Author: Randy Slovacek

Posted on

How some conservatives are twisting DOMA announcement

Pretty cut and dried, and simple.

The Obama administration clearly stated that DOMA will not be defended in appeals courts, but it will be enforced. It is still the law of the land.

For anyone confused by what you might hear elsewhere, here’s a clear statement of what is and what isn’t.

And regarding the marriage component, I guess Obama does have some catching up to do if he wants to speak to the issue of marriage in the way that serial adulterer Gingrich does. It’s almost laughable that Gingrich speaks to Obama “swearing on a Bible” when Gingrich swore on a Bible himself a few times. In a church. To his former wives.

Posted on

Newt Gingrich on the decision to not defend DOMA

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and possible GOP Presidential candidate, today criticized President Obama for his decision to order the Department of Justice to stop defending the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.

“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich.

To be absolutely clear here: the president’s oath – specifically his oath I’m talking about here – has nothing to do with laws passed by Congress.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

DOMA is not part of the US Constitution.  Are we clear here?

Gingrich went on to say: “Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe v. Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy.”

Of course, what Mr. Gingrich has lost sight of here is that Roe V. Wade is a Supreme Court decision, NOT a law passed by Congress. It is not uncommon for a law passed by Congress to be challenged and to be found unconstitutional.  Also, President Obama has made clear DOMA will continue to be enforced, just not defended in court when challenged in court.

I would also point out that Obama is a constitutional law scholar who taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. Gingrich, a former history professor, taught at West Georgia College. Does it take a legal expert to figure out who might be more educated or qualified to know what is or isn’t constitutional?

And while Mr. Gingrich seems concerned about the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act not being defended, and therefore what must offend his own value system, let us not forget that this is the man who cheated on his first wife – while she lay in a hospital bed dying of cancer – with his then mistress. His mistress who became his second wife, who he then cheated on with the woman who would become his third wife.  Yes, a veritable pantheon of morality.  This isn’t being snarky kids – these are the facts.

The more you think about it, the name Newt becomes more and more appropriate.

Posted on

Georgia citizen asks “Who’s going to shoot Obama?”

PaulBroun

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) was asked at a town hall meeting Tuesday, “Who is going to shoot Obama?”

The question was met with laughter, and Broun did not immediately condemn it. Several eye witnesses say Broun laughed as well.

Broun said in response at the time: “The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We’re going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

Broun issued a statement days later –

“Tuesday night at a town hall meeting in Oglethorpe County, Georgia an elderly man asked the abhorrent question, “Who’s going to shoot Obama?” I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question. After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities.’

‘I deeply regret that this incident happened at all. Furthermore, I condemn all statements — made in sincerity or jest — that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.”

A law enforcement source confirmed that the Secret Service interviewed the constituent and determined that he now regrets making a bad joke.

Ummm… yeah. A very bad joke. Ask Congresswoman Gifford and her family.

Posted on

White House names openly gay Social Secretary

The White House announced the appointment Friday afternoon of Jeremy Bernard to the position of Special Assistant to the President and Social Secretary. He is the first man and the first openly gay person to hold the position. Bernard will join the White House from the U.S. Embassy in Paris, where he serves as senior adviser to the ambassador. He previously worked as the White House Liaison to the National Endowment for the Humanities from 2008 to 2010. Finally someone who will know how to throw a “fabulous” party. And I never use that word.

Posted on

Huckabee: no equality for LGBT “experiment”

In case anyone ever wondered why I’m so emphatic about equal rights: here you go.

This man, who ran for president, does not want gays to marry, raise kids or serve their country.

His argument against marriage rights for gays is “the majority voted this way.” Well, the “majority” wasn’t behind ending segregation in the 1960s but it was the right thing to do. The “majority” wasn’t all that keen on women’s rights, but it was the right thing to do. Society evolves.

His argument against gays serving in the military is “military leaders were against this.” That’s not so true. Many military leaders found there would be very little disruption in military service by ending DADT. A few had reservations and are now fully behind the change. Many, many countries around the world have allowed gays and lesbians to serve and it hasn’t affected military readiness a bit. AND the sky hasn’t fallen.

Society evolves kids. The fight for marriage equality isn’t an arbitrary thing. RIGHTS are attached to federal marriage recognition. Over 1,138 specific federal rights. And as tax payers living in a country where all are supposed to be equal, every American should have access to the same rights.

If not, then make “marriage” a totally religious status and require every married couple to get not only “married” in a church, but “civilly unionized” by the government that issues the marriage license and bestows those rights. And make civil unions available to all.

Whatever it takes so that all CIVILLY ISSUED RIGHTS by a CIVIL GOVERNMENT are available to EVERYONE. That is how this whole thing IS about “civil rights.”

I make no claim to changing anyone’s religious practices. But you don’t have to be religious in this country to get married. So technically speaking – these rights at the heart of this argument – are NOT about a church or religion. They are about a government that extends certain rights to one group of people and not another.