Thank John Boehner for Supreme Court DOMA victory

Barney Frank, who tends to annoy me (I was working on gays in the military in 1993 when Barney cut the DADT deal with Clinton, behind everyone’s back, while the rest of us were still fighting to free our troops – so I take Barney-hagiography with a big grain of salt, a ring of garlic and a wooden spike).

Having said that, Barney is right about John Boehner being responsible for our big DOMA victory yesterday in the Supreme Court.

doma blag boehner supreme court

More from HuffPost:

On Thursday, Frank, the first openly gay congressman, proposed that Boehner and the House Republicans’ choice to fight for DOMA was the beginning of the end for the anti-gay marriage law.

“Why was the court able to make a decision in one case [DOMA] and not the other [Prop 8]? The answer was John Boehner,” Frank said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“If you read page 11 of the opinion of the DOMA case, what Justice Kennedy says is, ‘Well, we couldn’t decide the other one [the Prop 8 case], but we can decide this one because the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, the Republicans in the House demanding it, made the argument,'” Frank said. “And that allows us to decide it.”

When President Barack Obama announced in 2011 that his administration would no longer defend DOMA in court, Boehner and House Republicans stepped in to argue for the law.

“So we can thank John Boehner and the House Republicans for the most pro-gay decision ever,” said Frank.

And Barney’s not wrong on this one – check out what Justice Kennedy says on page 11 of the majority opinion – BLAG is the House group, run by Boehner, that decided to keep defending DOMA in court after the Obama administration refused.  Note especially the first two sentence:

BLAG-doma blag-2

And a special big thanks for John Boehner’s DOMA lawyer, Paul Clement, who really botched this case big time.  Of course, Clement still took millions in federal dollars for losing DOMA.

And keep in mind, Clement is the same guy who lost health care reform before the Supreme Court for the Republicans.  So we can thank him for that victory too.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

41 Responses to “Thank John Boehner for Supreme Court DOMA victory”

  1. Bill_Perdue says:

    Democrats (and Republicans) are the enemy.

  2. Dakotahgeo says:

    Who the hell would even invite Perdue out of his house?! The man is scary!

  3. Dakotahgeo says:

    Perdue, as a Democrat, you’re even starting to bore me! Move on! You are a cactus!

  4. Bill_Perdue says:

    Keep dreaming, whiglet.

  5. FLL says:

    “It shouldn’t matter to you which party wins. They’re both infested with right wingers like yourself.”

    Translation: “All is lost.”

    I’ll bet you’re a hit at cocktail parties.

  6. Bill_Perdue says:

    You keep right on pretending that I’m a Republican. And I’ll continue to point that you’re a supporter of Obama’s racism, union busting and warmongering.

    It shouldn’t matter to you which party wins. They’re both infested with right wingers like yourself.

  7. FLL says:

    The only reason I register as a Democrat rather than Independent is because here in Florida, you have to register as Democrat or Republican to vote in the primaries. If people are satisfied with the Democratic nominee, they’ll vote Democratic. If they’re not satisfied with the nominee, they may vote third party.

    You, on the other hand, are satisfied with the racism, warmongering and union busting of your Republican relatives, which is futile because they will never accept you, and they certainly will never love you. If you joined a fundamentalist Pentacostal church and started handling snakes and speaking in tongues, your relatives wouldn’t accept you. If you joined the American Nazi Party, your relatives wouldn’t accept you. If you put on a hoop skirt with the Confederate flag sewn onto it, set your hair on fire and ran down the middle of Main Street, your relatives wouldn’t accept you. Your efforts to “trick” liberals into throwing away their votes so that Republicans will win are futile efforts. You will drown in an ocean of younger voters and Hispanic voters. Your Republican relatives will become embittered, and your efforts to kiss up to them are doomed. Have I put a ray of sunshine in your day? Your welcome.

  8. Bill_Perdue says:

    Wrong. It’s because you have no explanations for you support of the racism, warmongering and union busting that characterize your party.

  9. Judge2be says:

    So thank god for Boner’s defense; thus we are free. Obama by trying to appease the gay lefties, ie you, and your ilk, and not defending the law would have screwed us (see Prop 8).

  10. FLL says:

    A final answer. Why don’t I answer rhetorical questions? Because rhetorical questions are statements rather than genuine questions. Look up the definition of “rhetorical” if you need to.

  11. Pogovio says:

    Get an attention span, Sweetie. If you read my whole message, it explained the unacceptable consequences that an executive order would have provoked.

  12. Bill_Perdue says:

    Bush killed thousands of GIs and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, Clinton killed half a million Iraqi children. Obama is killing GIs and civilians but only he is ordering the racist murders of American citizens by drone.

    Were you under the impression that the reporters killed in Iraq were killed by drones or that they were US citizens. If so, then you’e abysmally ignorant and/or a liar. They were Reuters employees and their names were Namir Noor-Eldeen, a reporter, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40. A Reuters cameraman was also killed.

    And you still, after all that drivel, refuse to say why you distort the record by pretending that Democrats are not as bad as Republicans and refuse to accept the fact that so many of us understand – they’re the same party. The party of the rich.

    And you still refuse to say why do you do that? Because Obama and the Clintons are re branded bigots? Because Democrats push DOMA repeal and ENDA passage, but only when there’s no chance of it passing?

  13. FLL says:

    On the last thread, you claimed that there is no evidence that McCain is more of a war monger than Obama, and then said that I was lying when I asked why you were defending Republicans–right after you defended McCain. On this thread, you ask me to answer your question: “Why do I distort the record?” That’s not a question. That’s a rhetorical statement.

  14. dcinsider says:

    I am so pleased that Becca and you both point out what a terrible phony barney always was. As a Massachusetts native, we all knew he was a hack and a prick, and one of the most unpleasant people you could run into, but so many gays and lesbians across the country canonized him, it made most of us Mass folks sick to our stomach.

    That being said, he was a smart guy, and his point is well taken. Too bad he was such a DNC sellout.

  15. Bill_Perdue says:

    Republicans are almost as bad as Democrats. They haven’t started murdering American citizens yet.

    Sorry if the idea of Obama murdering civilians bores you but then you’re not an Arab or muslim American so that’s understandable.

    Democrats are the enemy (and so are Republicans).

  16. FLL says:

    Why are you stuck in 1996? Reboot your computer every 17 years or so. You are going to go through the rest of your life shrieking that Bill Clinton signed DOMA and trying to convince people that this means ALL Democrats are just as bad as ALL Republicans. Yes, I know that you’re trying to “trick” liberals into not voting or voting for a candidate who is not even printed on the ballot. People do not think this is evil. People think this is a crashing bore.

  17. Bill_Perdue says:

    DOMA was a bill supported by most Democrats and signed by Dixiecrat/Democrat bigot Bill Clinton.

    Democrats refused to repeal DOMA and pass ENDA when they had the chance.

    In both cases Republicans, who are just as bad as Democrats, applauded.

    You distort the record by pretending that Democrats are not as bad as Republicans. You refuse to accept the fact that so many of us understand – they’re the same party. The party of the rich.

    Why do you do that? Because Obama and the Clintons are re branded bigots? Because Democrats push DOMA repeal and ENDA passage, but only when there’s no chance of it passing?

  18. Bill_Perdue says:

    Barney Frank is a quisling and an anti-trans bigot who gutted ENDA in 2007 to please the Chamber of Commerce. In the the process made violent personal attacks on the integrity and agenda of the trans community and even going so far as to deliberately exclude our brothers and sisters from coverage under his gutted agenda.

  19. Bill_Perdue says:

    Discharges dropped off significantly after 9-11 and Obama’s efforts towards repeal were based on his need for cannon fodder.

  20. Bill_Perdue says:

    It was not a lesser evil, it was codified bigotry that not only permitted discrimination but required it while promoting violence and the murder of PFC Barry Winchell, pictured below, who had his head bashed in on July 6th, 1999. In additions the lives and careers of tens of thousands of 13,650 GLBT people in the military were ruined by bigoted discharges, loss of benefits and loss of income or employment in civilian life.

    There are no lesser evils.Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and Obama are not lesser evils, they’re all bigots (rebranded or not), tools of the rich and mad dog warmongers.

  21. Sweetie says:

    “Clinton could have issued an executive order for the military to proceed toward allowing gays to serve”

    But, he didn’t Blanche, he didn’t!

  22. Sweetie says:

    “Does anyone doubt that Barney Frank has done more for the LGBT movement with his pinky than John Aravosis has done at all?”

    Yes, some do.

  23. FLL says:

    I will now distinguish between the good, angelic, moderate Republican candidate (the presumed hope of today’s Republican Party) and the wicked John Boehner. Presenting Mr. Angelic, Chris Christie, trashing the Supreme Court ruling overturning DOMA:

    This schmuck actually has the nerve to say that Justice Kennedy was being insulting to the members of the 1996 Congress by saying that animus was the reason for passing DOMA. Have you ever read the House Report that accompanied DOMA? Here it is, in all its animus-filled glory:

  24. BeccaM says:

    On the other hand, DADT always had its built-in escape hatch: Any servicemember could be retained if his or her services were deemed necessary and essential for good order and military readiness.

    And if anything, the AUMF could’ve been used as justification as well, in that it authorizes the President to use any means at his disposal to go after terrorists.

    It was used to enforce anti-gay discrimination, and I doubt that there were any cases of note where a servicemember’s sexual orientation was a genuine problem. Mostly DADT was used to get rid of anybody who wasn’t wanted and to save money in forfeited pay, pensions, and benefits.

  25. BeccaM says:

    Some were probably fooled into thinking that would be the case — and in fact, there was plenty of language in the law to allow for a rather liberal-minded interpretation of allowing gays and lesbians to serve, even if their sexual orientation was known. The President himself was given authority to override DADT at need

    Yet in practice, as we know, it was used in every wrong way imaginable. As a tool to enforce discrimination in the ranks. An easy way to avoid giving a soon-to-be-departing servicemember the pension and education benefits to which they were entitled. A tool for blackmail and coercion — and yes, also rape, where a woman would be threatened with an accusation of being a lesbian if she didn’t cooperate.

    As with both DADT and DOMA in the 90s, the clear intent of Congress was anti-gay animus, pure and simple. It’s right there in the congressional record. And the institutionalization of that animus was reflected in its implementation.

  26. Tor says:

    But how many of us have met blags who were truly blaggy? Interpretation is open. To me a Blag is just not that attractive.

  27. Pogovio says:

    Ninong, we are the same age. You’re right about Truman ending segregation by an executive order, and Clinton could have issued an executive order for the military to proceed toward allowing gays to serve. That’s because there was no law regarding either segregation or gays in the military – both were just policies set by the military, and executive orders supercede military policies.

    But laws passed by Congress supercede both military policies and executive orders. That was Clinton’s problem – Nunn told Clinton that if he issued an executive order allowing gays in the military, he had the votes to pass a legislative ban.

    Clinton did not have the option to veto DADT, because it was not a stand-alone law. It was inserted into the general defense authorization bill, and it would be political suicide for a first year president to veto that bill.

  28. EdA says:

    Gerry Studds did not come out of the closet voluntarily.

    Although my knowledge is only what was publicly discussed, in my recollection, Sam Nunn and a bipartisan coalition of people in Congress representing the slave states of the former Confederacy and some others had made it clear that they would enact a complete ban on service by gay men and women. Given his own history vis-a-vis service in the armed forces, and other defeats, Bill Clinton didn’t have a lot of choice about taking the somewhat less sucky alternative.

    Although there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for Clinton’s having actually signed DOMA, and nor did he file an amicus brief — a self-serving op-ed saying he now changed his mind as to DOMA is not the same.

  29. FLL says:

    In general, Barney Frank is a useless party hack. I suppose his observation about Boehner and his Republicans being hoist by their own petard shows that Frank has occasional moments of insight.

  30. Ninong says:

    I agree with your analysis of the reasons Bill Clinton agreed to DADT. Sam Nunn’s bill in the Senate was much worse that the DADT compromise, as detailed in this NY Times article back then:

    Bill Clinton should have issued an executive order during his first week in office permitting open service by gays in the military. I’m old enough to remember when Harry Truman issued his executive order, in July 1948, ordering the end of segregation in the military. He did that over the strong objections of Gen. George Marshall. It took a few years to accomplish it but Harry got it done. It was very big news in my part of the country at the time, which is why I remember it.

  31. Houndentenor says:

    When Republican Congressional leaders are promising to tank immigration reform if it had any provision for same sex couples, it seems pointless to continue. Nothing like that was getting through the House. Now it’s moot anyway.

  32. Houndentenor says:

    I think people thought that DADT was going to stop the witch-hunts and protect gay soldiers so long as they didn’t come out publicly. I know that’s kind of a crappy deal but at the time it seemed like a better deal than what was going on. As it turned out more people were kicked out under DADT than before. It didn’t work and pissed everyone off because everyone felt like they’d gotten a raw deal. I understand what they were trying to do and also understand that it didn’t work.

  33. judybrowni says:

    Back in the day, I crossed paths with some CREEPs around the Watergate timing.

    They were truly creepy human beings.

  34. sanfranguns says:

    Does anyone doubt that Barney Frank has done more for the LGBT movement with his pinky than John Aravosis has done at all? What’s the point of even shit-talking the guy when ultimately you’re agreeing with him? You don’t have to be his fan for him to be right here. Your petty disagreements with him while you worked on the hill or whatever are irrelevant.

  35. SkippyFlipjack says:

    You knew that when Nixon named his reelection team CREEP things wouldn’t end well for them. In the same way, no group with a name like an evil Star Trek alien will ever win a court case. BLAG, you were screwed from the beginning.

  36. Pogovio says:

    John, I wonder about your memory of those early years. Weren’t you still a Republican back then? If you remembered those days, I would think you would have caught HuffPost’s error about Barney Frank being the first out gay congressman. Gary Studds was out 4 yrs before Barney.

    Clinton campaigned in 1992 on allowing gays into the military. The reason for the “deal”, was that both Republicans and many Democrats opposed a change, and Sam Nunn had the votes to pass a legislative ban on gays in the military. Clinton couldn’t get what he wanted – it was either DADT or an outright legislative ban, so he took the lesser evil.

  37. karmanot says:

    And I repeat: “F’ you Clinton. That picture of the smiling Clinton’s celebrating the overturn was nauseating.

  38. karmanot says:

    “so I take Barney-hagiography with a big grain of salt, a ring of garlic and a wooden spike.”Same here!

  39. BeccaM says:

    I’ll admit I don’t much like Barney Frank either. He’s STILL carrying the DNC water on the Congressional Dem leadership’s decision to throw gay & lesbian bi-national couples under the bus in the immigration bill. Last night on All In with Chris Hayes, he had the nerve to suggest it was unreasonable for LGBTs to be upset at the decision drop the measure.

    But in this, yes, he’s right: We could not have asked for a better gift from Boehner and the House GOPers. Enough of a defense to appear have SCOTUS consider the case, yet with the undeniable optics of BLAG being neither bipartisan nor the traditionally appropriate counsel, namely the solicitor general. And most of all, an incredibly incompetent set of attorneys led by Paul Clement.

    On the other hand, DOMA always was an odious and unconstitutional mess, with reams of Congressional floor testimony making it 100% clear it was passed with anti-gay animus as the main reason.

  40. Thom Allen says:

    About time. Finally, Boner and the Republicans accomplished SOMETHING, even though the outcome was unintended.

  41. judybrowni says:

    Thank you, orange man!

    Your incompetence is truly inspiring.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS