As San Francisco celebrates Pride Weekend it is perhaps time to demand that your own ‘leadership’ cease pandering to pettifogs.
A recent article at what Christopher Hitchens has called “the Puffington Host“ is a rather vapid he said / she said report with the headline Obama... Gets A Pass For Punting On Same-Sex Marriage. Of course, the only reason Obama’s mumbo jumbo "was not a deviation from the usual script" is because LGBT activists and journalists let pettifoggers off-the-hook by failing to ask the most obvious questions and demand answers that do not insult our intelligence.
Pulease. Give us a break. Obama didn’t punt! He dropped the ball and he only gets away with it because a gutless LGBT ‘leadership’ (with the assistance of public relations propagandists who hold themselves as ‘journalists’) don’t call him out on legal balderdash that should not escape a second year law student.
The fact is that Barack Obama has never once, stated even one legal reason for his failure to support full marriage equality. Not even once. Is it really too much as ask a so-called “civil rights lawyer” (of all people) for a legal reason why he does not demand ‘equal protection’ of ‘fundamental’ rights? It’s patently obvious that our LGBT leadership lacks the audacity to even ask him that question let alone demand an answer. After all, we don’t want to be impolite or get ‘uppity’ do we? We must, after all, keep our place.If Stein’s article demonstrates anything it is the disappointing level of ‘advocacy’ provided by the self-anointed LGBT ‘leadership’ who, instead of being civil rights watchdogs, act more like gutless, toothless, sycophant, lap dogs. Their idea of ‘activism’ is to scuff a Gucci shoe or break a finger-nail fighting for a place in line for a cocktail party photo-op with the Prez so they have a picture to hang on their wall as testimony to how important and influential the Babbitry is. If the front-line AIDS activists like Larry Kramer took this obsequious approach when the pandemic first struck then the gay community would be pretty much exterminated by now.
Enough of this shysterism and pandering to pettifogs! We have been at this so-called ‘debate’ for two decades now and propagandists still pimp to a level of legal ignorance that is a disgrace. While the pandering propagandists have successfully trained the Community to parrot all the right buzz-words (‘equal protection’) and bumper-sticker slogans (‘separate is not equal’) very few comprehend the substantive fundamental legal bedrock. Since the legal dynamic is really rather simple, there is no reason we should continue to dignify the vapid canards of pea-shooter brains who have been peddling discredited legal rubbish for two disgraceful decades.Perhaps I have too much faith in human intelligence but I believe in educating people not exploiting ignorance and manipulating them with vapid propaganda or pandering to prejuidice. This is a legal no-brainer. As the late U. S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson once opined,
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. .... [F]undamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."This legal axiom is actually the holding in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
As I recall only one attorney had the integrity to write the unassailable factual and legal truth and only one LGBT news paper had the audacity to publish it back in 2006 when candidate Obama was pushing his ‘separate but equal’ folderol about “semantics” and the “religious connotations to marriage.” See Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo. Enough of this faith-based bullshit.Mortimer’s Bay Area Reporter op. ed. is frequently cited but not one activist or journalist has had the audacity to ask Obama, this so-called civil rights lawyer, on precisely what legal basis he can justify violating the First Amendment (‘separation of church and state’) for the nefarious purpose of denying an entire class of his fellow-Americans a ‘fundamental’ right (marriage) guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment’s ‘equal protection’ clause. Amazing! Absolutely no one has asked Barack Obama exactly what part of Loving he does not get. Is it really too much to demand a civil rights lawyer provide even one legal reason for denial of a ‘fundamental’ right to an entire class of ‘persons’? It’s clearly too much to expect the self-anointed high priests and propagandists of LGBT leadership to demonstrate the guts to ask the question - let alone demand an answer!
Larry Kramer is absolutely correct to be "fed up with” this marriage issue. I don’t agree that “we've gone about it the wrong way” for it’s axiomatic that ‘states are laboratories for social change’ and Evan Wolfson was prescient in his predication that we would see a “patchwork” of state laws; but I remain miffed and abashed that anyone continues to pander to this states’ rights discussion where such classic segregationist claptrap is not fit for intelligent legal debate. Marriage, like any ‘fundamental’ right is no more a states’ rights issue than a ‘Negro” water fountain or a Jim Crow railroad car and Barack Obama (like any advocate not totally ignorant of the law) certainly knows it.Civil unions over marriage is a matter of “semantics”? Sure Mr. President, sure. Front of the bus, back of the bus, what does it matter? As long as we get a seat on the bus what different does it make? Right? Let’s make all the gays walk on one side of the street and all the straights can walk on the other. After all, “one side of the street is as good as the other.” Right? Just because we are separate does not mean we are not equal. Right? What a travesty. What a cavalcade of legal ignorance! What immeasurable folly!
However, Larry Kramer was correct when he said “it has taken too long” for we should have been in federal court a long time ago. Why have we avoided the only fully effective legal remedy? Because our leadership was afraid of another, wrongly decided Bowers v. Hardwick . So what, says Kramer, “if we lose at the Supreme Court, which everyone was afraid of, you just come back again.” This is exactly what happened after Bowers. And please notice: the time from Bowers to Lawrence was 17 years; but it’s been 18 years and counting since Baehr v. Miike and we are still not before the high court. Why?You will recall that when David Boies and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson decided to take this issue to the federal court in San Francisco some of our most ‘influential’ advocacy groups were flatly against it. Indeed, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (who originally obtained the right to same-sex marriage in California in In re Marriage Cases and defended it in Strauss v. Horton) actually opposed the filing because they felt a federal challenge might do more harm than good. Of course after they realized they’s look pretty foolish if this dream team of two conservative straight men won us our Brown v. Board Education they all jumped on board. But don’t forget: they were against it before they were for it.
I expect that Obama will talk the mumbo-jumbo talk and walk the walk as he Mau-Maus the Flak Catchers - he’s a politician who must speak Ketman lest the rabid right lynch him (figuratively speaking of course) but I am tired of the LGBT ‘leadership’ who do not demand he actually walk his talk. Don’t get me wrong, the LGBT community has some of the best lawyers and legislators money can’t buy but propagandizing, pandering to legal ignorance, and patronizing the Community, does us all a disservice. It is time the LGBT leadership nail Obama’s foot to the floor. And if he just runs in circles they should, with all due respect, nail the other foot to the floor. We should all demand that he join us to unequivocally drive the final steak into the endarkened heart of these despicable and disgraceful gay Jim Crow laws. Mr. President, Just say ‘No!’ to Gay Jim Crow.Francois Arouet
Copyright © 2011 by Francois Arouet