Back to his old tricks

Timmy in a clown outfit.

Timothy Dolan, the bigoted Catholic archbishop of New York City, is at it again. Fresh off his spectacularly failed effort to oppose the right of gays to marry in New York, he's going the national route. Little Timmy just can't go a week without attacking gay people. (He has to be a closet case -- no one else attacks gays with this much venom.)

His new schtick is to attack the Obama administration's decision to not defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. The thing that has Timmy's bowels in an uproar is this statement:

The unspeakable condescension of straights

Leonard Pitts, Jr. has a great column today about the incredible condescension of straight people. You can read the whole thing here: "Gay marriage a right -- not a poll question" Here are some excerpts from the column:

It seems a majority of the American people now favor allowing gay men and lesbians to wed . . .

But lurking at the edge of celebration there is, for me, at least, a nagging, impatient vexation. That vexation is based in what is arguably an esoteric question: In extolling the fact that the majority now approves same sex marriage, do we not also tacitly accept the notion that the majority has the right to judge?

Try to imagine for a moment the consternation upon some woman’s face if a story in the paper announced that “X” percentage of Americans now favors allowing women to work outside the home. Try to picture the brisk dialogue that would ensue if you informed some Jewish man that you now supported his right to practice his religion.

That's it in a nutshell and it's the thing that drives me crazy. How dare anyone other than gay people think they have the right to decide if we can marry?! It's the most outrageous thing imaginable. 

Gays come for the hets

Hat tip to Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars for pointing me to this article in The Onion:

Marauding Gay Hordes Drag Thousands of Helpless Citizens from Marriages after Obama Drops Defense of Marriage Act

WASHINGTON—Reports continue to pour in from around the nation today of helpless Americans being forcibly taken from their marital unions after President Obama dropped the Defense of Marriage Act earlier this week, leaving the institution completely vulnerable to roving bands of homosexuals. "It was just awful—they smashed through our living room window, one of them said 'I've had my eye on you, Roger,' and then they dragged my husband off kicking and screaming," said Cleveland-area homemaker Rita Ellington, one of the latest victims whose defenseless marriage was overrun by the hordes of battle-ready gays that had been clambering at the gates of matrimony since the DOMA went into effect in 1996. "Oh dear God, why did they remove the protection provided by this vital piece of legislation? My children! What will I tell my children?" A video communique was sent to the media late yesterday from what appears to be the as-yet unidentified leader of the gay marauders, who, adorned in terrifying warpaint, announced "Richard Dickson of Ames, Iowa. We're coming for you next. Put on something nice."

It's about effing time

AP today:

In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

Now, was that really so hard to do? Jeez. It's about time! I mean, my government has been fighting to ensure that I don't have the right to marry -- in the year 2011, no less, and in a world where several countries are debating whether people should be killed for being gay.

The Obama administration has been awful on gay issues. I'm glad to see something (probably a political consideration rather than an intention to do the right thing; I'm not naive) finally changed his mind. However it occurred, this is a positive thing.

UPDATE: This is from the Times today:

He [Attorney General Holder] noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now. 

 What's wrong with this picture?