Obama's Evolution

It was inevitable.  President Obama has evolved.  Whether his recalcitrance threatened to become too much of a distraction, particularly after his Vice President got ahead of him, or whether he ultimately realized it was no longer politically risky to do so, Obama has finally endorsed same-sex marriage:  “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

As Greg Sargent put it, despite the fact that he had to be pushed into taking this step, it is an historic one -- a civil rights milestone:  "Obama has become the first — and only — sitting president to come out for full equality for gay and lesbian Americans."

This is huge.  Frank Bruni:  "Our highest elected official, our president, said that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, something that none of his predecessors had done, something that he had refused to do since becoming a national political figure. There’s a powerful message in that."

But -- and there's always a "but" with Obama -- the President made sure to emphasize that his position on same-sex marriage reflects his "personal" belief and he "still supports the concept of states deciding issue on their own."  Indeed,  his Administration made sure to clarify that "President Obama believes marriage is a state issue and the federal government does not have a role."  (I'm not sure who he is trying to appease with his states' rights hedge given that the right wing will skewer him anyway.  Indeed, FOX News is already out with its "Obama Declares War On Marriage" headline.)

As a practical matter, until there is a progressive sea change in Congress or the Supreme Court, it is up to the states, not the federal government to regulate marriage and civil unions.  And with the vote in North Carolina yesterday, there are 31 states (including the entire south) that don't allow same-sex couples the rights heterosexual couples take for granted.    

But that doesn't mean the President cannot play an important role as a leader -- the leader -- in the continued struggle for equal rights.  And so, Obama needs to evolve just a little more.  He needs to unequivocally state, as President of the United States, that the deprivation of rights based on sexual orientation is wholly unacceptable -- just as it was wholly unacceptable to deny such rights based on race.  This is not a states rights issue and it is not merely a matter of personal preference.  This is about the fundamental principle of equality.

North Carolina Embraces Discrimination

By Jeremy Leaming, cross-posted from American Constitution Society

The North Carolinians who voted to alter the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage were largely moved by fear-tactics fueled by far right religious groups bent on punishing lesbians and gay men. The vote also makes North Carolina, as The New York Times notes, the last state in the South to marginalize gay people with a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Until yesterday’s vote, a string of states had provided victories for marriage equality. (In February, Maryland joined seven other states and the District of Columbia in approving same-sex marriage.) North Carolinians, however, were fueled by an ugly animus toward gay people. Not only did the state’s constitutional amendment ban same-sex marriage it is so vaguely worded that many commentators have argued that it would outlaw domestic partnerships or civil unions.

A group of North Carolina family law professors warned voters about the scope of the antigay amendment.

Maxine Eichner, a law professor at UNC School of Law, in a video focusing on the sweep of Amendment One, said, the amendment would “certainly ban civil unions, it would ban domestic partnerships at the state level, and it would also ban the domestic partner insurance benefits that a number of municipalities and counties currently provide to their employees.” (Eichner is author of an ACS Issue Brief on the Employment Non-Discrimination, aimed at banning employers from discriminating against workers or potential employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.)

The Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan in a post dubbed “The Politics of Spite,” slammed the reach and impact of the vote:

Remember how meretricious this assault on gay couples was. They already are banned by state law from marrying. Now their own state constitution bans them from any civil rights as couples whatsoever: no domestic partnerships, no civil unions, nothing. It’s an act of pure punishment of citizens who are gay, a deliberate psychological blow to their self-esteem, their sense of citizenship, their core equality as human beings. A 60 percent majority decided that 2 percent of their fellow citizens are and must remain inferior in law. When gay rights advocates seek recourse in the courts, is it so surprising?

Sullivan noted the involvement of the so-called National Organization for Marriage, a Religious Right outfit that has spent boatloads of money and many years on demonizing gay people and promoting bigotry. The group claims it does not advacne bigotry, but instead protects "marriage and the faith communities that sustain it."

President Obama, who has not embraced marriage equality, but whose administration has stopped defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court and ended the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” policy said he was “disappointed” in North Carolina’s vote. (DOMA is a Clinton-era federal law that discriminates against lesbians and gay men.) Later today, the president is expected to address gay marriage in an interview with ABC News, according The Huffington Post’s Michael Calderone.

Regardless of what the president thinks of same-sex marriage, the battle to advance equality will continue to be waged largely in the states.

University of Minnesota Law School Professor Richard Painter in a post for Legal Ethics Forum notes the forthcoming battle in his state to ban same-sex marriage, writing, in part, “Most of our law faculties oppose it, at some law schools unanimously. Unlike North Carolina, Minnesota was not one of the original thirteen colonies to fight for liberty in the 1770s, but hopefully this fall we will demonstrate a better understanding of what the continuing fight for liberty is all about.”

Whether other states refuse the despicable path that North Carolina voters took, will depend on lot on whether their voters refuse to be divided and swayed by the hateful rhetoric and strategy that emanates from groups like the National Organization for Marriage.

Ten Things To Know About CISPA

DonkeyHotey

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, known as CISPA passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 248-168 vote, and now goes to the Senate.  The ostensible goal of the legislation is "to help companies beef up their defenses against hackers who steal business secrets, rob customers' financial information and wreak havoc on computer systems."  It does this by making it easier for the government and private industry to share information about cyber threats.

But it raises legitimate civil liberty concerns. The ACLU warns that the bill is "dangerously overbroad."   Reporters Without Borders notes that "the bill would negate existing privacy laws and allow companies to share user data with the government without a court order."

ThinkProgress tells us what we need to know:

CISPA’s broad language will likely give the government access to anyone’s personal information with few privacy protections: CISPA allows the government access to any “information pertaining directly to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity.” There is little indication of what this information could include, and what it means to be ‘pertinent’ to cyber security. Without boundaries, any internet user’s personal, private information would likely be fair game for the government.
  
It supersedes all other provisions of the law protecting privacy: As the bill is currently written, CISPA would apply “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” In other words, privacy restrictions currently in place would not apply to CISPA. As a result, companies could disclose more personal information about users than necessary. Ars Technica writes, “if a company decides that your private emails, your browsing history, your health care records, or any other information would be helpful in dealing with a ‘cyber threat,’ the company can ignore laws that would otherwise limit its disclosure.” 

The bill completely exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act: Citizens and journalists have access to most things the government does via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a key tool for increasing transparency. However, CISPA completely exempts itself from FOIA requests. The Sunlight Foundation blasted CISPA for “entirely” dismissing FOIA’s “fundamental safeguard for public oversight of government’s activities.” 

CISPA gives companies blanket immunity from future lawsuits: One of the most egregious aspects of CISPA is that it gives blanket legal immunity to any company that shares its customers’ private information. In other words, if Microsoft were to share your browsing history with the government despite your posing no security threat, you would be barred from filing a lawsuit against them. Without any legal recourse for citizens to take against corporate bad behavior, companies will be far more inclined to share private information. 

Recent revisions don’t go nearly far enough: In an attempt to specify how the government can use the information they collect, the House passed an amendment saying the data can only be used for: “1) cybersecurity; 2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; 3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; 4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and 5) protection of the national security of the United States.” This new version still “suffers from most of the same problems that plagued the original version,” writes Timothy Lee. Because terms like “cybersecurity” are so vague, the bill’s language could encompass almost anything. 


Citizens have to trust that companies like Facebook won’t share your personal information: CISPA does not force companies share private user information with the government. That being said, Ars Technica makes the point that “the government has a variety of carrots and sticks it can use to induce private firms to share information it wants.” For instance, many companies receive federal contracts or subsidies and would be hesitant to deny any request from the government that might jeopardize future business. Companies may not be legally required to turn over information, but they “may not be in a position to say no.” 

Companies can already inform the government and each other about incoming cybersecurity threats: While proponents of CISPA claim it’s needed to allow agencies and companies to share information about incoming cybersecurity threats, opponents of the bill point out that “network administrators and security researchers at private firms have shared threat information with one another for decades.” 

The internet is fighting back: The same online activists who fought hard against SOPA are now engaged in the battle over CISPA. Over 770,000 people have signed a petition by the online organizing group Avaaz that asks Congress to defeat the bill. Reddit, the news-sharing internet community that helped lead the fight against SOPA, is organizing again around CISPA. 

Most Republicans support CISPA, while most Democrats oppose it: The House passed CISPA on April 26 on a mostly-party-line vote, 248-168. Among congressmen that voted, 88 percent of Republicans supported the bill while 77 percent of Democrats opposed it. 

President Obama threatened to veto it: Recognizing the threat to civil liberties that CISPA poses, President Obama announced this week that he “strongly opposes” the bill and has threatened to veto if it comes to his desk. Obama singled out the provisions that allow for blanket legal immunity and do not enough to safeguard citizens’ private information.

Photo Of The Day

President Obama seated in the bus in which Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat.