I think Civil Rights is an incredibly important issue. I think the fact that we systematically deny equal rights to any group of people is something worth fighting for, and something I know we will succeed in accomplishing.
However, we must be responsible in our actions and reactions to news, reports, briefs and talking points. This past week has shown me that many people still jump to the worst conclusions, the end-of-the-world scenarios, and dramatically claim they will never trust, or donate to (insert name here, mostly Obama) again.
But here's the problem - we're getting our facts wrong. Public figures have been getting their facts wrong, until today.
Chairman Frank and Aravosiss Misstatements
It's refreshing to see these comments and reflections:
Barney Frank:
Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.
and from the article:
Finally, Rep. Tammy Baldwin recently told Rachel Maddow that Obama went "as far as he could go" and that the ball was now in Congress’s court. Rachel asked how to get Obama to move more quickly. Baldwin responded: "Giving him a bill to sign would be the first order of business." So, look for Aravosis’s next contorted post on how Baldwin threw us under the bus.
And here's the passage that Aravoisis claims is the hateful language:
And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").
I'm angry too, because it's time for Congress to get off its collective ass and get rid of DADT and DOMA, not because the DOJ issued a brief or what it said. I have friends and family that are affected by this injustice. I stand, as always, on equal rights/pay/treatment for all human beings. I started marching for women's rights when I was 4 years old, thanks to a 'hippie' mom who taught me that you don't ever give up or ever stop working towards making the world a better place for everyone.
A friend of mine just posted this message to us..."I have been driven to drink by some on the left who want Obama to become the same type of Unitary Executive they denounced Bush for being.
Because of the way Clinton handled the situation, Obama can do nothing about DADT and DOMA on his own.
Both are LAWS that only Congress can repeal.
Historians will excoriate Clinton for signing both pieces of legislation."
I'm also thrilled by President Obama making his statement regarding his support to overturn DOMA at a press conference and not letting it be some tucked away memo that doesn't get attention. Some are saying 'too little, too late' and I'm saying it may be small, but each journey begins with a step. We must be committed to stepping forward, and hold on to each right and law as we get them; never stepping back or allowing others to further degrade the rights of citizens.
Obama said Wednesday that he wanted to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, calling it "discriminatory," and that he supports legislation to give same-sex partners of Federal employees equal benefits as heterosexual couples enjoy.
"Hundreds of Fortune 500 companies already offer such benefits, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because they recognize it helps them compete for and retain top talent," he said.