Well, yeah. Cuz I'm QUITE sure Barack is happy with Michelle and not bumping uglies with Snape.

I can't tell you how delighted I am that you think my equality under the law being denied to me in ugly and brutalizing terms is amusing.

I'm going to assume that she was making a reference to my Potter comment and not anything else. I could be wrong, but I'll reserve judgement until or if she says otheerwise.

I'm sorry for hijacking your journal. But this is me after 24 hours. Imagine what it would have been like if I'd shown up yesterday.

My five stages of grief appear to be anger, anger, anger, anger, and anger.

Wait.... what? Did I miss something? I was referring to the Harry Potter thing here, nothing else.

*wanders in* Well duh, Barack is like one whole heck of a lot taller. One has a magic tongue and the other a magic wand, wait, that didnt sound right.

*wanders off*

Please elaborate. LOL.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. Okay. I get it. He's not a wizard.

Well of course not.
He doesn't seem like Draco's type, at all.
*grin*

Ummmmm what are we talking about?
*scratches head*

*applauds*

Nope. No magic wand. Just the rules of the land to follow even as he tries to change them the harder, Muggle way.

That's apologist bullshit.

Nope. Not at all.

Are we talking about something other than the despicable language the Department of Justice used yesterday to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, in which they compared me to a rapist and my marriage to incest? Or something else?

Because there is no excuse for this. It doesn't mean I thought Barack Obama would change the world, or even lesbian and gay rights issues, overnight or indeed, soon. I didn't think he could walk on water, nor do I think my issues should come first.

But this was a personal and profound betrayal and there is hardly a queer person or ally who wasn't send reeling in anger, shock, and personal pain yesterday by this ugly, brutalizing brief... on the anniversary of the Loving v Virginia ruling, and during Pride Month, no less.

As to him upholding the "rule of the land" while he tries to change it -- and I don't understand the Harry Potter references, as I've never read these books -- that is what I called "apologist bullshit," and it is. Presidents often refuse to defend bad law, and even if the DOJ felt it had to defend this one, they didn't have to fucking knife every queer American and our friends, family, and allies in the motherfucking heart with their words.

It was wrong, it was hurtful, it was damaging, and it was UNNECESSARY for the law of the land to be upheld.

If you and Red are talking about something else, then tell me and I'll shut up.

Oh, fucking hell, I'm not saying that brief is anything but insulting and vile. I'm not saying that Obama shouldn't be held to his campaign promises. Because he should. Loudly and vociferously.

I'm also not convinced that Obama even knew the contents of that brief before it was filed. You can call that apologetic, if you like.

And that doesn't mean that I don't think he should take action within his administration against that kind of bullshit happening again, either.

Red, I have no idea what the reference to Harry Potter means, so before I go into a nuclear meltdown, can you explain?

You remember the "Barack The Magic Negro" thing? And how some people think that he can just wave a wand and make all the bad laws and people and shit go away?

Yeah. Like that.

Someone posted on LJ about the DOJ coming down with a ruling regarding DOMA, how the courts have to hold up that law if the lawsuits don't make their case. As jacked up as that law is, no matter how Obama feels about it, he can't just go in and wipe the law off the books. Repealing laws takes time, and you have to do it in such a way that the repeal holds up under subsequent fire.

He doesn't have a magic wand, and he can't just Evanesco the bad shit away, like Harry can.

I need that "chill the fuck out, I got this" pic.

That's not what this is about.

Red, did you READ the brief? It's not that the DOJ defended DOMA. It's what they said. And how the White House has responded since then. It's not what your'e saying. It's just not.

No, I didn't. Last night, I'm going through my flist on LJ and seeing people basically calling for his head on a platter.

And I just read your post as well.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't read legalese. I've read several people's interpretation of what the brief says, and all of them are pissed. So actually, I don't know what it said, based on the comments I'm reading. Someone said something about Obama likening gay marriage to incest. Did he actually say that? Or was that someone's interpretation of what he said? I've made the mistake of being pissed off about something, only to find out that what I've read is not what was said, or what happened.

And I'm not apologising for anything, nor am I giving him a pass. All I'm saying, and all I said in this post was that he's not a wizard. He's not doing anything on my timetable. If he was, my payroll taxes would be lower already. We've got two wars, nutjobs going around blowing people away just because, an economy in the toilet, and one man expected to have one humongous Band-aid to fix it all.

Do we know if he's working on a repeal of DOMA? Or are we just saying he's not because of yesterday? I seem to recall that he did a lot of things that we didn't see coming and weren't expecting, because he didn't want to tip his hand. I'm not making excuses for him. I'm just in a wait and see mode.

This isn't about timelines. It's about what was said. Read the links on my blog and see what you think then. Because I honestly believe that the point that "Obama isn't a wizard" is totally and utterly beside the point. It's not the problem.

BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DEFEND IT.

I agree with you 100% but I'm not at all happy that he defended DOMA. I think he should consider that it might be time to stop playing both sides against the middle and just say FU to the right.

What I mean is, I agree with you that he's not a wizard, however, he is our President and while I stand by my choice and have faith in him still, it really is time to stop placating. (if that's what he's doing. if that's not what he's doing and he really believes this crap, then we've got a WHOLE other problem)

I've been doing a bit of surfing about. Part of the problem I'm seeing is that people who are understandably upset are putting their own spin on what was said, or they're putting words in his mouth.

I do agree athat he didn't have to have anyone from his office file a brief. He could have left it alone. But a part of me wonders if he did that on purpose. Not to appeal to the base, but perhaps to throw the base off. When you're playing poker, you don't show your hand, you don't show your tells.

I think that he's gonna tackle DADT first. Because of the fact that we're fighting two wars, this one is gonna take precedence, I believe. And what that will do is to hold gay military memebers to the same standards as straight ones. They can be open and serve, and if they get caught fucking on board a ship (which I did quite a few times, didn't get caught, though), or while on duty, they get busted just like anyone else. That'll be first.

DOMA is going to be harder. There's so much language in it that it's gonna take time unravelling it, in my non-legal opinion. The issue, as I see it, is how to implement a repeal. Only six states recognize same-sex marriage. So they wouldn't be affected, except on the federal level, where the benefits and stuff factors in. To me, it seems like a logistical nightmare, but one we will have to deal with. What I think is paramount is to make the repeal able to withstand any and all attacks against it.

From a legal standpoint, how would this work?

...but your icon...your icon...it has me mesmerized.....oh God.

I'm trying to find the actual brief do you have a link?

The DOJ probably did have to respond, what I meant by he didn't have to defend it is that he could have very easily said: this is the law, and until it's changed this is the way it goes, without all the crap. There are plenty of ways to let people know how you really feel.

Look, I admire and respect this President, more than I have any politician ever but I know he's not perfect. HOWEVER, it's time to put up or shut up Red. Nothing will change with this type of shit happening. It feels cowardly to me.

DADT, is something Obama has supported hands down isn't it? Why the fuck start there? This is the larger issue and it's front and center right now with Prop. 8 and all the news about the states supporting it. Plus it's popular with the people. So what's he afraid of?

It's not that difficult, this country has run on the full faith and credit act from pretty much the get go and this is a HUGE reason why it was never going to work to allow states to decide this issue one by one, IMO.

I wasn't aware that he fully supprted DADT. In fact, I thought that the military was already talking with the higher ups about this. I'll have to remember where I was reading about that.

And the reason I think, or thought, that he'd start there is for the reasons I stated. First, I think it's an easier policy to do away with, and second, because of the wars we're fighting, we can't afford to be losing people due to a stupid law.

The individual states deciding is possibly one of the stupidest rules ever. That's why I think DOMA is gonna be a mess. I don't know how you'd even begin to start unravelling that.

I can't speak much about DADT. To me, it's almost too easy to fix. He just needs to do it.

However, it's not about unraveling anything if DOMA is struck down. Here's the thing, it happened for the Lovings, it can happen for gay marriage too. Would it take some time to re-program computers and such, probably but that is such a lame excuse IMO.

I agree, DADT should be easy to strike down.

I just thought that DOMA would be harder to deal with, because of the states issue. But yes, in light of Loving vs VA, I suppose it really wouldn't be.

I found the brief. I'm going to read through it and then I might have more to say.

Good. Maybe you can make sense of it. Reading selected snippets isn't working for me.

DOMA and DADT aren't separate issues. They are ONE issue.

"We seek nothing more and nothing less than equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states." -Cleve Jones

Okay, I guess I'm just gonna opt out of the discussion. Nothing I say is gonna make a bit of difference, and I'm wrong no matter what.