Yesterday, I posted a diary which laid bare the persistent lie that the Obama Administration, against it's best wishes, is somehow compelled to defend/appeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and DOMA:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Today is a brand new day, in which yet another more pointed and particular case comes to light, which, again refutes that lie.
In 1996, a federal judge ruled that a law barring HIV-positive men and women from serving in the armed forces was unconstitutional. And the Clinton White House—no model of courage on gay issues (see: DOMA, DADT)—refused to appeal the court's decision. Here's what Jack Quinn, White House Counsel in 1996, had to say at the time about the Clinton administration's refusal to defend the law in court:
"Based on this advice from the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and after consulting with the Department of Justice about the legal effect of that advice, the President concluded that the Dornan Amendment is unconstitutional. It arbitrarily discriminates and violates all notions of equal protection. Again, at the direction of the President, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice will decline to defend this provision in court. If the Congress chooses to defend this treatment of men and women in the military, it may do so. But this administration will not."
http://slog.thestranger.com/...
The Obama administration claims that it has no choice but to defend DOMA and DADT in court—despite the president's having stated that he views both laws as unjust and unconstitutional.
As Americablog points out:
This is exactly what we have been arguing for a year and a half, and what the Obama administration and its apologists have been denying: The President has the power to not appeal a case if he so chooses. We were told that simply wasn't an option, we were told that even if it were an option it certainly wouldn't apply to a case involving gays being kicked out of the military, and we were told that all hell would break loose if it ever happened, and now we find out that it didn't only happen, it happened on a case dealing with kicking gays (let's face it, back then HIV+ was code for "gay") out of the military, and all hell didn't break loose, a later Republican president didn't retaliate, and locusts didn't descend from on high.
http://gay.americablog.com/...
Let's be clear, DADT was dead, and at least one arm of the service is acknowledged that:
the Air Force is telling its attorneys that they must comply with the ruling. Of course, we keep hearing that DOJ will ask for a stay of the decision. But, for now, DADT isn't in effect -- and the USAF JAG admits it:
http://gay.americablog.com/2010/10/usaf-jag-email-tells-lawyers-to-uphold.html#disqus_thread
However, today a discharged gay vet was refused re-enlistment despite lack of DADT law:
With a briefcase full of commendations under his arm, Omar Lopez walked into an Austin, Tex., recruiting office Wednesday. Mr. Lopez, 29, had served nearly five years in the Navy. He was honorably discharged in 2006 for "homosexual admission," according to documents he carried. He wanted to re-enlist.
But recruiters turned him away hastily, saying they had no knowledge of any injunction or any change in military policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Once again we have the irony of Republicans fighting for the civil rights a Democratic president will not:, the Log Cabin Republicans accused the Obama administration of being in contempt of court for violating the judge's DADT order:
http://gay.americablog.com/...
So there was no compelling legal reason for the Obama Administration to appeal DADT, there were no negative repercussions from a similar refusal by the Clinton White House.
And at any point during his past twenty two months in office, Obama could have signed an executive order halting the enforcement of the discriminatory law, until it was overturned by Congress.
By not only dragging his feet amid dramatic changes in the social and legal landscape for gay rights but also using the Justice Department to prop up discriminatory laws, the "change" president has stopped being a passive bystander in the push for gay rights. He's become the obstacle-in-chief.
http://prospect.org/...
I was going to ask "why?" at the end of this diary, but that may be pointless to ponder.
But not nearly as pointless as a Democratic President who ran on "change" (and specifically, a change of this law) fighting against a change for the better.
And appealing the injunction of this clearly unconstitutional law, which will continue this discriminatory and loathsome policy for an indefinite period of months, or years.
UPDATE 3: The election nears, so it's time for a new zombie lie! Apparently, some Clinton aparachik said something to the effect that Obama hasta appeal DADT because:
"Hey people, unless we deprive the gays and lesbians of civil rights NOW, years or decades into the future, if the stars align correctly, an imaginary Republican President and an imaginary judge could imaginarily declare something completely unrelated to be imaginarily unconstitutional and those nasty fags will take away your healthcare!"
Or, at least, that's the jist of it, as reported by commenters in the thread below.
A brand new lie, which can be rinsed and repeated before election after election as long as Democrats hold a majority! And really, it wouldn't take much adjustment for Republicans to use it, either, would it?
UPDATE 2: Did the President just lie on MTV about DADT?
Short answer: Yes.
http://gay.americablog.com/...
UPDATE: For the Obama fans who insisted that this diary must have been written by "Log Cabin pukes":
This diary was written by life-long Democrat, from four generations of Democrats.
I've voted for Democrats for almost 40 years, no exceptions. I've voted for the best Democrats I could find, and also held my nose and voted for the only Democrats available, if only because the Republicans on offer were always more crazy and venal.
I've seen Democratic Presidents and Congress come and go: and they went particulary fast when they consistently betrayed the base of Democratic voters on issues that base cared about.
I've always voted Democratic: I'm not to blame if we lose the House or Senate, like this President and Congress may.
I hope not, but they're the ones courting disaster
It's part of my job as a citizen to hold politicians' feet to the fire when they're fucking up.
I believe Obama is fucking up royally by fighting against the civil rights of a Democratic base, while the Log Cabin Republicans become the white knights winning those rights. (Although I thank the LCR for having the courage and foresight to do so.)
And I say this for Yalin: F**k you, Mr. President, for not taking the moral or ethical high ground on these issues.