12 June 2009

"fierce advocate's" final f*ck up, part II

12 June 2009

TO: XXXX XXXX, XXXX County Democratic Party Chairman
From: David Greer, Precinct XXX Chairman
CC: XXXX County Democratic Party Executive Committee
Subject: Resignation

After long and serious deliberation, I feel it is necessary to resign my position as a Precinct Chairman. I cannot continue to support the current administration and its abdication of its campaign promises, particularly to the GLBT Community.

In 1996, now-President Obama declared his support, in writing, to Marriage Equality. As a candidate for President, he withdrew that support in favor of “Civil Unions”. This is tantamount to being diametrically opposed to the decision of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, establishing clearly, that “separate but equal” is unconstitutional. Today, by his actions, President Obama has told me clearly that he actually believes “separate but equal” is bad for everyone…unless you are gay.

Today, Obama’s DOJ has stood up to defend DOMA as Constitutional (after pledging to repeal DOMA), even going so far as to equate my 15-year relationship with incest and rape:


(originally sourced via AmericaBLOG)

Obama’s DOJ invoked incest and people marrying children.

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.

Furthermore, his inability to speak out against DADT in strong terms, post election, leads me to believe that, once again, we will be given rhetoric without action. I can not sit idly by while highly skilled patriots are denied the right to serve their country because they feel a moral imperative to be honest.

One needs look no further than Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, a highly decorated Air Force pilot who was discharged, even though he was neither “asked” nor did he “tell”. Taxpayers spent $25Million to train him, just to kick him out of the service after 18 years.

Washington Monthly, May 20, 2009:

"Over the span of his career, he has flown 88 combat missions, including missions that were the longest mission sorties in the history of his squadron. He's logged more than 2,000 flying hours, nearly 1,500 fighting hours, 400 combat hours. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is also highly decorated -- he's received nine air medals, including one for heroism. After 18 years of active duty in the Air Force, this experienced, decorated fighter pilot says he is ready and willing to deploy again. He's ready to do what his country and the United States Air Force ask of him."

Or West Point graduate First Lt. Dan Choi, one of 13 highly skilled Arabic translators (via ABC News):

"I got fired because I was being too honest," he said. "That has nothing to do with performance or going to war. I'm angry, not for myself, I'm ready for all the consequences. I'm really angry because my unit is so professional. ... They are the ones being punished. They are losing a member of their team."

These are but two examples of the TWO HUNDRED FORTY FIVE service members discharged under DADT since Obama took office. While our President continues to drag his feet, public support continues to rise for the repeal of DADT. Gallup released a poll on 5 June 2009, clearly indicating that 69% of ALL American adults favor the repeal of DADT. That figure includes 58% of conservatives and Republicans, 60% of regular Church goers and 77% of moderates.

Apologists say that our President’s hands are tied on DADT until Congress decides to act. That is a very thinly veiled smokescreen. Obama could have issued an Executive Order the day he was sworn in (or any day thereafter) to suspend enforcement of DADT until it was repealed through the legislative process. Instead, 245 careers have been destroyed. Many of those careers destroyed just as the individual service member was within months of retirement, thus losing the retirement benefits they were in the process of getting for their patriotic service.

I take it personally that our President has chosen to use the GLBT community as a punch line. At the recent fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles, when asked about keeping his promises, he sarcastically answered “which ones?”. As there were hundreds of protestors outside the venue after Prop 8 was announced earlier in the week, it was very clear “which ones” were being referenced (to be completely forthright, there were other protestors but they were a significant minority to the Prop. 8 protestors).

Even more appalling were his comments at the Correspondent’s Dinner where he joked about his relationship with David Axelrod at the expense of a very valid civil rights issue.

As reported by Lisa Keen on 15 May 2009 in the Bay Area Reporter (emphasis added):

At the May 9 event in Washington, D.C., Obama was four minutes into a 10-minute requisite tongue-in-cheek salute to the freedom of press when he mentioned that he and his chief campaign adviser, David Axelrod, "have been together for a long time."

"I can still remember ... that day that I called Ax so many years ago and said, ’You and I can do wonderful things together,’" said Obama. "And he said to me the same thing that partners all across America are saying to one another right now, ’Let’s go to Iowa and make it official.’"

Lest I be characterized as a single-issue voter, I am also extremely disappointed in the appointment of Timothy Geithner, who it appears is as culpable as the Wall Street executives for our current financial crisis (after having served as the Chairman of the NY branch of the Federal Reserve).

I find the preposterous handling of the Financial/Insurance Industry bailouts while turning our backs on the Auto Worker’s Union in the face of the Auto Industry bailout unacceptable. I can’t wrap my mind around why it was NOT ok to break contracts with Finance/Insurance executives but it was perfectly acceptable to break contracts with blue collar factory workers as a component of the Auto Industry bailout.

The appointments of lobbyists to the Obama Administration are a complete capitulation to Obama’s campaign promise to not hire lobbyists in his administration.

Now, we are being asked to accept the decision to bring the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies to the table to craft health care “reform”. There has also been a very dangerous “courting” of those lobbies by virtually refusing to even consider a single-payer option, which is widely supported by the people. Have we learned nothing from Hillary Clinton’s attempts at health care reform over 20 years ago? This approach didn’t work then, it won’t work now and it’s not what the people want.

I still consider myself a Democrat and always will unless there’s ever a viable third party that reflects my personal social values. Unfortunately, our Party’s Platform and the actions of our elected officials are not harmonious. I don’t feel that I can continue to serve our Party as a “spokesman” when I have so many conflicts with our Party’s actions. In fact, I believe that speaking publicly (and using my name) is a violation of Texas Democratic Party Rules.

I love my Party. I have loved the time spent in service to the Party and to our local community. This is, without doubt, one of the most difficult decisions I’ve ever made and this is also one of the saddest days in my life.

With tremendous respect,

David Greer

No comments:

Post a Comment