The Maine gay-marriage initiative went down to defeat Tuesday. But the real tragedy is that it should never have been put to a vote in the first place.

Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing that James Madison invented the life-tenured federal judiciary to decide?

Recently, a bunch of legal scholars and influential commentators representing themselves as liberals, have suggested that it’s not. The federal courts should just bow out, they say, of deciding things like gay marriage (and abortion rights).(Little-known fact: the Bow Out movement started with a suggestion that the Supreme Court had made a mistake when it integrated the schools. Imagine what the law would look like if the Brown court had waited until a majority of states were ready to pass the Civil Rights Acts.) Painful as it is to them, as sincere supporters of abortion rights/gay marriage/your issue here, these wise ones think the federal courts should follow the election returns. Only when a majority of states have legalized something should the federal courts find that it was a fundamental constitutional right all along.

That gay marriage has to run this gauntlet is not an accident. Before the Bow Out movement, most big social change claims made their way to the federal courts without this huge windup of state-by-state legislative efforts, which then alerted the opposition to the social change that was coming. More importantly, a thoroughly organized, heavily funded conservative movement is now securely ensconced on the political stage and has seen its tyrannical opportunity in the majoritarian vehicle of the referendum. The combination has pulled the American political system in a radical new direction the Founders actively opposed.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule that gay marriage is either a matter of fundamental right or simple equality. They will have a chance to do that, as the various lawsuits generated by this constitutionally repulsive procedure make their way up in the next few years. But one thing the experience with same sex marriage should make clear. Whether we like the outcome or not, the last thing the court should do, in deciding that question, is follow the election returns.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-04/get-gay-marriage-off-the-ballot-1/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC1

As soon as an average citizen can change DADT with an executive order or decide whether or not to defend DOMA in court I will expect change to come from them.

In the meantime it is the president and legislature who can make change and the courts to insure that the constitution is applied equally.

And I am saying it is one thing to claim change takes time, it is entirely another to actively oppose that change like Obama has done by:

1. Comparing gays/lesbians to incest and pedophilia in his DOMA defense.

2. Pressuring Rep. Hastings to remove his bill which would have defunded DADT.

3. Trying to get the Log Cabin Republicans lawsuit against DADT thrown out of court.

4. Using the DNC in Maine to campaign for candidates in other states and ignoring the vote on gay marriage.

You may be willing to believe the continued lies coming from the Obama administration and the DNC but I am not.

I don't judge my enemies on what political party they belong to but on their actions.

And it couldn't be more clear that Obama is indeed an enemy of the gay community.

How much more will it take before you realize Obama couldn't care less about anyone except his corporate, religious, and political allies?

And with the DNC ignoring us and a president who has defended DOMA and DADT in court on more than one occasion, it is going to take much longer than it needs to.

We reported late yesterday that the DNC's Organizing for America (formerly Obama for America) was emailing Mainers a generic "get out the vote" message that said nothing about the various ballot measures at play in the state, including the attempt to repeal the right of gay couples to marry - the biggest issue in the state at the moment, and the biggest gay rights issue in the country being voted on today (not to diminish the very important election in Washington state). We asked at the time why the DNC and OFA weren't telling Mainers what they'd be voting on, and even better, urging them to vote "no" on the anti-gay referendum.

Since that time, another Mainer came forward and said that she was sent an email from OFA asking her to make phone calls to New Jersey voters to support Jon Corzine's re-election bid in that state. Nothing in the email she received asked her to do anything in her own state, such as vote "no" on 1.

In response to our stories, the DNC denied that they were contacting Mainers and asking them to help out in other states.

Well, a second Mainer has now stepped forward and produced evidence that he too was contacted by the DNC's OFA, and that he too was asked to weigh in on the New Jersey race rather than help defeat the anti-gay referendum in his own state.

http://gay.americablog.com/2009/11/2nd-mainer-now-says-dncs-ofa-asked-him.html

was that the NYC democrats couldn't choose a winning candidate to save their lives.

"Even President Obama, who's been close to Bloomberg, gave his fellow Democrat only a cursory endorsement -- and seemingly a grudging one at that".