Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

A Constitutional lesson for Brian Brown

DOMA trials NOM Exposed Right-wing

By Adam Bink

Here’s NOM’s Brian Brown and his hissy fit op-ed in today’s Washington Post. Brian:

President Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he will refuse to do his job when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is part of this stunning pattern of rejecting the democratic process. Obama said that his administration would not defend the law in legal challenges because it is unconstitutional but that it would continue to enforce the law selectively. This is incomprehensible and incoherent, except in nakedly political terms. The president is using his power to do what he – and his base – wants.

[…]

Particularly egregious is Obama’s unilateral declaration that homosexuals are a specially protected class under the Constitution and that this is the reason DOMA is unconstitutional. But the Constitution does not directly say so. Congress has passed no such law. Nor has the Supreme Court ever said that homosexual people are a protected class.

Two things.

One is that the constitutional lawyers among us can discuss this further, but we all learned in grade school that the President, aside from signing laws and legislative responsibilities, must enforce the law and preserves, protects, and defends the Constitution. Hey, look, Wikipedia even tells us so:

The President, according to the Constitution, must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”.

Last I checked, the President said his Administration is still going to faithfully execute the law while it is still on the books.

Second, this view may seem odd, but is it so crazy to say that we elect leaders to move forward on certain policies? I mean, Obama doesn’t allow discrimination based on sexual orientation in his Administration. He nominates people for the judiciary branch based on certain views. That is certainly different than what is actual enacted law or Supreme Court precedent, but I don’t think it’s so crazy that we elect candidates to carry out certain views and policies, and they go do that. The Administration is under no obligation to defend a law it thinks is unconstitutional (proving, ahem, the good people at AMERICABlog, and Richard Socarides, right on this issue), no more than the Governor and Attorney General of California are. That’s the way things were set up, Brian.

166 Comments

  • 1. JonT  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:46 am

  • 2. Kathleen  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:47 am

  • 3. Rhie  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:48 am

    Watching

  • 4. Ronnie  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:54 am

    ROFL…."his hissy fit"….<3…Ronnie

  • 5. Amy  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:02 am

    This is from a must-read take by Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin:

    "Why does a change in the official position of the Administration matter to federal judges? The answer is that when the President and the Justice Department change their minds publicly and take a new constitutional position, it gives federal courts cover to say that their decisions are consistent with the views of at least one of the national political branches. Agreeing with the President appears less countermajoritarian, even if other parts of the federal government (and the various states) disagree.

    Thus, it was only after the Truman Administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson in Sweatt v. Painter in 1950, and again in the Brown litigation in 1952, and after the Eisenhower Administration's Justice Department concurred with the Truman Administration when it came into office, that the Supreme Court finally felt comfortable overturning Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. After the Bush Administration took the official position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms in self defense (around 2001), this provided political cover for the Justices to reach the same conclusion in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller. Note that the President's explicit and public support for a constitutional position does not have to be a reason explicitly stated in judicial opinions, but it can be an important factor nonetheless." http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/02/whole-new-ball

  • 6. Straight for Equalit  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:07 am

  • 7. Joel  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:12 am

    The Constitution says that minorities are a protected class, and the the GLBT fits the definition of minority to a tee.

    Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that YOU are entitled to curtail OTHERS' rights, Brian?

  • 8. Felyx  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:19 am

    RE: Hissy Fits

    1) I am personally looking forward to the first vote on marriage that goes our way. I agree that there should not be a vote but it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be one anyway.

    Then we will all choke laughing at the subsequent Hissy Fits that will inevitably follow. (Voters didn't know what they were voting for! The vote was rigged! Voter fraud: Gays and their supporters were allowed to vote!)

    2) Fall of DOMA section #3 in court.

    Hissy Fits galore. I will be waiting with popcorn and wheat grass juice.

    3) The best, of course, will be the fall of DOMA section #2. There will already be grumbling and gnashing of teeth for the haters over the states et als that already have LGBT marriage equality but the real weeping and (excruciatingly loud) wailing will be heard when non-discrimination will be forced across the land. That will be the day that I will want a private stadium box at the marathon rant that will spew forth from Perky, Gaggins and Brown! Hissy Fit will take on a whole new dimension for sure!

    In the mean time, I am still celebrating the news regarding DOJ. I still think this is perhaps the most significant thing to happen since Prop 8 was decided by Walker. Without the DOJ defending the law, it will be seriously difficult for the House to get standing and the law will rapidly loose any and all significance. (BTW, I would love to hear what anyone has to say about the likelihood of the House being granted standing. As far as I have read, they still need it. Does it automatically come if the DOJ remains a party to the case?)

    Looking forward and Enjoying the ride,

    Felyx

    )PS: Two weeks left until I return to the States! Anyone in NY on the 13th let me know. I will be in town for a 14 hour layover.)

  • 9. John B.  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:27 am

    I find it interesting that the newest meme being propagated by NOM et al. is that we won't know the full results of same-sex marriage for another 30 years. Yes, lacking all facts and logic–and increasingly, public opinion–this is the argument they've been reduced to using: if same-sex marriage is allowed today, something bad (we're not really sure what) will happen to somebody (who we can't name but maybe future generations) someday (we don't know exactly when but maybe not for a long time).

  • 10. Sagesse  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:50 am

    I posted this in the comments at the Washington Post:

    "Brian Brown is the president of the National Organization for Marriage, identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay group, and on its watch list for designation as a hate group. It's disgraceful that the Washington Post would give this man space on its pages, on this topic."

  • 11. Sarah  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:53 am

    checking in…

  • 12. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:01 am

    For 1), it would be outstanding if Maryland does it, although I can't say I'm confident about it. I shudder to think at how much money is going to be, ultimately, flushed down the crapper on that referendum. How many charities would have benefitted? In my limited way, I know how hard it is to raise money for charities – some of this NOM vs. equality money would go so, so far.

  • 13. Paul in Minneapolis  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Two thoughts.

    First, I believe either house of Congress would have standing, if for no other reason than Congress authored the law.

    Second, I agree that the Right will have hissy fits galore — and while that will be ever so satisfying, I'd refer to the phenomenon as "having herds of cows." And I fear that some of those cows are going to trample some of us in revenge (violent backlash, in other words). I hope I'm wrong, but we need to be prepared for the possibility.

  • 14. Straight Dave  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Re DOMA standing for the House…

    It is only necessary for one party to have standing in a case in order to keep it alive. DOJ has standing since the Fed Gov't was the one being sued. As long as they agree to remain involved (which they have) the case stays open. Other parties can request to participate as <Intervenors, meaning they can join the action without necessarily having independent standing all by themselves. However, if DOJ dropped out of the case entirely, then some other party would need to establish their own standing in order for there to be an actual controversy to litigate.

    In other words, you can join an existing case without having your own standing (which the House may do here), but if there aren't already 2 opposing parties, you can't go and start your own fight unless you have standing.

    Intervenor rights much easier to obtain that strict standing.

    Hope that make it a bit less fuzzy. It took me months to understand the distinction, but the shared expertise of others here helped me immensely.

  • 15. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:10 am

    I hear you, Paul, but I hope it will fizzle. Look at the rhetoric before DADT was repealed. I'm amazed at how flat the response fell after the Senate vote. All that thundering, no hellfire rained down. Yes, marriage equality didn't have as much popular support as DADT repeal, but I still hope things will be sunnier than they might be. The Religious Right can always find new people to hate to drum up funds.

  • 16. Paul in Minneapolis  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:10 am

    But we *do* know the results of interracial marriage — it's been 44 years since Loving — and those results are …

    … the world is still turning, the sky hasn't fallen, people opposed to interracial marriage still aren't required to enter one, no one's rights have been infringed, and none of the horrible predictions have come true.

    (Hi Louis, Maggie, Brian and all my friends at NOM! Care to visit us here in Minnesota, now that it's February and not July? Another sub-zero night here in the Twin Cities is upon us — but you're more than welcome to stay in my two-story guest igloo, built from the 75 inches of snow we've had so far this winter!)

  • 17. Straight Dave  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:10 am

    way too many typos…

    Intervenor rights are much easier to obtain than strict standing.

  • 18. John B.  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:11 am

    The hypocrisy of the opponents of same-sex marriage–who blame gay couples for the destruction of marriage while giving their heroes and leaders on the right a free pass to engage in adultery, divorce, and multiple marriages–is astounding. Here's what I posted on the Washington Post website in reply to Brian Brown's column:

    Mr. Brown, apparently you haven't noticed that it isn't 1996 anymore. But the fact that you seem to think it is would certainly explain a lot.

    But if you're really that concerned with "restoring" or "protecting" "traditional Marriage", maybe it's time to start looking to your own leaders on the right. If the institution of marriage can survive infamous multiply-divorced and multiply-married (and frequently adulterous) heterosexuals like New Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and John McCain–and let's not forget that Ronald Reagan was divorced and remarried!–I suspect it can and will survive same-sex marriage. But in the meantime look to your own marriages before you try to tell other people who they can or cannot marry.

    BTW I posted similar commentary to the nasty little editorial by Jeffrey T. Kuhner in the Washington Times, "Obama's Homosexual America" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/obamas-homosexual-america):

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We're all doomed! DOOOOMED I say!

    Good grief, get a grip, Mr. Kuhner. Same-sex couples getting married isn't going to destroy marriage and heterosexual couples aren't going to stop falling in love, getting married, and having children just because same-sex couples can do it too. If the institution has survived infamous heterosexuals like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and so many of your other leaders–heck, even the sainted Ronald Reagan was divorced and remarried–it can survive anything. (The really funny thing is that President Obama is happily married to his first and only wife. It must just kill the right to have to settle for people like John McCain, who admitted to having an adulterous affair with the woman for whom he divorced his first wife.)

    And as far as "permanently alter(ing) society", unless you're living on the moon or Mars, take a good look around you. American society has been permanently altered in your lifetime and in mine, and in fact is in a constant state of change. Our independence from England and the creation of our country was a pretty big alteration of society and in fact constant change is one of the hallmarks of the USA. It's one of the things that made us great–when did Americans become so weak-kneed and terrified of societal change and innovation?

    But if you're really that concerned about marriage, I suggest you look to your own, and those of your leaders, before you start telling other people who they can or cannot marry.

    (Interestingly enough, Mr. Kuhner is originally from Canada. This is interesting because despite his predictions of dire consequences, he makes no reference whatsoever to the fact that same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in Canada since 2005. Canada is still on the map, marriage hasn't been destroyed, and the country hasn't really changed a whole lot since then. Surely Mr. Kuhner has family and friends still in Canada; perhaps he could inform himself by asking them about it.)

  • 19. DaveP  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Well done. We should make a point of posting this information anywhere, any time the Brian or Maggie say or do anything. Use those comment sections to get this information out there in front of the public. The SPLC has done us all a great favor by putting NOM on their watch list and we should make the most of it.

  • 20. Straight Dave  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:17 am

    And as I cited from a FindLaw article in another thread yesterday, Congress generally does not automatically have standing on challenges to laws they pass, unless the President or DOJ or someone else has clearly overstepped the bounds of their authority and done something improper. Simply taking a fully legal action that they are entitled to, however unpopular it may be, isn't enough to produce standing for Congress.

  • 21. Kathleen  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Totally O/T but indulge me..

    George would have been 68 today.

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6j4TGqVl5g&w=480&amp;…

  • 22. Kathleen  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Try again?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6j4TGqVl5g

  • 23. Bob Barnes  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Karen Grube sighting on the WaPo, if anyone wants to have fun, and I know you do.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti

  • 24. NetAmigo  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    Basically, the religious right pushes a mythology of human sexuality. They repudiate the science of human sexuality because it contradicts much of their mythology. This is hardly new for religious fanatics as we see their battles in other areas with science.

  • 25. Kathleen  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    And in case anyone wonders who my favorite Beatle was (in 1965) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/luv**art/B

  • 26. atty79  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Brian's statement shows a lack of understanding of our judiciary. The President's pronouncement wasn't that the law IS to overturn DOMA; rather, it was that DOMA doesn't pass the smell test. The President and the AG informed Congress that the correct lens through which to judge DOMA, in their opinions, is not through some willy-nilly standard of review but rather through a heightened one. And when using that lens, DOMA doesn't cut it.

    The Executive, as a co-equal branch of government, is allowed to have an opinion. His opinion is that you can't discriminate against gays unless you have a damn good reason to–and "because I said so" will no longer cut it. When viewed that way, there's just no argument that can be made. Why would the Executive waste his time arguing a case that's frivolous in his mind? He wouldn't.

  • 27. Larry Little  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Obama’s gay backfire for refusing to defend the blatantly discriminatory DOMA, legislated by rightwing religious extremists in the Republican Party for the express purpose of placing the gay population in an unconstitutional discriminatory category of second class citizenship and therefore violated the equal protection clause to make the church’s viewpoint over rule constitutional protection and to assist the church in its attempt to establish theocratic institutions to replace our democracy.
    We have all been warned so many times we must keep the state separated from the church and there are some extremely important reasons for doing so. Our money says “in God We Trust” and our Pledge of Allegiance has “one nation under God” that got snuck in there and it needs to be reversed as the state has been infected and contaminated by religious dogma and I am grateful we have a president that will defend our Constitution and protect “the people” from religion’s repressive need to control all sexual behavior. We can do without swearing on the Bible in our court rooms, using it to be sworn into office or to brainwash our children.
    Since the Republicans won control of Congress there has been a relentless attack by morality police to utterly destroy a woman’s ability to choose her options for health care because it has already been decided on by backroom politicians that completely defunded Planned Parenthood, one of the most valuable resources for women who will now just have to find out if prayers will work.
    South Dakota and then Nebraska plan on killing an abortion doctor is justifiable homicide and is based on the good Christian model and the uterus police in Georgia want to have funerals for Tampons. If we can’t escape the tentacles of organized religion, women may find it more comfortable in Iran. How is this activity creating jobs or reducing the deficit?
    Let’s use words of science to guide our wisdom which can be backed up with evidence.
    First, homosexuality is not a sin. The concept of sin is derived from the Bible, a book with hundreds of errors and incorrect interpretations. This book is used to create an unchallenged hate list that has caused grievous harm through too many years of intense bitterness and simply must not be used as a credible source and must not be allowed as a witness and have no laws that support open bigotry with such extreme polarization.
    I have heard people call homosexuality unnatural. The matter of indisputable facts clearly shows that homosexuality or the attraction for the same sex is an inherited biological consequence of evolution that affects both sexes and is not a sickness, disease or choice. Same sex couples can love each other as deeply as heterosexuals and should have the same benefits. Same sex couples are considered as sinners rather than humans in need of acceptance and no more nailing people on a fence in frozen Wyoming and calling this death justifiable homicide.
    I would like President Obama issue an executive order repealing all legislation that discriminates against the gay population and to recognize and legalize same sex marriages throughout the United States in the same tone of voice Wisconsin governor Walker used his attempt to destroy the bargaining rights for unionized employees. Throw down the gauntlet, Mr. President.

  • 28. bJason  |  February 25, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    You are right (as best I can ascertain). The DOJ said that it would remain a party to the suits so that congress critters – or possibly anyone – could intervene, should they so choose.

    ENGAGE BEER-FUELED RANT: :)

    I choose to see this as almost a dare. The president, "fair-weather" as he may have seemed so far, may be starting to see LGBT issues as playing to his base (which he learned from DADT earning more than it cost). There are those who even submit that many in our current crop of elected Repubs. don't want to take this on because they understand that the times they are a changin'.

    I would not be surprised to see a fracture in the Republican party over the next few years. Fiscal conservatives on the one and social conservatives on the other. That will weaken the party as a whole and could be an edge for the Democrats. Should someone take up the mantle and defend DOMA in court(s) the light will shine on their naked bigotry (as the Prop 8 trial has already shown us) and/or their lack of good sense and that will, at least, turn off the fence-sitters.

    Between the right to choose, unions and LGBT issues; Republicans may soon have to face the fact that they are spreading the fear too thin for it to hold them up. AG Holder's letter may be the straw that broke the back of that camel that's currently trying to pass through the eye of the needle.

    I am still grappling with the DOJ's continuance of the DADT case. The fact that the District Court dismissed the Equal Protection claim in the LCR case may be the way the DOJ will justify it. It is difficult to square the circle from Holder's letter that we deserve heightened scrutiny while sloughing that off in this case. Yes, yes, "as applied" in the Witt case – blah, blah, blah. Perhaps it is simply a nod of deference to the military or deference to congress in re the "repeal" of DADT. I don't know. I would rather have seen a brief that said, in essence, "we have determined that LGBT's are a suspect class and, though congress has "repealed" DADT, it has not left us so we cannot defend it in court as it is discriminatory". That might have made too many heads explode at once.

    History may one day reveal that this was all very carefully orchestrated. That would be a good thing. In the mean time, lives are at stake. Freedom is repressed and justice is not being served. Enough already! It is far past time to put all of this to rest and move on.

    END BEER-FUELED RANT

    <3 Jason

  • 29. Paul in Minneapolis  |  February 25, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Thanks for that!

    Yes, the sun still rises, doesn't it? Here's one of my favorite musical sunrises. Some of the imagery is a little cheesy in this particular video, but you won't find a better recording of this than Montreal's.

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uDiT3uBDQU&fs=1&h

  • 30. Bob  |  February 25, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    bjason,,, are you drinking beer cause it''s Friday nite,,,, cause holy crap man,,, that was a great post,,, much enjoyed your post,,,, like

  • 31. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Indeed. When you think the universe is 6,000 years old, you're not keen on scientific evidence.

  • 32. Carpool Cookie  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    I learned over there today that some of them don't like the word "bigot" being applied to them.

    But it is amazing that only about 1 out of 5 posters over there are undergoing hissy fit meltdowns.

  • 33. Carpool Cookie  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Oh god….she really needs a long rest somewhere.

  • 34. Carpool Cookie  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Yes….and it's not like he caved in on the lawsuits and walked away, he just said the federal government isn't going to be pressing this Article 3 aspect any more, because to right-minded people, it's bullsh!t.

    And he cleared the way for Heightened Scrutiny….which of course minority groups need when laws or lawsuits are created in an attempt to flatten them. Any "reasonable" (no matter how off-base) argument from the h8ers can't suffice on it's own any more. The judges have to really roll up their sleeves, dig in, and look at the issues all the way through.

  • 35. Carpool Cookie  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    I should have said 'rational', not reasonable, argument, there.

    Rational Basis Review is the lowest tier…which the government will now be bypassing (for good reason)

  • 36. Carpool Cookie  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    There are 70 words in the first sentence.

    I can't go on…

  • 37. Kathleen  |  February 25, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    :)

  • 38. RebeccaRGB  |  February 25, 2011 at 4:00 pm

  • 39. clark s  |  February 25, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Not sure if this has already been linked here, but I'll post it just in case:

    Happy weekend!

  • 40. clark s  |  February 25, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Whoops I didn't make that link correctly. http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/08/smbc-nom

  • 41. Joel  |  February 25, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    Way OT, but ABC's "What Would You Do?" was supposed to air a segment about homosexual soldiers (don't know if it was men, or women, or both) displaying affection in public. Quinones actually plugged it on "The View" this morning. Anyone know why it was pulled, and a repeat segment aired in it's place?

  • 42. Ray in MA  |  February 25, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Mirror that.

    I got past the first 30 and thought the same thing, .

  • 43. Sagesse  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    Thank you. Seeing that again made my Saturday morning :).

  • 44. bJason  |  February 25, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    Well played, sir! Well played!!

  • 45. truthspew  |  February 25, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    The other thing that Brown misses is that DOJ falls under the Executive branch. As such, the President can influence the actions of the DOJ.

    It's interesting when you think about it that the DOJ grew out of tax law.

  • 46. John B.  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    I have no idea whether what Obama and DOJ are doing is legal or constitutional but what the opponents of same-sex marriage are missing (or conveniently overlooking in their calculated hysteria) is that (1) this is only about sect. 3 of DOMA and (2) that section has ALREADY been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court. Oh, and (3) almost everybody has suspected all along it would eventually be ruled unconstitutional, which is why there was a push for a constitutional marriage amendment.

    If there's any "power grab" here it was by the federal government in 1996, when it told states which of their legal marriages it would recognize, and which ones (same-sex) it wouldn't. It was a legal non-issue at the time as there were NO states that recognized same-sex marriage but as I said earlier, it ain't 1996 anymore. The only question is how long it will take Brian Brown and his friends to realize that little fact.

  • 47. Ed Cortes  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:14 am

    scribin'

  • 48. Kate  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:36 am

    But the content is good.

  • 49. Sagesse  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:56 am

    Some of the things I've read in the last few days seem to hint that Boehner and other House Republican leaders have been forced out in front on this, and would really rather not be there… point to Obama and the DOJ.

    It's one thing to bash the administration for doing a lousy job of defending DOMA. Words to satisfy the base. But they don't want to be put in the position of saying the things the DOJ won't say to argue positively in the Second Circuit that LGBTs are not a suspect class. Leading the offense will be perceived as repugnant. Fighting the repeal of DOMA, less so.

    I think BB and Tony Perkins are at least a little afraid they won't step up.

  • 50. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 26, 2011 at 1:57 am

    Beautiful post, Jason! I've thought for a long time that the alliance of social and fiscal conservatives in the Republican party has been an unholy one, and that the center of it won't be able to hold. I think the fiscal conservatives are going to get tired of losing at the polls because of their whiny, bigoted counterparts and give them the old heave-ho.

    I count myself radically liberal as far as social policy goes, especially when it comes to minority rights and the environment. However, I still see the need for the changes to be fiscally sound and I look forward to the day when conservatives can help guide social and environmental changes in ways that will benefit business and the economy. What better way to get everyone involved in saving the planet, and ourselves, than to give conservatives a reason to join in?

  • 51. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:07 am

    So true! Throw down that gauntlet, Mr. President!

    A couple comments on the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality: "The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform." ~Alfred Kinsey
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_

    Take that, naysayers!

  • 52. Larry Little  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:23 am

    Carpool Cookie………
    Sorry about the seventy word sentence. I'm not a good writer. If I was I would certainly like to replace all the rightwing hateful rhetoric.

  • 53. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:25 am

    UPDATE Mass DOMA cases.

    ORDER OF COURT Entered: February 25, 2011
    Pursuant to 1st Cir. R. 27.0(d)

    On or before March 18, 2011, the parties are to confer and file a joint proposal as to how these cases should proceed in light of the government's letter of February 24, 2011. The proposal shall address, among other things, whether the government needs to clarify its litigation stance by filing a new brief. The government shall also inform us, at that time, when we should expect to learn that Congress will or will not seek to intervene or otherwise participate, as well as whether in its view this matter should be held in abeyance pending that Congressional decision. The government shall also address whether, in its view, the government appeals should be dismissed in light of the government's position. Appellant Dean Hara shall also address whether the government's letter affects whether his own appeal should proceed.

    The present briefing schedule is vacated pending consideration of the further filings.

    Available here (thank you to Peterplumber for his continued help in obtaining documents from this case) http://www.scribd.com/doc/49599986

  • 54. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:35 am

    The content is great! It is hard to read a lot of text all in a big block, especially online. it helps a lot if you just throw in frequent paragraph breaks. But I really enjoyed your post.

  • 55. Zak  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:45 am

    Brian & Company still think it's 1896.

  • 56. Michael Herman  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:48 am

    Has Brian ever actually read the Constitution?

  • 57. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:51 am

    I thought people might like to see this segment with Rev. Susan Russell. She sometimes posts here at P8TT. She's interviewed at around 2:08 – also Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal at 1:25.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwfaT0_NhKE&f

  • 58. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:52 am

    Let's try again:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwfaT0_NhKE

  • 59. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:52 am

    embed fail. Maybe someone else can correct it :(

  • 60. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:54 am

    *hiya Cookie, nice to meet you Thursday!*

    I think next time I have the opportunity I shall have to point out to the bigots who don't like the word "bigot" that, if they are going to behave like bigots–perpetuating stereotypes and fomenting animus against people for their characteristics rather than their character–then they should expect to be called bigots, and they should just own the fact that yes, indeed, they are bigots.

    To be a bigot and then say "I don't like being called a bigot" makes one a bigot AND a hypocrite. QED.

  • 61. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:56 am

    I remember Proponents' citing some case in one of their briefs in the Perry, and consistently mis-citing it as being in the wrong century. And I remember thinking at the time that it accurately reflected their mindset.

  • 62. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:57 am

    ".. in the Perry case, …"

  • 63. bJason  |  February 26, 2011 at 2:59 am

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwfaT0_NhKE&f

  • 64. bJason  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:00 am

    oops, that didn't work

  • 65. Bennett  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:03 am

    I don't think they will go so far as to complain that equality supporters were allowed to vote, just that their votes were not properly discounted at a ratio of 3/5ths to 1.

  • 66. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Thanks for trying. I'm going to have to get LLB to explain to how to recognize whether or not I have the correct cod in my link.

  • 67. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:04 am

    .. or the correct CODE (when I'm not in the mood for fish)

  • 68. bJason  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:07 am

    Interesting! I'm not sure what I think about this. I like that the court is asking for a regroupy-updatey-thing. I wish they had left the briefing schedule alone so as not to hold up the case (at least until someone asked them to). Regardless of the DOJ's new position, there is still a pending appeal and people are being denied justice with each passing day.

    Kathleen, do you know what date the next item up for bids (as it were) was to be due in these cases? I can't find my notes.

    BTW thanks Kathleen and Peterplumber!

  • 69. bJason  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:08 am

    LOL
    that is something I never knew about you!
    :)

  • 70. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:13 am

    And they didn't have to take the literacy test showing that they are fully conversant in the world according to Rush Limbaugh.

  • 71. bJason  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:16 am

    This is AWESOME!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfcaG0WfP34&fe

    h/t Joe.My.God

  • 72. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:17 am

    Yeah, I felt let down by the vacating of the schedule to proceed, seemed a bit churlish. I hope the Administration is prompt about a reply so as not to continue to delay/deny justice here.

  • 73. up&Adam  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:18 am

    Your heart was in the right place, that didn't go unnoticed. We all have many things on our minds and however you express them are nonetheless appreciated.

  • 74. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:20 am

    yes! :)

    I remember one of the NOMbies appeared here recently and claimed that any politician supporting marriage equality was committing political suicide. When I asked how California's recent election results factored into that view, she came up with a whole raft of justifications including "illegal aliens being registered to vote illegally and told who to vote for."

    As always, when reality conflicts with their world view, instead of shifting their view, they just deny reality.

  • 75. bJason  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:28 am

    Agreed and agreed!

    I like that it is asking for a joint proposal. I wonder, can a civil case like this be settled between the opposing parties in the way a criminal case can be? I wouldn't think so.

  • 76. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:31 am

    It was the citing of John Locke that struck me as being telltale re: mindset.

    And I kinda like the meme "in the Perry;" maybe when the case is finally successful that can become the name for a place in a city, like "The Castro."

  • 77. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:35 am

    I think it's physiological–when the sphincter's that tight, the poop backs up into the brain.

  • 78. Carpool Cookie  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:48 am

    Hello! It was so fun meeting you and Kathleen this week, too! A very enlightening afternoon.

    I liked when Boies said he thinks that this DOMA development is directly related to the DADT decisions, which are directly related to Judge Walker's ruling and lengthy Findings of Fact. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

    I wonder if the 9th Circuit finds that none of the Prop H8 Proponants have standing (along with reiterating that the replacement for "Where's Delores?" is well out of their depth, as well) what state Boies and Olson will be called on to challenge, next?

    The funny thing about his talk was EVERY time he said, "the ban on…." I would at first hear, "the band…", and picture a dance orchestra. This happened about 8 times and each time I fell for it all over again : )

  • 79. Carpool Cookie  |  February 26, 2011 at 3:56 am

    Hi Kathleen! So neat to meet you Thursday, my friend.

    At trial, didn't the H8ers also site some womens' study from 1921 or something?? That's when I was like, "Whuuuuuuuuut…???"

  • 80. Carpool Cookie  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:00 am

    Yeah.

    It's so easy to whine about things, then when someone hands you the reigns….. ( ! ! ! ! ! ! )

    I was in a group that had business meetings every month, and once I said "It would be really good if we made a master contact sheet and someone put out calls a few days before, reminding everyone about the business meeting" and the chair said "That sounds great! Would you put that together?"

    Grrrrrrrr….

    But I did put out the calls faithfully for about 2 years.

  • 81. Carpool Cookie  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:05 am

    So, who pays for the government's defense now, Re: the Article 3 aspect? ? What I mean is, if a congressperson wants to argue that, do they pay for an attorney out of pocket? Or will some "Mr. Deeds Goes to Washington" type congressperson who's an attorney take on the defense, themselves? That could be amusing.

    I'm not so clear on this particular case.

  • 82. Mark M, (Seattle)  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:10 am

    Please do NOT be offended…I just had to repost this in a more reader friendly format.
    No disrespect at all Larry….your post is full of passion and heart and I felt it needed to be read by more.

    REPOST:

    44. Larry Little | February 25, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Obama’s gay backfire for refusing to defend the blatantly discriminatory DOMA. Legislated by rightwing religious extremists in the Republican Party for the express purpose of placing the gay population in an unconstitutional discriminatory category of second class citizenship. Therefore violated the equal protection clause to make the church’s viewpoint over rule constitutional protection and to assist the church in its attempt to establish theocratic institutions to replace our democracy.

    We have all been warned so many times we must keep the state separated from the church and there are some extremely important reasons for doing so. Our money says “in God We Trust” and our Pledge of Allegiance has “one nation under God” that got snuck in there and it needs to be reversed as the state has been infected and contaminated by religious dogma and I am grateful we have a president that will defend our Constitution and protect “the people” from religion’s repressive need to control all sexual behavior.
    We can do without swearing on the Bible in our court rooms, using it to be sworn into office or to brainwash our children.

    Since the Republicans won control of Congress there has been a relentless attack by morality police to utterly destroy a woman’s ability to choose her options for health care. It has already been decided on by backroom politicians that completely defunded Planned Parenthood, one of the most valuable resources for women. wpmen who will now just have to find out if prayers will work.

    South Dakota and then Nebraska plan on killing an abortion doctor is justifiable homicide and is based on the good Christian model and the uterus police in Georgia want to have funerals for Tampons.
    If we can’t escape the tentacles of organized religion, women may find it more comfortable in Iran. How is this activity creating jobs or reducing the deficit?

    Let’s use words of science to guide our wisdom which can be backed up with evidence.
    First, homosexuality is not a sin.
    The concept of sin is derived from the Bible, a book with hundreds of errors and incorrect interpretations.
    This book is used to create an unchallenged hate list that has caused grievous harm through too many years of intense bitterness. It simply must not be used as a credible source, must not be allowed as a witness, and have no laws that support open bigotry with such extreme polarization.

    I have heard people call homosexuality unnatural. The matter of indisputable facts clearly shows that homosexuality or the attraction for the same sex is an inherited biological consequence of evolution that affects both sexes and is not a sickness, disease or choice.
    Same sex couples can love each other as deeply as heterosexuals and should have the same benefits.
    Same sex couples are considered as sinners rather than humans in need of acceptance and no more nailing people on a fence in frozen Wyoming and calling this death justifiable homicide.

    I would like President Obama issue an executive order repealing all legislation that discriminates against the gay population and to recognize and legalize same sex marriages throughout the United States in the same tone of voice Wisconsin governor Walker used his attempt to destroy the bargaining rights for unionized employees. Throw down the gauntlet, Mr. President.

  • 83. Mark M, (Seattle)  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:15 am

    That was wonderful!!

  • 84. Sagesse  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:16 am

    I'm with those who say the political payoff from pushing culture war issues isn't there anymore… so they try to give them a low profile (or leave the ranting to the extreme ideologues).

    To placate the FRC and NOM, Boehner will probably assign somebody to mount a defense. Be way cool if he passed, tho :). Dreaming in technicolour and plaid, I admit.

  • 85. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:17 am

    I'm sure he has, probably while scanning it for the word "God." It's the Bill of Rights he's a little unclear on….seems to think he wields a personal line-item veto power over the amendments, or something.

  • 86. Carpool Cookie  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:34 am

    GEORGE IS DEAD ? ! ? !

    He was the cutest one!

    I met a boy called Frank Mills
    On September twelfth right here
    In front of the Waverly but unfortunately
    I lost his address

    He was last seen with his friend
    A drummer, he resembles George Harrison of the Beatles
    But he wears his hair
    Tied in a small bow at the back…"

  • 87. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:37 am

    Yeah, props to our man V. Walker for finally plunging the pole into the True North of unconstitutionality, and so beautifully too. Now everyone can see where it's at, looks like all expeditions are heading there–or getting dragged there, which is fine by me.

    I felt reassured by Boies saying they'd continue to throw down the gauntlet in other states, though I think his willingness to be so blithe about it may have been colored by the national sense of inevitability that got massively ramped up this week. These are heady times (as the person who noted that heads are exploding over on the NOM blog can attest.) :)

  • 88. Josh  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:45 am

    These people are such two-faced liars. When DOJ was defending the law, they complained that they weren't allowed to be part of the defense and that DOJ wasn't trying hard enough. So why are they complaining now that they'll get their chance to do what they wanted? Such fools.

    I can't wait to see what arguments they make in the case. What can they bring that wasn't brought up on Perry? I hope the judges in these cases smack down all the "evidence" just like Walker did. Then of course we'll get to hear more "activist judges" blathering.

  • 89. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:48 am

    "The Band on Same-Sex Marriage"…hmmm. What would the song be, I wonder?

    "It Don't Mean A Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing (Vote)"?
    "It's A Long Way to EqualMarry"?
    "Begin the BeGayne"?

    Or maybe just something nice and romantic like "All The Things You Are," and all the newly married couples can get out on the floor and dance with the person they love most, without fear. As the song goes: "Some day my happy arms will hold you, and some day I'll know that moment divine when All The Things You Are…are mine."

    May it be so.

  • 90. Carpool Cookie  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:56 am

    @ Larry: Your writing and thoughts are very good, it's my concentration that fails : )

    One of the reasons I'm not into the Bible is it's so clearly crafted to keep women in subjugation. (Plus the fact that its authors never met the person purported to be Jesus. Their stories would be thrown out of court as hearsay.) Basically, I'm not going to take anything from a book that claims woman unleashed evil on the world, is therefor condemned to bleed for eternity, and can only find salvation through the pain of childbirth (bleeech!)

    I was reading a book from the 70's called Out of the Closets and one writer said, "Gay liberation is a struggle against sexism…a belief or practice that the sex or sexual orientation of human beings gives the right to some of certain privileges, powers, or roles, while denying to others their full potential. Within the context of our society, sexism is primarily manifested through male supremacy and heterosexual chauvinism."

    He also goes on to say that sexism prevents solidarity of the people…which has always been my thought, too. It's like, "Don't we have other issues we could be working together on??"

  • 91. Ed Cortes  |  February 26, 2011 at 4:56 am

    LOL – That was a GOOD one!

  • 92. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:02 am

    Yeah, it's the strategy of "spin"–whatever happens, They Don't Like It!! They don't seem to realize that it makes them look like they're not only haters but WHINERS, and that might be working against them. A little.

    Robert Hughes called his book about American multiculturalism "The Culture of Complaint." No kidding.

  • 93. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:10 am

    Oh CC, you are a Cookie after my own heart.

    As I've said elsewhere (so forgive me for repeating myself) Anton Scalia recently pontificated to one of his conservative minion groups that women don't have equal protection under the Constitution, so they really shouldn't expect to be treated equally.

    One might ask what this has to do with marriage equality, but when one examines what political forces were responsible for the failure of the ERA and what forces are trying to tamp out marriage equality now, those groups are one and the same–religious orgs that want to enforce that "male supremacy and heterosexual chauvinism."

    I'm hoping that one day–maybe in my lifetime–we'll be able to not only repeal DOMA and ensure federal marriage equality, but to amend the Constitution to permanently prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. A lot of people those provisions are already in there, but they aren't….and clearly, we really need them.

  • 94. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:11 am

    "a lot of people think those provisions are in there," rather. Dang lack-of-edit-button!

  • 95. bJason  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:33 am

    Gotta love a Hair reference!!
    Let the sun shine in!

  • 96. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:35 am

    I sing the karaoke version of that song all the time in the car. :)

  • 97. bJason  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:39 am

    This from Kathleen:

    "to answer your question in the Mass DOMA cases. The Plaintiffs-Appellees' (our side) would have been due next Tues, Mar1"

    She is currently having a problem posting but, thoughtfully, felt that others might have this same question which she could answer (because she ROCKS!).

  • 98. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:46 am

    So they've been prepping for nothing, then….*bummer*

    But maybe it will all be mooted our way, in which case *not so bummed*….

  • 99. Carpool Cookie  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:50 am

    I saw a concert version a few years ago after not thinking of the show for a while, and the score is almost all hits!

    Every time a song would start, I'd think, "I LOVE THIS SONG!" Almost every single time.

  • 100. Fluffyskunk  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:53 am

    I would like President Obama issue an executive order repealing all legislation that discriminates against the gay population and to recognize and legalize same sex marriages throughout the United States

    Good thing this isn't how the constitution works, or the next president could just as easily reverse that and institute a death penalty for homosexual behavior throughout the United States.

  • 101. Carpool Cookie  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:55 am

    "She is currently having a problem posting but…."

    Maggie got her : o

    TO ARMS!

  • 102. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 5:58 am

    Yeah, it's a great score, and underappreciated in its inventiveness–all the more unique and wonderful because Ragni/Rado/McDermot didn't culture-spam us with clones for the next two decades like some other musical producers did.

  • 103. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 6:00 am

    Someone light the Anonymous Beacon, quick! If they can take down Westboro's site they can hack over at NOM!

  • 104. Michael  |  February 26, 2011 at 6:07 am

    "this stunning pattern of rejecting the democratic process." Shrill anti-gay activist Brown leads the effort to do this. In Iowa, he works to destroy our judicial system by kicking out any justice that does not promote the immoral anti-gay agenda. In other states, he tyrannizes a minority of taxpayers by allowing the majority to vote on our civil rights. Yet the Consitution is meant to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Sounds like radical anti-gay activist Brown wants to redefine and destroy our Constitution and hide it behind false charges against millions of pro-equality Americans.

  • 105. Sagesse  |  February 26, 2011 at 6:09 am

    From New York

    Court Rules Gay-Married Couples Have Right To Spousal Inheritance
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/25/court-ru

  • 106. Sagesse  |  February 26, 2011 at 6:15 am

    The sound of silence. I'm having an attack of schadenfreude.

    Gay Marriage Seems to Wane as Conservative Issue
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/us/politics/25m

  • 107. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 6:21 am

    I wonder if this pronouncement is premature, if there are frantic backroom strategy meetings going on all over Utah and Washington, D.C. right now. It's hard to figure where the NOMers will try and strike next, but you know they're going to try something, even if it's just turning the propaganda machine inward to steel their own adherents against the Gathering Federal Storm of Equality Rulings.

    It may be "check," but it ain't "checkmate" yet–that's when my schadenfreude glee will begin. :)

  • 108. Ray in MA  |  February 26, 2011 at 6:53 am

    Bob, I gave you a "recommend"…

    You: 16

    Bigot Grube: 2

    I re-consdered and did not re-post her vile spew here.

    (you have to click on "comments" if you want to be vulgarized and see it)

  • 109. Sagesse  |  February 26, 2011 at 6:58 am

    Truly insightful piece from Kerry Eleveld.

    Obama And DOMA: The Unspoken Truth And How We Got Here
    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201102240011

  • 110. Sagesse  |  February 26, 2011 at 7:00 am

    Schadenfreude is particularly satisfying when it is premature.

  • 111. Sagesse  |  February 26, 2011 at 7:06 am

    I'm in no mood for fair and balanced.

    Marriage Equality Opponents Risk Hurting Republicans
    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201102250010

  • 112. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 7:09 am

    I guess you get to enjoy it longer that way. :)

  • 113. Sagesse  |  February 26, 2011 at 7:10 am

    Watching the dominoes fall. In the interview with Kerry Eleveld when Obama said his views on marriage equality were evolving, he knew this was coming.

    Toobin: Obama's DOMA Decision Means "Sooner Rather Than Later, The President Will Officially Change His Position" On Marriage Equality
    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201102250005

  • 114. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 8:32 am

    Actually, the Constitution doesn't say anything about protected classes or minorities. The basic principle of protection of minorities against popular vote was discussed by the framers and partially accounts for the system of gov't created by the constitution, but it doesn't actually appear anywhere. And the concept of "protected classes" comes from a line of case law that interprets the constitution.

  • 115. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Joel, if you go deep into the vaults where the original is kept, you can see it right in the Preamble, just after the part about "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    There, scribbled in red crayon (not very neatly, I might add) it says, "except for BROWN BRAINBRIAN BROWN who can change it any way he wanstts whenever because God said he knows what is right ALL THE TIME for evyEVERYBODY."

    It looked like a later interpolation to me, but the vault guide (who looked remarkably like Rick Santorum) assured me it was original. But there it is, in plain waxy red and white.

  • 116. Carpool Cookie  |  February 26, 2011 at 8:54 am

    I am ashamed to say I actually appreciate the Westboro Baptist Church's visibility.

    They make people question the Bible…because everything they say the back up with Scripture.

  • 117. Joel  |  February 26, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Thanks for that clarification, Kathleen. I remain a humble grasshopper, Sensei!

  • 118. AB  |  February 26, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Here is what I don't understand…
    In their press release on DOMA, Brian Brown said that the Democrats in Wisconsin and Obama on DOMA were proof that Democrats don't do what they are supposed to do. THEY made this a partisan thing. So let's go with that.
    G. W. Bush didn't defend existing law in court in ACLU v. Mineta, G. H. W. Bush did the same in Metro Broadcasti­­­ng v. FCC, and even Brian Brown's sainted Ronald Reagan aborgated existing law in INS v. Chadha.
    So, three questions we should ask Brown:
    1. If it is unconstitutional, then why has it been done before by Presidents he regards as constitutionally sound? 2. If he has such a huge problem with this, then why doesn't he have a huge problem with his OWN PARTY doing this? And 3. If both parties do this, then why is he only more critical of one party over the other?

  • 119. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 9:11 am

    It's true, it's back to the Maggie Effect–when people see how ugly Westboro is, no one wants to be like that. I believe that MG and Westboro's inadvertent efforts on our behalf have taught hundreds and thousands of people to shun Christian homophobia and chased many tepid believers in our nation further down the road of secularism, which is fine by me.

    I'm just astonished at how often in American history we've had to fight the battle over church/state separation, it happens again and again.

  • 120. Kate  |  February 26, 2011 at 9:41 am

    Oh, Elizabeth — I love you!

  • 121. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Oh golly–I'm not good with praise. "Thanks," is considered the proper response I guess, and "right back atcha" maybe too. :)

  • 122. Kate  |  February 26, 2011 at 9:57 am

    It has been really fun watching your posts today. You need to curl up with that laptop and P8TT more often!

  • 123. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Oh Sagesse: you want some more tasty schadenfreude? Go watch the video of Shirley Phelps-Roper as Anonymous takes down the Westboro Baptist Church websites live. Godhatesfags.com is STILL down two days later. Nom nom nom schadenfreude nom.

    Though I can hear the pages of my FBI file being ruffled already, I say: Thank you, Anonymous.

  • 124. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    You joke, of course. But I'm quite certain I have a FBI file.

  • 125. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    I bet my FBI file's bigger than *your* FBI file.

  • 126. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    I was once on an FBI wanted list. :)

  • 127. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    I've been assured on good authority that's no longer the case, btw. :)

  • 128. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Those of us who went through the '60s left quite a paper trail.

  • 129. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Okay, you win. But I was followed by a man in a white suit with a bristly mustache and Panama hat when I was in a foreign country; have YOU ever been followed by a man in a white suit with a bristly mustache a Panama hat, huh huh huh? (no lie, btw)

  • 130. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 26, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    We must also remember that Brian, Maggie, Louis, Tony Perkins of the AFA, and all the other Tea Party folks seem to think that the only ones who are protected under the Constitution are the people who think and act the same way they do. And little by little they are finding out just how WRONG they are! PWNED!!!!!!

  • 131. Kathleen  |  February 26, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    You definitely win that one.

  • 132. Elizabeth Oakes  |  February 26, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    *contented that her reputation as International Woman of Mystery has been well-challenged but successfully maintained*

  • 133. bJason  |  February 26, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    I played Claude about a thousand years ago. Fun show and yes, great score. When I was a wee tot, my mom had some 8-track with "Age of Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine" on it. She tells that whenever we would go anywhere I would jump in the car and say "sunshine" over and over until it played.

  • 134. Straight Dave  |  February 27, 2011 at 2:36 am

    Anytime someone mentions the FBI, I get flashbacks. I also was once wanted by the FBI. I didn't actually "do anything wrong", it was just a case of mistaken identity. An agent came to my house, flashed his badge, and scared the crap out of my mother-in-law when she opened the door. The circumstantial evidence they were working from was pretty enticing. I knew I wasn't guilty but had no immediate alibi for the timeframe. I still have that Special Agent's business card from 1981.

  • 135. Carpool Cookie  |  February 27, 2011 at 6:40 am

    I'd like to see a list of all the times this has happened. Has any journalist done this yet?

    I posted a few other cases recently. It would be good to have the references all grouped together, somewhere.

  • 136. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  March 1, 2011 at 4:42 am

    @Kathleen
    Methinks the problem with your "fishy" code is in protocol part of the link, i.e. "https" — "s" means "secure", I don't think that part is that important in the link, it works just fine with the usual "http" protocol, but, I guess, the replacement code that turns links into videos here, in P8TT comments, only recognizes general "http" protocol. You can scan your links for that pesky "s" — I think it should help.

    Let's try the same link without secure protocol part:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwfaT0_NhKE

  • 137. Kathleen  |  March 1, 2011 at 4:50 am

    Thanks, Kirille! I'll watch for that in the future.

  • 138. A Constitutional lesson f&hellip  |  March 5, 2011 at 10:05 am

    […] A Constitutional lesson for Brian Brown (via Prop 8 Trial Tracker) Posted: 2011/03/05 by ignardsmarnoff in etc 0 By Adam Bink Here's NOM's Brian Brown and his hissy fit op-ed in today's Washington Post. Brian: President Obama's announcement Wednesday that he will refuse to do his job when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is part of this stunning pattern of rejecting the democratic process. Obama said that his administration would not defend the law in legal challenges because it is unconstitutional but that it would continue to enforce the law … Read More […]

  • 139. Online games&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    The cool site…

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

  • 140. website  |  May 17, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Currently it seems like WordPress is the best blogging platform available right now.
    (from what I’ve read) Is that what you are using on your blog?

  • 141. Charley  |  June 30, 2013 at 9:25 am

    It’s remarkable designed for me to have a site, which is useful in favor of my experience. thanks admin

  • 142. Cathleen  |  July 1, 2013 at 5:57 am

    This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your
    excellent post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks!

  • 143. Soccer Picks  |  July 8, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    This piece of writing offers clear idea in favor of the new people
    of blogging, that in fact how to do blogging.

  • 144. Galen  |  July 21, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    I really like reading a post that can make people think.
    Also, thanks for allowing me to comment!

  • 145. hearing aids mayo clinic  |  August 11, 2013 at 10:46 pm

    An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a colleague who had been conducting a little research on this. And he in fact ordered me breakfast because I discovered it for him… lol. So let me reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending the time to discuss this subject here on your web site.

  • 146. sportingbet  |  October 30, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    Surely not totally all the application program services are equalkly
    exemplary. Some possibilities are published iin decimals like 1.35,
    2.42 an such like.

    Here is my site – sportingbet

  • 147. find a lawyer  |  October 31, 2013 at 7:51 am

    Experiencing an injury is not going to always mean the individual can claim recompense.
    A prepared lawyer will be part of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

    my wweb site; find a lawyer

  • 148. http://barrygurvitchconstruction.com  |  November 2, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    Fender rubbers are suited tto provide your pontoon
    the cushioning effect. Being lightweight and long-lasting implies tat aluminum is ideal foor use within racing bikes.

    My blog post; Bary Gurvitch (http://barrygurvitchconstruction.com)

  • 149. plasmas  |  November 6, 2013 at 6:23 am

    This certification may come in the form of a course or certification.
    Always pick a distributor that’s a well-stocked stock.

    my web-site: plasmas

  • 150. NFL Picks week 10  |  November 12, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    It is a confident bet that the Seminoles are going
    to plow through the Eagles’ defense to get a solid
    win. The Browns play great competitors difficult and usually defeat them.
    My week 10 NFL sport conjecture may be the Falcons
    win at home, 17 to 10 on the Ravens.

    Also visit my web page NFL Picks week 10

  • 151. mold test Phoenix  |  November 13, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    You be imagined to barely use watr within yor bleach solution.
    Free ArticlesYou are looking for aan escape,
    ways to be free and take it easy again. Thats also an incredibly simple prolem to
    solve.

    Have a look at myy web blog mold test Phoenix

  • 152. Phoenix mold testing  |  November 14, 2013 at 7:00 am

    The only downside is thee time you need to wait for the kit tto reach in the mail.
    Noot to mention, the possible health problems associated with
    experience of mold spores. Shape are available almost anywhere in the world.

    my website :: Phoenix mold testing

  • 153. mold Testing Tampa  |  November 20, 2013 at 7:41 am

    There could be several causative factors contributing towards development of
    the floor related problems. Do your research and it shouldnt be difficult to get one
    that will suit your preferences.

    Also visit my weblog mold Testing Tampa

  • 154. Minneapolis Mold Test  |  November 20, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    Generally, mold might be divided in to 3 types:
    Easy, Troublesome, and Daunting. Make use of a 25 degree sheen cann of lacquer
    with the right sheen to match the layer of thee wood
    furniture.

    Also visit myy page: Minneapolis Mold Test

  • 155. sports betting games free  |  November 27, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    One is likely to bet after the recorded pitcher with thee two baseball ideologies.

    Money the queue odds tend to bee divided for you tto
    positive furthermore negative.

    Stop by my web site sports betting games free

  • 156. academydistrict20Homes.com  |  November 28, 2013 at 12:04 am

    The basic model presented were Criteria, Termss
    and Network. This area is beautiful and popular in new york state of Thhe state of virginia.
    This is done to reach the piers underneath.

    Also visit my site; academydistrict20Homes.com

  • 157. the full list of 2014 grammy nominees  |  November 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    It’s time to investigate music licensing. If you want to create a new tradition for
    the children you may have them get a call from Santa Claus.
    But nothing stood out more that Pink’s Sober performance.

    My blog post – the full list of 2014 grammy nominees

  • 158. homes 4 sale  |  December 8, 2013 at 10:23 pm

    Expensive of anybody operating containing nothing but a cell phone and a
    Po Box address. Thesee firms also destroy the old framework
    to ensure hat there is room enough forr the new design to occur.

    My page: homes 4 sale

  • 159. Roman Polanski Venus in Fur  |  December 9, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    You are now able to convert, simply click the ‘Start’ button on
    the rIght-bottom of the maIn-Interface. With more and more people using broadband wee are seeing annd increase in options for material from the web.

    Also visit my blog :: Roman Polanski Venus in Fur

  • 160. http://www.annuitycalc.net  |  December 23, 2013 at 8:43 am

    Life-Insurance Transaction: An appartment $ 5,000 is paid to Mr.

    There’s a means to springtime in the cause of this horde.
    It was, in the event that you were looking for lump sum, a reasonable
    deal.

    Feel free to visit my web site … http://www.annuitycalc.net

  • 161. san diego mold treatment  |  January 1, 2014 at 7:02 am

    Baking soft drink makes an excellent cleaner and deodorizer.
    Mix the corn meal on the soil beneath the plant and out to the drip line.

    You can use kill mold spray to truly have a straight forward clean-up.

    My web page: san diego mold treatment

  • 162. salt lake city mold treatment  |  January 2, 2014 at 12:51 am

    A lot of condensation could be a indication of high humidity in your basement.
    The American chestnut is a variety of tree situated in eastern hardwood forests.
    But why not leardn how to paimt wheels dark?

    Feel free to surf to mmy weblog – salt lake city mold treatment

  • 163. www.conservatoryroofprojects.co.uk  |  February 3, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    That is, until they make your mind up that their brokers bring
    in more money. Renting a home out deliver additional wealth.

    Thhis allows you much more time to organize moving for a new
    quarters.

    Also visit my site: real estate kanab utt (http://www.conservatoryroofprojects.co.uk)

  • 164. buy diamonds rings online  |  February 5, 2014 at 8:55 am

    In sites such as for instance Coral Bay, the ocean is significantly less than half a kilometre offshore.
    With the new redevelopments, the paddock area is nnow inside thhe monitor.

    My web page :: buy diamonds rings online

  • 165. yellowpages.aol.com  |  February 10, 2014 at 10:46 pm

    We’re clearly enjoying the ongoing future of
    Local-Search using the rebranding cotinued Oguz. Many
    marketers suggest that your Squash Page must allways be an opt-in form.
    Submit only the webpage towards the se’s.

    my web site :: yellowpages.aol.com – yellowpages.aol.com,

  • 166. Yelp  |  April 30, 2014 at 8:10 am

    The materials used to make info on determine its cost.

    Job costs should be as Service Items setup which, fortunately, it
    fails to. Whatever the boss does, needs to be replicated from the others.

    Feel free to visit my web blog – Yelp

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!