Hey! LilMike?


In the comments of a previous post, you stated:

With friends like Barney Frank in power, its’ a wonder more doesn’t get done…

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/barney-frank-throws-us-under-bus-lauds.html

Oh wait, Frank is defending Obama’s defense of DOMA! Hilarious!

OK. I’ve done a bit more reading, Mike. Although my sinuses are pounding away, I think I see the problem. It’s an age old one, at that.

You, once again, are skewing words to make a point.

Let’s see if I can clear this up for you: A left-over attorney from the Bush administration (a Mormon conservative at that!) files a brief defending DOMA. He stupidly includes in that argument a point that is so homophobic, ridiculous and wrong (comparing allowing gay marriage to incestuous marriage and marriage to underage children) it defies further comment. Barney Frank, after being pressured by the print media, is forced to comment on the brief without reading it nor analyzing it; instead depending on what someone (an aide?) told him it said. Much like I just did in response to your comment.

Unfortunately, by focusing on one line, he misses the whole point. So he issues a statement from his office clarifying his statement:

http://www.house.gov/frank/pressreleases/2009/06-17-09-doma.html

“It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example. It is the President’s job to try to change the law, but it is also his obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”

I cannot fault this logic. As much as I dislike and “abhor” (Obama’s words), it is a law. The President, through the DOJ, can defend such a law in the courts when challenged, even when he disagrees with it. So…Frank’s off the hook.

Not Obama. Why? As a President who disagrees with DOMA and calls it “abhorrent”, he should have instructed the DOJ to do the right thing – Ignore this challenge to the law (and others) and let them work their way through the courts. Eventually, one or more ideal cases will result in a positive ruling and the road to FULL EQUALITY for the GLBT community will become even smoother.

Advertisements

2 responses »

  1. In Frank’s clarification, I can’t fault his argument either. The President should enforce the law as long as the law is the law. He probably should just use that argument though, that it was not unconstitutional. The arguments used in the brief though, were off the wall, incest, pedophilia? So don’t blame me if I got a kick out of the irony. Courtesy of the single person most responsible for the financial collapse!

    Frank is great in inverview by the way. He can’t take a tough question without attacking his questioner. Very entertaining.

    • Whoa!

      Courtesy of the single person most responsible for the financial collapse!

      What’s Ronald Reagan got to do with this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s