Nico Pitney and Rachel Maddow discuss Iran

Two of our favorite people talk about the coverage following the election in Iran. This one hasn't televised. It's been youtubed, tweeted and liveblogged:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read the rest of this post...

Obama won't issue executive order, won't include health benefits

UPDATE: Pam Spaulding is not impressed. Neither is Dan Savage. Neither is Signorile.

Ah, those pesky details.

As you may have heard, President Obama tomorrow will be signing a presidential directive, not an executive order, providing "some" benefits to gay and lesbian employees. Well, the details, murky that they are, are coming. And they aren't great.

First off, Chuck Todd on MSNBC said that because this is only a "memorandum," as he called it, it will expire when Obama leaves office. Lovely. Second, health benefits for federal employees won't be covered. Why? Because of DOMA, so says the Advocate.

Just which benefits will gay federal employees be getting? The White House is refusing to say. But it's unlikely it's anything involving money, like Social Security, or, as we now know, health care. Which is ironic, since health care is Obama's number one issue (but not for us). Also ironic, which I wrote about earlier, is that health care reform likely won't cover us either, since they'd have to include us as "families" and "dependents" - and let's face it, they just compared us to incest and pedophilia, does anyone think this administration or this congress is going to define us as "family" in their health care package? (It's also not clear that DOMA would let health care reform provide us any benefits anyway.) In any case, Obama's inaction on DOMA, and outright defense of DOMA, is now undercutting his other efforts, meager that they are, to help us. It's all tied together.

And what about the US military, the single largest bloc of federal employees. Do you think they're getting benefits under this program? Highly unlikely. Sure, civilian members of the military might, but active duty? Good luck. And in any case, they couldn't file for benefits because then they'd be outing themselves under Don't Ask Don't Tell.

So, because of Obama's inaction on his main presidential campaign promises to our community - DOMA and DADT - we have a scenario in which gays will get fewer benefits than their straight colleagues, and some gay federal employees will get benefits (civilians) while others (military) will not. See how complicated it gets to do anything when you fail to keep your basic promises?

The other announcement Obama will be making is a non-discrimination "something." Basically, he's going to add "gender identity" (i.e., transgender persons) to the existing federal non-discrimination policy that already covers gay people, and even Bill Clinton adopted the initial non-discrimination policy in the 1990s. And even George Bush left the policy in place. So, yes, this is a small step forward, but very small indeed. Read the rest of this post...

Welcome to 1999

From Ben Smith:

Reacting to a rising tide of anger from gay and lesbian supporters at a series of slights and deferred promises, President Obama will tomorrow sign an executive order extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees...

The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a large state-based gay rights group, Alan Van Capelle, greeted today's announcement sarcastically.

"Welcome to 1999," he told POLITICO. "How revolutionary of the White House to give benefits to same-sex couples, when two-thirds of conservative Wall Street are already doing it. What an achievement."

"It's just one of the things that should have been done in January," Van Capelle, who was among those taking his name off the Biden event, said, calling for a "comprehensive strategy." "If the President makes the announcement tomorrow, it will still fall short of what LGBT people are expecting from this administration.""

Ben also notes that this was already on the agenda a long while ago - in other words, Obama is doing it to look like he's giving the community something to make up for the incest comments, when he was actually going to do it all along.

Want to take any bets on whether members of the military are getting these benefits? Read the rest of this post...

Protector of the institution of marriage, Senator John Ensign (R-NV), admits an affair with campaign staffer

There aren't many Republicans left in the Senate, but, besides hating the gays, they are a randy bunch. You got David Vitter having sex with hookers and, now, John Ensign admits to having an affair with a campaign staffer:

Sen. John Ensign today acknowledged an extramarital affair with a member of his campaign staff.

The affair took place between December 2007 and August 2008 with a campaign staffer who was married to an employee in Ensign's Senate office. Neither have worked for the senator since May 2008.

Ensign read a brief prepared statement Tuesday afternoon at the Lloyd George Federal Building in downtown Las Vegas in which he expressed regret and took no questions.

"I came back home to Nevada to come forward to explain to the citizens of our state something I was involved in about a year ago. Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of our marriage. It is absolutely the worst thing I have never done in my life," Ensign said.

Ensign said he sought and received forgiveness from his wife and the couple had gone to counseling. He said he still committed to serving the people of Nevada.

Of course, Ensign is another marriage hypocrite. He was one of the earliest supporters of George Bush's gay-bashing strategy, which was so popular back in 2004. Yes, Ensign was so worried about the institution of marriage that he wanted a constitutional amendment to protect it from same-sex couples. From February 2004:

After evaluating the idea of President Bush's recommendation of such an amendment Tuesday, Ensign said he believes it is necessary "to protect the institution of marriage in America."

"In order to defend the institution of marriage, uphold the rights of individual states and maintain the will of the people, I believe we are compelled to amend our country's Constitution," Ensign said.

Hypocrite. Sounds like he should have voted for a constitutional amendment to keep it in his pants. That would have done more to protect his marriage. Read the rest of this post...

Obama not to address any of his eight promises tomorrow night in the Oval Office

This just in. The White House has just announced (I'm not kidding) that President Obama will do the following tomorrow evening:

In the evening, the President will deliver brief remarks and sign a Presidential Memorandum regarding federal benefits and non-discrimination in the Oval Office. This event is pooled press.

That pretty much means that he's going to give gay federal employees partner benefits.

And that's sweet.

And awfully convenient, considering the DNC is about to lose a lot of money since they're $1,000 and up a head big gay fundraiser is imploding.

And it's also awfully convenient that the event is being held at 545pm, just a tad too late for the evening news to pick it up. Gosh, how did that happen?

Unfortunately, federal benefits for gay federal employees is not even one of the eight campaign promises Obama made to our community (there are only seven now on the White House Web site - the DOMA promise went down the memory hole about two months ago).

Joe and I have written about this before. We had predicted that Obama would either give us the hate crimes bill or benefits for federal employees as a means of showing how much he's doing on his gay rights promises, without actually doing anything on any of the eight gay rights promises he made. (And guess what? After the DOMA brief controversy exploded, they suddenly announced plans to do hate crimes in the Senate this week. And now, poof, the bill is dead again until at least August. And remember folks, this is the easy one - it already passed the House and Senate, and survived a Senate filibuster, in the last Congress.)

Who is advising the president of the United States on gay issues? This is beyond belief. These people think we're living in 1993, where our number one issue is getting 2% of the gay population working for the federal government to get some of the benefits that straight employees get. Again, it's nice. And if I were kicking back in my Birkenstocks and joining a few friends to watch Melrose Place, I might think this was a huge deal. But it doesn't compare with Obama having promised to repeal DOMA, repeal DADT, and secure passage of ENDA. There is no progress whatsoever on that front, unless you call Obama continuing to discharge gay service members, and filing hideously anti-gay rehashes of George Bush's old homophobic legal briefs, "progress."

The country has moved beyond the 1990s. That is, everyone but the Obama administration. Gay marriage is exploding around the country. 70% of the country support repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, even majorities of Republicans and churchgoers. And a majority of Americans oppose job discrimination against gays. This stuff just isn't controversial anywhere outside of the Obama administration and a Sarah Palin Fan Club meeting. Federal benefits would have been a huge thing had President Clinton done it. Today, after having been compared to incest and pedophiles by our own Democratic president, it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what this president needs to do to win back our trust. Not to mention, we have to beat the bejeesus out of you for five days to even get your attention, and this is all we get?

What is he going to do on DOMA, DADT and ENDA? Is the President going to apologize for comparing us to incest and pedophilia last week? Is he going to support us in the next DOMA lawsuit, whose brief is due on the 29th, or he is yet again going to support a bigoted law that he has called "abhorrent," even though he is fully in his power as president to oppose an existing law IF HE CARES ENOUGH TO DO SO.

When you figure that one out, get back to us. Until then, spare us the cute photo opps that give the president an opportunity to stand around a bunch of gay people and show how loved he is by the gays. when everyone is really pissed off at him. This isn't North Korea. Read the rest of this post...

Gay rep. Jared Polis "outraged" by Obama anti-gay DOMA brief, says Obama blew off his concerns

A good statement by openly gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). Polis does not, however, give any indication as to whether he will continue to co-host the hemorrhaging DNC gay fundraiser that was supposed to take place next week. This is Polis' statement:

Washington, Jun 16 - U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) issued the following statement in response to the Obama Administration’s decision to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a recent court filing.

“I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court, especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it. Comparing my loving relationship with my partner, Marlon, to incest was unconscionable coming from a president who has called for change.

Since this filing, I have called on the President to issue a statement or give any sign that would clarify his position and am disappointed in his lack of reply.

I am a proud Democrat, as are many in the GLBT community, and I believe we must hold our leaders accountable. The Obama Administration made a HUGE mistake in the DOMA brief. If they keep making mistakes like this, they risk losing the support of the GLBT community forever, although I do not believe we are at that point yet.

President Obama needs to honor his promise to repeal this law and end its needlessly divisive and harmful impact on our nation. I again call on him to work with us in Congress to help pass legislation, ending this hateful and divisive law.

As the New York Times editorialized yesterday, “busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.” (emphasis added)

I think Jared is wrong about one thing. We are at the breaking point. And this White House and Democratic party is quickly shoving us over the edge. We'd been warning them for months privately, to no avail. No more. Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING: HRC official & former top Clinton aide pull out of DNC gay fundraiser; Blade plans to photograph and video gay donors who attend

UPDATE: Show Obama you mean business, donate to AMERICAblog.

It's over, folks. A lot of us have been saying that if Marty Rouse, the Human Rights Campaign's National Field Director, were to pull his attendance from next week's DNC $1,000 a person gay fundraiser, then the fundraiser would effectively be dead. Well, HRC official Marty Rouse just pulled out as a result of the White House's homophobic DOMA brief in which they equated gay marriage to incest.

The DNC was hawking the attendance of "HRC's Marty Rouse" for a few weeks now, among other gay luminaries, in order to build attendance at the event.

A reliable source just sent me the text of a Facebook conversation he had with HRC National Field Director Marty Rouse. Rouse reported that he notified the DNC today that he would not be attending the fundraiser. Rouse was among a list of already-confirmed guests that the DNC was using to pump up interest in the fundraiser. Here's the list that DNC Treasure Andy Tobias sent our, per Pam's House Blend:

If you CAN make the date, you'll be joining the Vice President of the United States . . .

. . . along with Virginia Governor / DNC Chair Tim Kaine . . . immediate past DNC Chair Howard Dean . . . Chairman Barney Frank . . . Representatives Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis . . . Vermont Senate President Pete Shumlin . . . District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty . . . David Mixner . . . Richard Socarides . . . The Task Force's Rea Carey . . . HRC's Marty Rouse . . . ESPA's Alan Van Capelle . . . GLAD's Mary Bonauto . . . NBJC's Alexander Robinson . . . GMHC's Marjorie Hill . . . The Victory Fund's Chuck Wolfe . . . Towle Road's Andy Towle . . . Iraq Marine vet Brian Fricke (whom you may have seen on 60 Minutes) . . . Billy Bean . . . Joan Garry . . . Keith Boykin . . . Ray Buckley . . . Brian Johnson . . . Corey Johnson . . . Dixon Osburn . . . Paul Smith . . . Bruce Bastian . . . Mitchell Gold . . . Krystal Ball . . . and so many others, like YOU, who have been pushing the ball down the field for so long. (Well, Krystal is fairly new to this, but what a kick to have a pro-marriage CPA triathlete young mom running to unseat a conservative Republican in Virginia.)

Rouse's departure ups to four the number of high profile gay politicos who have now dropped out of the event following the Justice Department's filing of a homophobic brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act last week. The other three people to pull out of the fundraiser are famous "friend of Bill Clinton" David Mixner, Alan Van Capelle (Executive Director of New York's largest gay group, the Empire State Pride Agenda), and top gay blogger Andy Towle.

I've also just been told by former top Clinton aide Richard Socarides that he today informed the DNC that he will no longer be attending either.

Kevin Naff, the editor of the Washington Blade, also tells me that the gay newspaper will be staking out the gay fundraiser next week, and will have a reporter with a camera and video at the hotel entrance to record guests as they enter the gay fundraiser. Read the rest of this post...

In Iran, protests and fallout continue unabated

While we've been consumed by the DOMA debacle, others have been masterfully covering the Iran election fallout. As both John and I have said, Nico Pitney at Huffington is in a league of his own on this.

Today's New York Times has an analysis examining the crack in the perception of omnipotence from the Supreme Leader:

Few suggest yet that Ayatollah Khamenei’s hold on power is at risk. But, analysts say, he has opened a serious fissure in the face of Islamic rule and one that may prove impossible to patch over, particularly given the fierce dispute over the election that has erupted amid the elite veterans of the 1979 revolution. Even his strong links to the powerful Revolutionary Guards — long his insurance policy — may not be decisive as the confrontation in Iran unfolds.

As we watch people put their lives on the line for democracy, there are ways to help. New media and social networking sites, like Twitter, have allowed young Iranians the ability to communicate what's happening inside their country -- even as the authorities try to prevent it. Yesterday's rally was just amazing to see:



In Nico's post, I found this link on how we can all help constructively. There are many things the rest of us can do, like this:

Help cover the bloggers: change your twitter settings so that your location is TEHRAN and your time zone is GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location and timezone searches. If we all become ‘Iranians’ it becomes much harder to find them.

I did it:


Kudos to Twitter for rescheduling maintenance because they "recognize the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran." Read the rest of this post...

DNC Treasurer defends embattled gay fundraiser as another big-name gay reportedly drops out

UPDATE: Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of the Empire State Pride Agenda and Foundation, has confirmed to me that he has pulled out of the DNC gay fundraiser as a result of the DOMA brief flap. Kudos to Alan.

I just received word that another big-name gay politico - that makes three - who was listed on a leaked email as being among those confirmed to attend next week's $1,000 a person posh DNC gay fundraiser, has pulled out. It's confirmed.

In the meantime, Ben Smith at Politico got the following statement from Andy Tobias, the DNC's openly gay treasurer, about the upcoming fundraiser and the anti-gay DOMA brief:

"If this debacle of a brief represented the President's views, I'd boycott too," Tobias, who is organizing the fundraiser and has been one of the White House's most vocal gay defenders, said in an email. "[I] [t]otally understand all the hurt and anger, thought Joe Solmonese['s] letter to the President was spot on. Still personally totally believe in the President. His Pride Proclamation, and his call to repeal DOMA, are genuine."

Andy is a friend and I take him at his word. But the problem is that on Sunday, the president's own director of OPM said that these were in fact Obama's words, and those of us asking Obama to defend DOMA were asking him to "lie." And on Saturday, we proved that the president had the power to oppose DOMA in the brief, as the NYT has since confirmed - he simply didn't think we were important enough to defend.

Ben also writes that "organizers, I'm told, are scrambling to get visible White House action on gay issues in advance of the June 25 dinner to prevent it from becoming a protest stage." Well, if the White House can lift the ban, repeal DOMA, pass ENDA, fire the lawyer who wrote the homophobic brief, and publicly apologize for comparing us to child molesters, all by next week, more power to them. But hate crimes and federal employee benefits will no longer cut it after the incest and peodphilia crap of last week.

Pam Spaulding has a larger list of the big-name gays who have said they're attending the DNC's incredibly ill-timed fundraiser. Have a look and see if you know any of them.

Feel free to call the fundraiser co-hosts - gay elected leaders Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Jared Polis - and ask them why they continue to host this fundraiser, and why none of them bothered saying a word about the hateful DOMA brief - it's been 5 days.

Rep. Barney Frank:
2252 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
tel: (202) 225-5931
fax: (202) 225-0182

Rep. Tammy Baldwin
2446 Rayburn Building
Washington DC 20515
(202) 225-6942 Fax
(202) 225-2906
Email Form

Rep. Jared Polis
Washington, DC Office
501 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
p. 202.225.2161
f. 202.226.7840 Read the rest of this post...

Housing starts surge

The numbers are still more than half for the same period last year but it's a positive sign of life from a troubled sector. It's no recovery but it's not a total disaster either. The markets should like this news. Reuters:

New U.S. housing starts and permits rebounded in May from record lows as ground-breaking for multifamily units surged after tumbling the prior month, a government report showed on Tuesday.

The Commerce Department said housing starts jumped 17.2 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 532,000 units, from April's revised 454,000 units. Ground-breaking for multifamily units surged 61.7 percent. Multifamily unit starts fell 49.4 percent in April.

Compared to the same period last year, housing starts dived 45.2 percent.

CNBC has more on why these numbers are not based on reality. Read the rest of this post...

CREW: Obama blocking release of visitors list to White House, just like Bush and Cheney

Plus ça change... Seriously, though, as a gay man, and one of the first Obama supporters among the top liberal political blogs, I must say I'm shocked to hear that the Obama administration would renege on a major campaign promise and revert to policies that echo - nay, copy - what Bush and Cheney would do. /snark

More from CREW.

And more from MSNBC:

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

CREW says it will file a lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service. (Updated: Here's a copy of CREW's complaint.)

"We are deeply disappointed," said CREW attorney Anne L. Weismann, "that the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration."

Read the rest of this post...

Attendee list for $1,000 a head DNC gay fundraiser leaked

UPDATE: Ben Smith at Politico weighs in about the ever-shrinking gay fundraiser:

Two prominent gay figures, activist David Mixner and widely-read blogger Andy Towle, have pulled out of a Democratic National Committee fundraiser later this month amid growing calls to confront the administration at what was supposed to be its first large scale opportunity to bring in gay cash....

The escalating tension sets the stage for an unusual conflict between the Vice President and what has traditionally been a core Democratic group -- and a wealthy one -- at the posh Mandarin Oriental on June 25.

Guess who's coming to dinner?

Pam Spaulding has published an email detailing just who's coming to the DNC's $1,000 (and up) a head gay fundraising dinner at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, DC with VP Biden next week. I suspect those folks are going to be under a lot of pressure to pull out (Andy Towle and David Mixner have already said they're not attending). Pam is asking folks to contact our gay elected leadership in Congress, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis, and ask them why they're still hosting this event. The email includes the following, in bold:

Did I mention that the Mandarin Oriental has a 10,400-square-foot spa?

Did I mention that the attendees are going to need a 10,400 sq ft spa and a plane ticket out of the country after our community gets a hold of them.

Please call Barney, Tammy and Jared and politely ask them WTF? It's been 5 days and none of them have said anything about this travesty, let alone why they're hosting the inopportune fundraiser - literally asking you to give Obama and the Democrats your good money after they've abandoned us - no - knifed us. It's clear to me that the White House asked them not to say anything, perhaps promising something in return. And before anyone just assumes that Obama privately promised them to move forward on gay rights, the president could have just as easily promised them a new highway in their state or to do a fundraiser for their re-election, provided they shut up. Their silence is looking very bad. Please call them and then report back to the comments with how the calls went.

Rep. Barney Frank:
2252 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
tel: (202) 225-5931
fax: (202) 225-0182

Rep. Tammy Baldwin
2446 Rayburn Building
Washington DC 20515
(202) 225-6942 Fax
(202) 225-2906
Email Form

Rep. Jared Polis
Washington, DC Office
501 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
p. 202.225.2161
f. 202.226.7840 Read the rest of this post...

Rachel Maddow and Howard Dean on Obama's DOMA controversy

Rachel was joined by Howard Dean last night to discuss the burgeoning rupture between President Obama and gay community over the homophobic DOMA brief. Great segment. Rachel started by noting how the Obama administration invoked the incest cases. Calling the brief "a huge mistake," Dean said, "You cannot talk about gay Americans the way that gay Americans were talked about in this brief." But, they did. Maybe it's time someone asked Howard Dean why he's still co-hosting a $1,000 a head gay fundraiser next week for the DNC, along with co-hosts Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis, none of whom have said boo about this controversy in 5 days now.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read the rest of this post...

WSJ covers DOMA hate-brief controversy, DOJ says it will file more briefs defending law Obama onced called "abhorrent"

Kudos to Laura Meckler at the Wall Street Journal for going where most of the print and television reporters have refused to go (CBS also did a great story on this on their Web site, the NYT did an editorial but not a story, and we'll be posting Rachel shortly). Namely, covering the growing rupture between President Obama and the gay community over the homophobic brief the Justice Department filed last Thursday night defending DOMA. Meckler's story is about the latest turn of events - the largest gay right group, the Human Rights Campaign, sent a "scathing letter," as the WSJ puts it, to Obama, protesting the anti-gay brief. The journal particularly highlighted HRC's anger at the portion of the brief invoking incest.

The article is interesting from a few perspectives. First, that the story has finally broken into the major corporate media. Second, that the Justice Department is saying that it will continue to defend DOMA in court. That means that the second DOMA case, one which top gay lawyers tell me is a great case that we can seriously use to try to overturn the law, is going to receive the same kitchen sink of hate and bigotry that President Obama had the DOJ throw at us last week - the next case's brief is due within the next two weeks, just in time for Stonewall's 40th anniversary.

The third interesting fact gleaned from this story is that the DOJ's statement comes after the Human Rights Campaign wrote Obama a scathing letter yesterday, taking him to task for the homophobic brief. Here is DOJ's response to the WSJ reporter's question about HRC's brief:

"As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court...," said Tracy Schmaler. "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system." (emphasis added)

At least the DOJ spokesperson is no longer lying. Previously, the DOJ implied that the White House had no choice but to defend the law Obama once called "'abhorrent." In fact, that is not true, as proven this weekend in an essay by a former senior White House aide to President Clinton. Now the DOJ is simply saying that the White House "generally" defends the law in court cases. That is true, when dealing with "general" run-of-the-mill cases. But when dealing with cases that are of great political and social import to the president, as the former White House aide explains, the president traditionally orders the DOJ not defend such laws at all:

I know and accept the fact that one of the Department of Justice's roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack. But not in all cases, certainly not in this case – and not in this way. To defend this brief is to defend the indefensible.

From my experience, in a case where, as here, there are important political and social issues at stake, the president’s relationship with the Justice Department should work like this: The president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.

Thus, the general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative – like everything in Washington.

In other words, the White House had a choice, and still does. But they've decided that our civil rights are a general, run of the mill subject for a law suit, like property disputes and arcane tax provisions (one now wonders how the White House feels about Loving v. Virginia). They do not consider our civil rights to be exceptional, or of any significant social or political import. They, therefore, will continue to file briefs defending a law the president had promised to repeal, and presenting arguments so hateful they could have been written by Jerry Falwell, George Bush, or Dick Cheney. Strike that, even Dick Cheney is better than this White House on gay marriage.

We can assume, then, that this DOJ statement is President Obama's response to the HRC, traditionally offered with the middle finger.

The Democratic party is beginning to pay a price for having turned against the gay community and seemingly renounced their promises to support our civil rights. A $1,000 a head gay fundraiser planned by the Democratic National Committee for later this month, with VP Biden the planned special guest, is already starting to unravel as previously-committed gay luminaries are now starting to pull out. Activists are talking about protesting the event, to be held in Washington, DC on June 25, and to boycott organizations that send representatives. Many in the gay community are wondering if the gay leadership in Congress - Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Jared Polis - will continue to host the inopportune event, or whether any of them will ever even issue a statement about the unfortunate brief, or the fact that the President seems to have betrayed the community they represent. Read the rest of this post...

NY Times Editorial: "A Bad Call on Gay Rights"

In lieu of our usual morning open thread, I want to make sure everyone sees today's New York Times editorial on Obama and the DOMA lawsuit brief -- considering it's based on the issue AMERICAblog blew up on Friday morning. From AMERICAblog to a NY Times editorial in four days, not bad. (And the Times editorial actually mentions the incest slur.)

Maybe, just maybe, someone in the West Wing of the White House will at least pay attention to this editorial from the New York Times and realize they've got a real problem on their hands. I'm providing some excerpts, but read the whole thing. It's very powerful:

The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.

A gay couple married under California law is challenging the act in federal court. In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the couple lack legal standing to do so. It goes on to contend that even if they have standing, the case should be dismissed on the merits.

The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

Yes, those incest references were particularly ugly and disturbing.

And, this section has particular relevance considering the pushback we've received, both publicly and privately, on whether Obama had to defend DOMA:

In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule. (emphasis added)

And, this paragraph nails it:

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

But, our alleged allies in the Obama administration did resort to "specious arguments and inflammatory language." It was very, very ugly.

The LGBT community didn't start this fight with Obama and his crew. Many of us were prepared to let the president focus on issues like the economy. But, from the moment Obama chose Rick Warren to be his inaugural speaker, it feels like the Obama administration is going out of its way to provoke us. For awhile I thought it was clumsly politics. But, unfortunately, it feels deliberate. This feels like a cyncial politics at its worst. I hope whoever devised that strategy has realized it's not working. It's hurting. This isn't 1993, Rahm. It's not even 2004. We expect more from Barack Obama. We deserve more.

It's hard to imagine how any self-respecting (self-respecting being the operative term) LGBT Democrat would participate in the DNC fundraiser on June 25. If anyone is thinking about it, read this Times editorial again. Actually, anyone thinking of spending that kind of money on Obama and the DNC should read the DOMA brief. It's here. Read the rest of this post...

IMF warns on global economy but also increases growth forecast

Strange but that's the market these days. There is no question in my mind that there is increasingly positive signs out there but it remains very delicate. Last autumn business was completely shut down and the fear factor played stretched into 2009. It's understandable because after the widespread firings and bank lending freezes it was unclear to everyone what was going to happen. Most people - at all levels - had no idea if they were going to have a job tomorrow and a very natural reaction in the workplace is to sit still and do nothing. More recently there's been a lot more activity, albeit at a much slower pace than during the end of the boom.

The concern in the business world is exactly what IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn is saying. There are good signs but how long will it all last? The banks suddenly look pumped up in a Barry Bonds kind of way and the stock market has increased but it still does not feel real. The increases today are all based on the banks having hit their low point and unemployment settling. The wishful thinking is all fine and good but it's going to be a hard kick when at least one of those two points falter. The Independent:

Mr Strauss-Kahn pointed to improving, but still dysfunctional, credit markets and doubts about some banks as reasons for his wariness: "The markets are not as frozen as they were one year ago, or eight months ago but they are still not functioning normally. And the recovery needs markets functioning correctly.... One of the constants of [banking] crises is that you never recover before the cleansing of the balance sheets of the financial sector."

Nonetheless, the IMF has raised global growth estimates for 2010 to 2.4 per cent from 1.9 per cent, and confirmed its April forecast for a 1.3 per cent contraction in 2009. It also revealed a brighter outlook for the US. It now believes that the world's largest economy will grow by 0.75 per cent in 2010, rather than staying flat, and that it will contract by 2.5 per cent this year, rather than 2.8 per cent. The IMF gives the credit to the Obama administration's stimulus packages – "increasingly strong and comprehensive".

The IMF chief acknowledged this improvement and that many economic indicators have been pointing, albeit tentatively, towards a global upturn, but reflected the misgivings voiced by G8 finance ministers after their summit in Italy over the weekend: "Their [G8] stance is that we are beginning to see some green shoots but nevertheless we have to be cautious."

Stateside, Nouriel Roubini and Robert Shiller both see problems ahead. Read the rest of this post...

Exxon ordered to pay $500 million in interest on Valdez

If only the environment had pockets as deep as Big Oil to drag out lawsuits over twenty years. What other industry could drag out their responsibility for so long? The good news is that it appears to be coming to an end, unless Exxon appeals again. I made it a point to avoid Exxon for a few decades but I also realize that the others in this industry are as sleazy and despicable but in other ways. You have to wonder how the top executives of these companies are held in such high regard when you look at how they interact with the world around them. Maybe the problem is that they fit nicely into polite society where they live but their businesses are more questionable in distant locations.

Either way, it sickens me to think how much control they maintain over governments around the world. In the US you only have look at the GOP's latest weekly address to see who owns that party. It's almost the same pitch they delivered only a few weeks ago when they fully embraced the Big Oil vision of our energy future, that's really the past.

Exxon Mobil Corp. was ordered Monday to pay about $500 million in interest on punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska, nearly doubling the payout to Alaska Natives, fishermen, business owners and others harmed by the 1989 disaster.

The ruling was issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court set punitive damages at $507.5 million. But two months later, the high court declined to decide whether Exxon Mobil must pay interest on the punitive damages awarded in the nation's worst oil spill and instead sent it back to the appeals court.

Monday's decision would double the average payout of about $15,000 for the nearly 33,000 claimants.

Read the rest of this post...

Protests in Iran continue and expand, seven killed

The Independent's Robert Fisk from the marches in Tehran:

Not since the 1979 Iranian Revolution have massed protesters gathered in such numbers, or with such overwhelming popularity, through the boulevards of this torrid, despairing city. They jostled and pushed and crowded through narrow lanes to reach the main highway and then found riot police in steel helmets and batons lined on each side. The people ignored them all. And the cops, horribly outnumbered by these tens of thousands, smiled sheepishly and – to our astonishment – nodded their heads towards the men and women demanding freedom. Who would have believed the government had banned this march?

The protesters' bravery was all the more staggering because many had already learned of the savage killing of five Iranians on the campus of Tehran University, done to death – according to students – by pistol-firing Basiji militiamen. When I reached the gates of the college yesterday morning, many students were weeping behind the iron fence of the campus, shouting "massacre" and throwing a black cloth across the mesh. That was when the riot police returned and charged into the university grounds once more.

At times, Mousavi's victory march threatened to crush us amid walls of chanting men and women. They fell into the storm drains and stumbled over broken trees and tried to keep pace with his vehicle, vast streamers of green linen strung out in front of their political leader's car. They sang in unison, over and over, the same words: "Tanks, guns, Basiji, you have no effect now." As the government's helicopters roared overhead, these thousands looked upwards and bayed above the clatter of rotor blades: "Where is my vote?" Clichés come easily during such titanic days, but this was truly a historic moment.

CNN now reporting Iran state media has updated the death toll to seven people. From reading the Robert Fisk article above, it sounds like the pro-religious government Basiji forces are attacking those at the far end of the rallies. They are too outnumbered to touch the large groups so they cowardly attack stragglers. Read the rest of this post...