Mass email from GLADjust sent out:

Dear Louise,
We knew this day was coming.
Today the Department of Justice filed notice of appeal in our challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.  U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in July that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. Briefing will now begin before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
We fully expected an appeal and are more than ready to meet it head on. There is no doubt that DOMA brings harm to families like our plaintiffs every day, denying married couples and their children basic protections like health insurance, pensions, and Social Security benefits.
We are confident in the strength of our case, and committed to seeing it through to the end. But we can’t do it without your help. Your gift today, of $50, $100, whatever you can afford, will help us ensure that Judge Tauro’s ruling is upheld and DOMA is overturned once and for all.
Thank you for your continued support.  With your help, we won’t stop fighting until there is equal justice under law for all.
Sincerely,
Lee Swislow
Executive Director
P.S. You can read more information about the case, plaintiffs and next steps in the appeal process on our website.

I guess it just remains to be seen……just how insulting, dishonest, and demeaning Obama’s appeal brief will be.  Given past performance, we know it will be a pip…

Isn’t it funny…… how Obama’s “fierce advocacy” smells like a mix of rancid kimchee, frat boy vomit and ripe bullshit?
Actually, no: it’s not very funny at all.

Good(ish) news.I am NOT going to try to spin this as some sort of amazing Stealth Fierce Advocacy, but leaving this particular case unappealed could have gotten really messy or weird, because it would have resulted in a relatively tiny chunk of the population getting Federal Benefits (and trying to wade through the Red Tape to convince the bureaucrats of it), leaving everyone else without it, because the judge couldn’t impose it nationally.
In essence, it would have left (part of, I think) Massachusetts as the only place DOMA was invalid. It would have resulted in inevitable further “if them, why not us” lawsuits from neighboring jurisdictions.
Seems to me (not a lawyer) that the best thing for us is a really lame and unsupportable defense of DOMA, with the case creeping up to the Supreme Court. Since there is NO supportable defense of it beyond, “Nyah, nyah, because we say so!” a weak defense is pretty inevitable.

And, incredibly, we all knowthere will still be LGBT people voting for the Dems in three weeks.  I would like to propose a new theory of evolution: our community is descended from lemmings.

AgreedThe idea that a federal law could be unconstitutional in one state but not in others is beyond absurd.

The moment the November elections are over . . .. . . and regardless of which party is in control of the House and Senate, it’s time for someone with a brain, a spine, a heart, and a moral compass, to start a campaign for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination, with a clear progressive message.
It will not be easy, but the need is great.  As much as President Obama is a nice man and a good public speaker, he has not delivered well enough.  He has spent most of his first two years squandered on attempts to compromise with the evildoers on the Republican side of the aisle.  When we needed the assertion of principle, we got mostly lip service.
The candidate would pledge:
1. Provided there is a national emergency involving American troops being stationed on foreign soil, to immediately issue a “stop loss” order on DADT.
2. To use all means necessary to insure that the officer corps is fully on board and committed to repeal of DADT. Anyone not willing to support would be asked to resign commission.
3. to end federal subsidies of religion; religious-based and other charitable organizations receivig federal grants or funding would be required to comply with civil rights laws.
4. to reduce the military budget to that which is sustainable; to bring American occupation (NATO) troops home from Europe and Turkey; to the extent that any American troops are stationed in any theater outside US. territory, the full cost of personnel and TOE of same to be at the sole expense of the host nation.
5. to put health care on the same par as education -
There is a lot more, but I have to go . . .  

Well this answers the question long-unanswered by ObamaQ:  Does he think DOMA is constitutional?
A:  Apparently so.

Was that a Tea Bag in your hand, Mr President?You dismissed Ms Sherrod out of fear of Glen Beck, and now, Sir, you will fight to uphold the law that you tell US is discriminatory and that you want repealed, ignorind your veto threat of the last bill to include repeal.
Talk is cheap, unless it is your statement that “God is in the mix” and that you do not believe that we ought to be equal with you.
Opposed to judicial repal of DADT, opposed to marriage equality, back-burnering ENDA..my goodness Sir, to untrained ears your positions sound close to those of certain members of the Tea Party movement….and exactly HOW would th Republicns be worse for us? Your Jusitce Department has given them a whole host of fresh objections to use, in your name, to boot.

Not really…Massachussetts would have become the Marriage Capital of the US. In a little while, all the other states would see how much revenue they were missing and start to come around to a more modern mindset regarding same sex marriage. I could live with it.
As to Mr. Obama, its clear he needs a PRIMARY challanger in 2012. Who can we recruit?

Truly amazing, this flimsy excuse…We can’t ask the DOJ to break tradtion.  That would be… untraditional.

i would have preferredthat they leave the win in MA alone because they might lose on appeal.  Then OTHER states could bring more lawsuits using the same arguments that won in MA.
This is the same battle that is being discussed in CA with Prop 8 as in… should it be appealed to get it to be nationwide or let those in CA have their rights without taking the chance of losing in a higher court.

Welll thats disappointing and exhaustingBut i agree. If we push this to the supremes, we bet this will get struck down once and for all.
Now lets see wat will happen with DADT

Question?
Can anybody answer me this question?  How many more court cases will it take to get up to SCOTUS or will the next step be the SCOTUS?  Back in May, Olsen and Boies anticipated the Prop 8 case would land before the SCOTUS by the Fall of 2011 and this DOMA case would compliment their Prop 8 case in the SCOTUS.  We have waited so long for this it feels like we are almost first class citizens.  

Joann, begging the Democrats (again) is an off the wall idea and a complete waste of time. We should be building a democratic, anti-Democratic mass action movement to force change, not another begging operation at the servants entrance to the Democrat national convention.
The Democrats have a long and clear history of bigotry and of doing what they have to do to appease bigots and get their votes. Democrats voted for DADT and DOMA in large majorities and a Democrat bigot named Bill Clinton signed both bills.
Democrat leaders are bigots, warmongers and union busters. Rank and filers and supporters are welcome to donate time and money and even attend conventions to their masters and mistresses maneuver and scheme but they have no – zero, nada, zilch – influence, clout or power.
Those who think they’re owed something for all their hard work are often as not summarily dismissed, kicked out with a bloodied nose. Ask around. Ask Mixner. Ask No on 8.
What makes you think we’ll do any better this time around?  

how many more?The next one where SCOTUS grants a cert., which is to say, next one they indicate they want to hear it. Could be via the 1st Circuit, after they rule (the Massachusetts case) or via the 9th Circuit (Prop. 8). Those seem to be the ripest.
Fiat justitia ruat coelum.

I would like to commend you on several thingsFirst, you may have the single most appropriate user name here (aside from Pam, Autumn, Alvin, Russ, Maura and the others who use their own names).
Second, your ability for blind, starry-eyed optimism is amazing.  I always thought I was an optimist before this trainwreck of a one-term presidency.
Third, your stamina to wait interminably for civil rights.  I have to admit that now that I’m in my 40s I’m finding myself extremely impatient.
Finally, your loyalty to an individual who clearly couldn’t care less about you.  I also lost that trait at the end of my first long term relationship.

And the Prop 8 ruling is much more solidA true advocate would have sat down with the AG and decided which suit they were more likely to lose.  Then challenge that one and let the other stand.  Alas, I have concluded that the meme is correct:  we do not have an advocate, we have an avocado.

I agree with sillymeIf the case isn’t appealed, the lower court ruling will probably only affect the plaintiffs and have no effect on the rest of us and DOMA will remain intact.  The only way for this or any case to have national effect is for them to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.  It is sickening that Obama doesn’t pair this appeal with a statement to the effect of “I’m compelled to defend the laws of the nation, but I will be just as happy to see this one struck down because I believe it to be unconstitutional”, but the fact is that we do need the DOJ to appeal if we want DOMA Section 3 struck down.  The only other way to do it is via Congressional repeal, and if you think the path to the SCOTUS is going to take a long time, just hold your breath for Congress to pass a marriage equality law.

The Prop 8 trial decision is much, much, much, infinitely much strongerGill is encouraging, but it’s a touch sloppy.  It lacks the elegance and sweep of the Prop 8 decision while also relying on a stricter scrutiny.  Our main hope right now is that the Ninth Circuit acts very quickly and sends that case to the SCOTUS before this one can establish precedent against us.

Gill v. OPM is sloppy?i’m incredulous to hear you say that.  please elaborate.
the two cases ask for different things.  gill asks that sections 3 of doma be struck down because it unconstitutionally separates already-married gay and straight couples into different classes, whereas perry asks that california’s anti-equality constitutional amendment be struck down because it prevents qualified adults in california from marrying in the first place for no better reason than anti-gay animus.  thus this isn’t some kind of race for the best case of a type to get to scotus first.  the cases are very different in scope and objective.

Or a yellow cream liqueurWith all the stiffness of custard.

Often used as a waffle topping.

Others can sue in their own districtsHere’s the thing. This case is only valid in a few states, the ones with gay marriage. It’s a federal vs state jurisdictional matter on who gets to define marriage. So it’s never going to cover everyone.
And the method of expanding the case if it’s not appealed is to sue in a different district, preferably one that is overseen by a court that is likely to give if a fair hearing. You use the original case as a precedent.
As you build facts on the ground, you make it harder to deny other jurisdictions their rights when they sue.
Or you bring it to the Supremes and they rule against Massachusetts and it’s over.

If I understand your point, I disagreeYou get your benefits from where you reside, not where you get married. People rushing to Massachusetts and heading home to Ohio or Kansas wouldn’t get any benefits at all, and people getting married in Massachusetts and heading home to Iowa or Vermont would only get the state benefits they already get.
This wouldn’t change anything from the way it is today for anyone not living in Massachusetts. Out of state same-sex couples can get married there now, but only get the recognition and benefits their home state gives.
There would be an incentive for same sex couples to migrate to Massachusetts, but we can’t all live there.

Because the Republicans would be better?Descended from ostriches?

Good question

What makes you think we’ll do any better this time around?

That is a good question.  The only things that keep me from running are money, a campaign organization, and a “base” of voters.  I’d be delusional if I thought I could win.
Some of the things I support can be controversial.  One example is getting independence from foreign (and even domestic) oil via Solar Power Satellites SPS, a proposal that can be built with 1980′s tech, and has been principally pushed by Science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle, who is otherwise somewhat of a tea partier) are guaranteed to garner powerful opposition masquerading as environmental concerns over dispersed low wattage microwave transmission from the satellites to dishes on the ground in places like Death Valley. Getting it up and running would take a decade and cost as much as our foreign military escapades – but by the end of the decade, the cheap flow of energy would start the economy humming.  Similar programs with dishes in the Gobi and Sahara deserts could provide Europe, Asia and Africa with the same benefits (the EU and the Chinese can pay for those).  Unfortunately, it’s a long term solution being aimed at a nation that rarely ever looks beyond the quarterly bottom line.  The last time something like this happened, we landed people on the moon. (And what do we do in the interim, when the arabs turn off the spigot? Temporarily go with nuclear plants that can be built in a matter of a couple of years – and get out auto industry geared up to produce electric vehicles, and start the process of converting things like home heating and industrial plants to electricity . . . )
There is a tripod – the message (and candidate + the organization), the money and the voters.  A candidate with enough money can get the voters to vote for almost anyone, possibly even enough to win.  A good enough message/candidate with an already ready voter base can raise enough money to win, or get close.  A voter base with enough money can find and fund a candidate and perhaps be good enough to win.
A Ross Perot had a message and a lot of money – he did not win, but he made a showing.
There have been candidates with a voter base who have made serious inroads – (until the Democrats adopted many of their positions, the Socialists seemed to have been poised to win in the 1930′s)
The military/industrial complex has the money and already pretty much controls both national corporatist parties – they find and fund candidates, and either way, they win all the time.
They don’t have to win all the time.  It’s more likely for an insurgent Democrat with a decent message to make a run at the Democratic nomination than it is to find a Republican who could do the same (at least find a decent message).  It still requires a base of supporters with the money, and a campaign organization.
The Ross Perots and the Eugene Debs types can get close, but for any third party to get traction in the U.S., one of the major parties has to collapse. The only alternative is to wrest the Democratic Party away from the corporatists.  It requires the base of voters, a lot of money, and the candidate with the message. (And yes, either recruit existing Democrats to sign on or replace them in Congress.)
The United States of America is in a time of crisis.  The corporatists on both sides of the aisle do not have solutions.  
We may disagree on methodology (I think it still requires campaign machinery with feet on the ground that an existing party organization can fill), we may disagree on platform, but I guess we can agree that we can’t move forward with the status quo.
The only way I could see me running for President any time soon would be is some miracle happened and I got tapped on the shoulder like CIncinnatus.  That is about as likely as me winning Powerball or Mega Millions, especially since I don’t buy lottery tickets.  There are other candidates out there, I hope.

I will be one of themAnd you know what?  I’m focused on the New York State Senate, where I need about four or five more Democrats elected with no losses, to get GENDA passed, and Marriage Equality.  Outside of that, there really is not much I can do federally beyond making sure John HAll surives Nutcase Nan Hayworth’s challenge (my congressmember, Nita Lowey, has a “white sheet” teabagger type running against her, who even the local and state Republican Party has distanced themselves from.  Federally, I can’t really do much about the 40 or so DINO blue dogs in the House.
Still, Republicans would be a lot worse – we had 8 years of “a lot worse” between 2001 and 2009.

Yeah, yeah, yeahThe only possible option for us is to vote for one of the two major parties and continue the status quo.  Because the status quo is so good not just for our community but for all of America.  Working for true change (not the Obama kind), working to build a better future instead of maintaining the status quo, would be a terrible idea.  Blah blah blah…

how do you figure?what do you base this on?

the Prop 8 ruling is much more solid

you’ve said it at least twice but you don’t explain your conclusion.  can you let us in on the reasoning bringing you to this conclusion?

You DO understand that…that there can only ever be 2 dominant parties in the US right?
You do get that its not some conspiracy that results in 2 party politics right?
The structure of the American electoral process is such that there can only ever really be two main parties in power.
You can waste your vote on something else but the end result will be the same…one of the two parties will ALWAYS have control.

If that were the case,our elections would still be between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.  The Whigs would never have existed, nor would the Republicans, nor would the Democrats.  You do understand what history is, don’t you?  Or didn’t Axelrod include that in your job requirements?

It sets up a catch-22You can’t simultaneously argue that the federal government should be intruding in the state matter of regulating marriage on equal protection grounds while in the next breath arguing that the federal government shouldn’t be intruding in the state matter of determining who is married.
We’re much better off across the nation saying that the 30-some odd state DOMAs are unlawful because they unfairly penalize people for an inherent trait.  If they are, then the logical conclusion is that the federal government can’t disadvantage same-sex couples.
If you start from the other direction and say that the federal government can’t intrude on the states’ right to define marriage according to their own whim, then you’ve thrown all those people who do not live in New England (including overturning the Prop 8 decision) to the wolves.

i wonderThe Prop 8 lawsuit seemed to turn on whether the State of California’s voters could deny a Federal 14th Am. right, equal protection under the law, to a subset of its population. This is not unlike the Prop. 14 ruling in the 1960s (Mulkey), or the Amendment 2 lawsuit (Romer) in the 1990s. Solid, but only WRT the role of the State in the marriage question. A ruling in our favor, here, would likely mean the states could not ban same-sex marriage.
However, the Massachusetts suits were a direct attack on a Federal law (DOMA) and the Federal gov’t was the defendant. The basis was (1) whether DOMA was an overreach by Congress over state authority on marriage (10th Am.) and (2) whether the Federal gov’t could discriminate on this basis (5th Am., due process). A victory would most likely strike down DOMA and leave the states free to enact same-sex marriage laws. Or not.
An interesting set of choices for SCOTUS to parse, if they clear the circuits.
Absolutely, Mr. Hawley! Positively, Mr. Smoot!

I dont’ understand your 1st paragraphIt doesn’t mesh with my understanding of the Gill case.
There are two levels of marriage law to be dealt with, state and federal.  Perry deals with CA state law (who can marry in CA) and Gill deals with federal law (what benefits & responsibilities the federal government will impose on married couples).  Even if Perry is successful in the Supreme Court and people can marry in their home states, we’d still need DOMA repealed or struck down via Gill or a similar case for those marriages to be recognized by the federal government.  So in other words, we need both approaches to be successful.  It’s not a competition.  The cases are complimentary.