From Rayne in Jane Hamsher’s Valerie Jarrett Responds to Dan Choi
Remember the James Bond movie, Goldfinger?
“Mr. Bond, we have a saying in Chicago. The first time is happenstance. The second time is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”
Is this the second time or the third time for Jarrett?
What Jane said:
Number one, when did Obama say that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is unconstitutional? I’m rather sure she’s putting words in his mouth, I’d be happy to be wrong about that.
Further, Judge Virginia Phillips has already ruled Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional. If the President truly does believe Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is unconstitutional, he has all of the justification he needs to let Judge Phillips’ decision stand.
But there is an extremely serious problem with having Valerie Jarrett continue to be the White House spokesperson on this matter. I defended Jarrett earlier this week over her use of the words “lifestyle choice” when addressing the issue of LGTB teen suicide. I said it didn’t make her a bad person, but it did show she was out of touch with the discourse in the LGBT community. And that meant she emphatically should not be in charge of LGBT issues at the White House.
The fact that Jarrett could use a term that is like fingernails on a chalkboard to LGBT people, and still be out there as White House spokesperson on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is symptomatic of something deeply wrong.
DADT may well be unconstitutional in light of the 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Texas sodomy laws
WASHINGTON – In an historic decision with wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a Texas law that makes some kinds of sexual intimacy a crime, but only for gay people. The decision overrules the court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which was widely condemned for treating gay people as second-class citizens. It was hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union as a major milestone in the fight for constitutional rights.
“”This decision will affect virtually every important legal and social question involving lesbians and gay men,”” said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. “”For years, whenever we have sought equality, we’ve been answered both in courts of law and in the court of public opinion with the claim that we are not entitled to equality because our love makes us criminals. That argument – which has been a serious block to progress — is now a dead letter.”” Esseks added, “”from now on, cases and political debates about employment, custody and the treatment of same-sex couples should be about merit, not about who you love.””
In sweeping language, the Court said the Constitution protects the right of gay people to form intimate relationships and “”retain their dignity as free persons.”” Gay people, the Court said, have the same right to “”define one’s concept of existence, of meaning, or the universe, and of the mystery of human life,”” that heterosexuals do. The Bowers decision, the Court said, “”demeans the lives of homosexual persons.””.
(emphasis mine)
Recent Comments