Comments on: Chairman Frank and Aravosis's Misstatements

By: Equality and the Rule of Law

Equality and the Rule of Law — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 02:40:56 +0000

[...] some of the language and arguments raised by the Justice Department in its DOMA filing. Where I parted with many was on whether the Justice Department was right to defend the law at [...]

By: Not a ‘Vendetta’

Not a ‘Vendetta’ — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:21:12 +0000

[...] These, of course, are the two points repeatedly made by John that I believe are dramatically overstated in the case of the first and false in the case of the second. These are the points that I — and many, many others — discussed in my post about “Chairman Frank and Aravosis’s Misstatements.” [...]

By: Mediaite’s Version of ‘Analysis’

Mediaite’s Version of ‘Analysis’ — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:48:40 +0000

[...] Obama Defends DOMA in Federal Court, where the full headline, strangely omitted by Mediaite, is: “Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.” The “incest and marrying children,” which other times shows up on AmericaBlog as “pedophilia,” has been discussed at length by me, most notably at “Not a Vendetta” and “Chairman Frank and Aravosis’s Misstatements.” [...]

By: Another Victim of AmericaBlogReality « Law Dork, 2.0

Another Victim of AmericaBlogReality « Law Dork, 2.0 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:53:52 +0000

[...] U.S. Rep. Jared Polis is now the second member of Congress to fall victim to John Aravosis’s campaign of misinformation. Chairman Frank was the first. [...]

By: Lambda Legal Fund: Homosexuality Is Incest! Or Is It Pedophila? « Mercury Rising 鳯女

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:40:45 +0000

[...] by Phoenix Woman on June 26, 2009 Well, if you use John Aravosis’ reasoning, that’s what they must believe, right? Right? That John continues to write about [...]

By: Not a ‘Vendetta’ « Law Dork, 2.0

Not a ‘Vendetta’ « Law Dork, 2.0 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:55:36 +0000

[...] referencing the DOJ brief filed nearly two weeks ago in Smelt v. United States, John wrote: Will this president apologize for [...]

By: Kenny Jacobs

Kenny Jacobs — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:48:31 +0000

Michael, Lambda Legal has cited many of the same cases in a New Jersey case. My question; how many of these hyperbolic charges originate from people who never supported Obama to begin with? I’m the only white gay male I know who supported Obama as a first choice.

Alot of the rhetoric I hear seems to come from sore Hillary losers.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:47:02 +0000

I put it in a parenthetical, and, yes, it was snarky. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

As to the rest, I actually think that voices rising with intelligence and concern for facts are far better than voices screaming without concern for fact.

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:26:04 +0000

Thanks for your smartass comment about my use of caps.
That really hurts my feelings-OUCH!- and shows your superior commenting skills. I bow down to you, good sir.
It’s because of Americablog and similar blogs that the Obama administration is beginning to pay a little attention. They have done a tremendous job in advancing our agenda. You haven’t and that makes you so jealous.

By: PG

PG — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:10:43 +0000

Because it is not a law that unconstitutionally encroaches on the power of the Executive. Even where the president is personally skeptical of the constitutionality of a statute — as Bush was about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) — he sends the DOJ to defend it (as Bush did in McConnell v. FEC).