The Drag Queen Posse

The event will stream live at 4:25 pm EST (hmmm?! — 5 min. for a smoke break Mr. President?).

Here is the streaming link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/live

Streaming? We suppose we’re not good enough for TV? We’ll watch for any mention of it in prime-time other than 30 seconds with a little video clip that includes applause.

He doesn’t deserve applause at the moment, he deserves silence coupled with the sound of crickets chirping…

Why? Welllllll….where to start! Here is a breakdown of the D.O.M.A. Brief (Defense of Marriage Act, yes, we roll our eyes too on that one). Forgive our language, but the further down we go in repeating this stuff online, the angrier, and angrier we get…

1.) Here is the request by the President to DISMISS a motion to hear our marriage case in CA:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obamas-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

2.) In that brief, GLBT people are compared to incestuous persons and pedophiles:

“The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 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”)…The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State’s public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress’s exercise of its authority in DOMA.”

Fucktards, I want to marry my boyfriend, not my uncle or brother. Seriously, the right-wing uses this tactic EVERY TIME. Then they say: next thing you know we’ll have to acknowledge plural marriages and bestiality, and the world will fall to pieces. Last time we fucking checked, polygamy was still being practiced since, oh, BEFORE the concept of marriage even existed amongst us primates, and people still fuck animals — it’s mentioned in the Bible and we’ve been unfortunate enough to open emails that had them as a joke. Right now, it’s another pretty, picture-perfect day in San Diego. No plague of locusts, check, no blood in the rivers/ocean, check, no frogs falling from the sky, check, no sun, check, no first-borns have died en masse, check, no plague of lice, check…

3.) The Federal Government does not want to allow same sex marriage because it saves them money. Oh, yes, they went there…

“The constitutional propriety of Congress’s decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress’s articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review. See Butler, 144 F.3d at 625 (”There is nothing irrational about Congress’s stated goal of conserving social security resources, and Congress can incrementally pursue that goal.”); Hassan v. Wright, 45 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 1995) (”[P]rotecting the fisc provides a rational basis for Congress’ line drawing in this instance.”). Congress expressly relied on these interests in enacting DOMA: Government currently provides an array of material and other benefits to married couples in an effort to promote, protect, and prefer the institution of marriage. . . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.” (Emphasis added by us.)

4.) They claim that D.O.M.A. is Constitutional, so, we’re fucked if we want to sue.

“The constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA is further confirmed by the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which expressly empowers Congress to prescribe “the Effect” to be accorded to the laws of a sister State. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1, cl. 2. Although the broad contours of this provision have not been conclusively established, the power exercised by Congress in enacting DOMA clearly conforms to any conceivable construction of the effects provision….

Under this view, Congress obviously acted within its plenary effects power in enacting Section 2 of DOMA. If the Constitution itself does not declare “the effect” of the law of “one state in another state,” McElmoyle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) at 325, but instead leaves that “power in congress,” Mills, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) at 485, then Congress clearly had the authority in DOMA to declare that no State is “required to give effect” to the same-sex marriage laws of other States. 28 U.S.C. § 1738C.”

5.) The Feds also claim that D.O.M.A. meets Equal Protection and Due Process principles ::coughbullshitcough::.

“DOMA Is Consistent with Equal Protection and Due Process Principles Plaintiffs further allege that DOMA violates their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, including its equal protection component. DOMA, however, merely preserves for each State the authority to follow its own law and policy with respect to same-sex marriage for purposes of State law. And it maintains the status quo of federal policy, preserving a longstanding federal policy of promoting traditional marriages, by clarifying that the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” for purposes of federal law, refer to marriage between a man and a woman, and do not encompass relationships of any other kind within their ambit. Thus, because DOMA does not make a suspect classification or implicate a right that has been recognized as fundamental, it is necessarily subject to rational-basis scrutiny, see National Ass’n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000), which it satisfies.”

6.) GLBT people have no right to marriage, period.

“Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (”DOMA”) poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no. (”Under the law binding this court,” allows them to weasel out - saying that they have to go by the letter of the law, not interpret it. Also, since the laws are binding and CANNOT BE CHALLENGED as mentioned above, this will not change.)”

7.) “DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society’s still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage.”

8.) No Federal support to allow “right to travel.”

“On the merits, plaintiffs’ claims that DOMA violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause and their “right to travel” both fail as a matter of law. In allowing each State to withhold its recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, Congress was merely confirming longstanding conflict-of-laws principles in a valid exercise of its express power to settle such questions under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. That Clause ensures that each State retains the authority to decline to apply another State’s law when it conflicts with its own public policies. DOMA is fully consistent with that constitutional principle, as it permits States to experiment with and maintain the exclusivity of their own legitimate public policies — such as whether that State chooses to recognize or reject same-sex marriages.”

9.) We don’t deserve the same assistance in court as other minorities, according to the Feds.

“Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.”

10.) No (and Fox Channel LOVES to use this phrase) “activist” judge rulings. Never-fucking mind that a JUDGE’s place is not just to uphold the law, but to interpret it for JUSTICE (which is SUPPOSED TO BE BLIND).

“DOMA therefore must be analyzed under rational-basis review. Under the highly deferential rational basis standard, moreover, a court may not act as superlegislature, sitting in judgment on the wisdom or morality of a legislative policy. Instead, a legislative policy must be upheld so long as there is any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for it, including ones that the Congress itself did not advance or consider. DOMA satisfies this standard.”

11.) This is so appalling, you just have to read it:

“Likewise, Section 3 of DOMA merely clarifies that federal policy is to make certain benefits available only to those persons united in heterosexual marriage, as opposed to any other possible relationship defined by law, family, or affection. As a result, gay and lesbian individuals who unite in matrimony are denied no federal benefits to which they were entitled prior to their marriage; they remain eligible for every benefit they enjoyed beforehand. DOMA simply provides, in effect, that as a result of their same-sex marriage they will not become eligible for the set of benefits that Congress has reserved exclusively to those who are related by the bonds of heterosexual marriage. In short, then, the failure in this manner to recognize a certain subset of marriages that are recognized by a certain subset of States cannot be taken as an infringement on plaintiffs’ rights, even if same-sex marriage were accepted as a fundamental right under the Constitution.”

“EVEN IF” our forefathers had placed this in the Constitution!!! Or, interpreted another way, judges were to see no reason why people should be denied these rights under the Constitution!!!  I am preparing my Vintage Stonewall Brick to go into its Vintage Stonewall Purse, to go with some Vintage Drag Queen Ass-Kicking, Police-Car-Burning, GLBT Pride Screaming Megaphone as I head down to the offices of whatever bigoted, assholic (Penn & Teller have used it too, it’s lexicon now, bitches), fat-cat attorneys and cause another riot. Riots seem to get things done, rather than sitting on our asses and waiting for someone else to fuck us over, AGAIN. We’d rather do peaceful, non-violent demonstrations, but what’s happened since Stonewall? The answer: not much, and arguably backwards more in plenty of instances…

12.) GLBT people have no right to privacy.

“Second, the right to privacy encompasses only rights that are constitutionally fundamental, and, as noted earlier, the right to receive benefits on the basis of same-sex marriage (as well as same-sex marriage itself) has not been recognized by the courts as a fundamental right.”

13.) Congress doesn’t want to rock the boat, so, instead of taking initiative and granting Federal rights in those states that DO allow gay marriage, they will abstain completely, so as to appear “neutral.” That’s not “neutral,” THAT’S TAKING SIDES.

“Section 3 of DOMA reflects just such an approach: it maximizes democratic flexibility and self-governance under our federalist system, by adopting a policy of federal neutrality with respect to a matter that is primarily the concern of state government. Because all 50 States recognize heterosexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage. At the same time, because Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States.”

14.) This is not just GLBT oriented. The D.O.M.A. language, when taken out of bullshit legalese and into something we can ALL understand is essentially allowing state law interpretation to go so far, it could be interpreted once more to allow for miscegeny laws once more:

“[T]he public policy doctrine, which has long recognized the sovereign authority of the States to decline to give effect to the laws of a sister State at variance with their own legitimate public policy. Section 2 of DOMA merely confirms the specific applicability of that longstanding principle in the context of laws regarding same-sex marriage.”

15.) Silly faggots, D.O.M.A. wasn’t made with ANY animosity in mind:

“Under our federalist system, preserving the autonomy of state and federal governments to address evolving definitions of an age-old societal institution is itself a legitimate governmental interest. Moreover, because DOMA protected “the ability of elected officials to decide matters related to homosexuality,” including their right to recognize same-sex marriage, it plainly was not born solely as a result of animosity towards homosexuals.”

16.) Don’t compare GLBT marriage equality to that of the marriage equality of African-Americans (even if that’s with caucasians/other), because, you know, GLBT rights are not the same.

“Finally, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is appropriate policy, under current legal precedent there is no constitutional right to it, and that precedent is binding on these parties and this Court. While the Supreme Court has held that the right to marry is “fundamental,” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383-87, 98 S. Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978), that right has not been held to encompass the right to marry someone of the same sex. To the contrary, in Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court dismissed a claim that the Constitution provides a right to same-sex marriage for lack of a “substantial federal question.” 409 U.S. 810, 93 S. Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972) (Mem). In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected the contention that a State statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman violated federal due process and equal protection principles. The court found no “fundamental right” to same-sex marriage, 191 N.W.2d at 186-87, and concluded that the traditional definition of marriage effects no “invidious discrimination,” and that the definition easily withstood rational-basis review. Id. at 187.”

17.) Stupid queers, D.O.M.A. doesn’t deny you benefits, just marry a straight person and “BAM!” instant benefits!

“Plaintiffs also maintain that DOMA discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of their right to the equal protection of the law, see Complaint, ¶ 20, but DOMA is not subject to heightened scrutiny on that basis. As an initial matter, plaintiffs misperceive the nature of the line that Congress has drawn. DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits. To the contrary, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in federal employment and in a wide array of federal benefits programs by law, regulation, and Executive order…. Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.”

18.) Again, don’t compare GLBT marriage to African-American/White ones:

“Loving v. Virginia is not to the contrary. There the Supreme Court rejected a contention that the assertedly “equal application” of a statute prohibiting interracial marriage immunized the statute from strict scrutiny. 388 U.S. 1, 8, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to “interracial marriages involving white persons,” was “designed to maintain White Supremacy” and therefore unconstitutional. Id. at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the “supremacy” of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be “traced to a . . . purpose” to discriminate against either men or women. Personnel Adm’r v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272, 99 S. Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979). In upholding the traditional definition of marriage, numerous courts have expressly rejected an alleged analogy to Loving.”

Feel free to sound off on this bullshit.

Much thanks to AmericaBlog News for their in-depth review of the D.O.M.A. brief, which is in greater entirety here:

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html

Excuse us, we need a liquor lunch now…