! No more sending us to the back of the bus!

    “to whom much is given, much is expected.” Luke 12:48

  2. Patrick permalink
    June 17, 2009 10:14 PM

    I’m afraid you’ll get the same response on gay rights that Obama has given the protestors in Iran–“present.” I wonder what Clinton would have done. She had a track record of supporting such causes.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: