s skippy the bush kangaroo: i owe john aravosis a big apology...

skippy the bush kangaroo



Friday, June 12, 2009

i owe john aravosis a big apology...

you know that department of justice brief calling to dismiss the case against the defense of marriage act i mentioned in this post? at the time, i thought while obama's defense of doma was a real downer, it was also legitimate, and john was overreacting to it.

well, it turns out he wasn't: one of the people who wrote the brief, w. scott simpson, is both a holdover from the bush administration and a mormon. i didn't know that yesterday.

john? i am very sorry for calling you hysterical. obama has some explaining to do for this one after all. letting rick warren give the invocation at his inauguration -- that was one thing. but letting a mormon co-write his policy on anything concerning marriage -- when mormons are probably the last group of people who should be lecturing the rest of us on marriage -- is unacceptable.

again, i am sorry...

Labels:

posted by Jim Yeager at 9:56 PM |

9 Comments:

It isn't so much who wrote the brief, but rather the simple fact that the brief did not have to be written at all.

Obama, if he felt it was unconstitutional, could have told the court that. Or his DOJ could have been less, shall we say, enthusiastic in their support.

This is all part and parcel of his turning his back on those who were his most enthusiastic supporters. See also: anti-war, unions, etc. While pouring money and perks to those who opposed him. See also: banks, large corporations.

I saw Clinton set back reform for a generation, Obama will do worse than that.
commented by Blogger lawguy, 6:20 AM PDT  
People who believe in goofy crap should never be allowed to write policy.

That leaves out a lot of people.
Lawguy: That's what it's starting to look like.

Ole Blue: That would also leave out most of the people who voted for Obama, it would seem...
commented by Blogger Jim Yeager, 6:40 AM PDT  
Yeah, it's a shitty thing but for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that I recall Obama stating that he believed marriage was between a man and woman. Did we forget the anti-gay rhetoric used at his rallies in NC? So what's surprising? Disappointing, yes, heartbreaking, sure, disgusted, you bet, but no I can't say I'm surprised.
commented by Anonymous sean, 8:22 AM PDT  
Over the course of his political career, Obama has built up a great track record on gay rights. He has said that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he has a hell of a lot of company there -- I personally know plenty of straight people who have no problem with any part of the gay rights movement, except when it comes to marriage. That's the one sticking point. So it wasn't surprising to learn Obama would endorse DOMA.

What's surprising is that a fucking Mormon was allowed to co-write his policy on the subject. That's like letting Randall Terry run a women's clinic.

Christianity is a religion, and most Christians are quite capable of disagreeing with each other (and non-Christians) and still get along fine. Mormonism, however, looks like a cult to me...
commented by Blogger Jim Yeager, 8:50 AM PDT  
I am starting to become disappointed....
People have been "marrying" since before there was Christianity...
I doubt that homosexuality is in any real sense a recent or "New" development.
Strike that...I have no doubt that it is not...
You love whom you love....
I championed Obama, and I will still support him.
But this is stupid, shortsighted, simply wrong, and hurtful...
What this looks like to me is another compromise with the religious fuckheads that deserve nothing but scorn...
I think my President and his administration are starting to screw up in the interests of "Across the Isle" politics....
Who's the bigot here, Jim? You found the DOJ's position legitimate . . . until you found out the brief in support of it was drafted by a Mormon.

That knowledge doesn't change a single word in the brief or the goals for which it argues. So how is the author relevant to its legitimacy? Your willingness to accept it until you found out who wrote it is a pretty good argument that Simpson didn't infuse the brief with religious positions and stuck to the law.

As for a Mormon "writing policy," that's not an attorney's job and it's not what Simpson did in writing the brief. He was fulfilling an attorney's usual role of implementing his client's directive.
commented by Anonymous Deuce Geary, 6:28 PM PDT  
I repeat, Deuce, letting a Mormon co-write any policy concerning marriage is like letting Randall Terry run a women's clinic. Simpson's religious views had nothing to do with this? Bullshit. There are religions, and there are cults. Mormonism looks like a cult to me, and I didn't come to that conclusion lightly. And I don't like cults.

If that makes me a bigot, fine.
commented by Blogger Jim Yeager, 9:24 PM PDT  
Bigot.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 11:53 PM PDT  

Add a comment