as somebody suggested in an earlier thread, the administration appears to have farmed this one out to the humane society. any future appeals or complaints should be sent here: http://www.hsus.org/
if you know someone whose career is being destroyed by government bigotry, voice your concerns at a local townhall meeting. here's how to find one near you: http://www.hsus.org/about_us/events/town_hall_m...
megatronbomb
· 5 months ago
Let's not give them any ideas. "They" might discover it's cheaper to start euthanizing people rather than have a public option when it comes to healthcare!
Vince in Cedar Rapids
· 5 months ago
It kind of seems like that (euthanizing) is what the for-profit insurance companies are already doing when they deny coverage for needed procedures, jack up rates so people with medical conditions can't afford insurance, etc...
megatronbomb
· 5 months ago
Ah, good point!
Jophus
· 5 months ago
What were the half black slave owners in NoLa called? Creoles? I'm sure there is some sort of equivalent here as well. Possibly the gay leaders who sold us out to meet the president?
Jophus
· 5 months ago
If you know what I am referring to please tell me the name, because I'm searching frantically for the answer. They were high class black people who owned slaves in NoLa and when they were catching escaped slaves, it upset the balance of the social hierarchy specific to NoLa and these people were stripped of their wealth... Fuck I can't remember what they were called.
Don
· 5 months ago
Gens de Couleur Libres
Free People of Color
threadmonitor
· 5 months ago
Comments by Jophus were removed at his request.
dula
· 5 months ago
It's unchristian to equate Civil Rights For Blacks Only with Gay Civil Rights.
DonG90806
· 5 months ago
Why??!!
Nsh
· 5 months ago
DADT no doubt is a bad statute which needs repealed. The failure of Obama for the GLBT community is not just his foot dragging on the repeal of DADT and DOMA but also in his refusal to change the prior administration's practices in interpretation and enforcement of these documents.
Any lawyer worth his salt knows that part of the power of the Administrative Branch of government comes from decisions made to enforce the law. Prior to the Supreme Court decision overturning sodomy laws, at least half of the states still had sodomy laws on their books. But we didn't see the police busting down the doors of men in gay relationships in an effort to enforce those laws. Enforcing anti-sodomy laws was never high on anybodies agenda.
This can be true of DADT and DOMA. But the GLBT community is one of those which can easily be tossed under the bus for the expediency of moment. For that reason the GLBT community should boycott any and every Democratic fund raising event sponsored for those currently in power. Lets save our money for the primaries and give to the challengers.
Bookbinder
· 5 months ago
You need to read Hardwick v Texas, USSC.
Bookbinder
· 5 months ago
Yes, just like the Bush-Cheney torture program was so much more humane taht it wasn't torture at all.
I am deeply concerned when the Obama starts using Rove/Orwellian double speak. So much for openness.
I also think we need to steer away from the notion that ending the gay ban is some kind of radical departure. For instance, miitary types keep saying that social experiments/engineering are not the mission of the military. I say, if so, then end the gay ban, because the gay ban IS a social experiment. Ike banned gays by executive order in the early 50s at the height of the McCarthy era with its witch hunts for commies and fags in government. Before that, it was unknown, and we, gays and straights together, won the french and Indian war, the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, the civil war, the spanish american war, WWI, WWII & concluded the Korean War. Since the gay ban we have lost in Viet Nam, Somalia, etc etc etc. It is time to go back to the our tradition of freedom. How did we win all those wars without unit cohesion?
Also, the militarists, keep saying that it needs to be studied. They mean the negatives. If done, we must insist that they also study the positives, such as the positive impact on morale of people who are more sensitive/emotive and generally with more of a bent to be entertaining. Such as the potentially greater bravery of people who aren't trying to save themselves for their children.
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
The reason it is not a social experiment is because the example of other nations shows definitive proof that gays serving openly does not disrupt the military anywhere.
If there are reports to the contrary, I would like to see them. Otherwise, we are about the last western nation to do the right thing here. This is hardly a social experiment. The facts are in.
leliorisen
· 5 months ago
I guess I missed the post about making DADT more "humane."
There is no excuse for anything but a full, unequivocal lifting of DADT. There are only 2 NATO nations that do not allow gays to openly serve...us and Turkey. The global model has proved that the military arguments were lies. Military cohesion does not suffer when gays serve openly. It is time to end this insanity.
Any partial lifting of the policy, no matter how large or incremental, would still attach an unnecessary stigma to our sexual orientation.
All Comments
http://www.hsus.org/
if you know someone whose career is being destroyed by government bigotry, voice your concerns at a local townhall meeting. here's how to find one near you:
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/events/town_hall_m...
Free People of Color
Any lawyer worth his salt knows that part of the power of the Administrative Branch of government comes from decisions made to enforce the law. Prior to the Supreme Court decision overturning sodomy laws, at least half of the states still had sodomy laws on their books. But we didn't see the police busting down the doors of men in gay relationships in an effort to enforce those laws. Enforcing anti-sodomy laws was never high on anybodies agenda.
This can be true of DADT and DOMA. But the GLBT community is one of those which can easily be tossed under the bus for the expediency of moment. For that reason the GLBT community should boycott any and every Democratic fund raising event sponsored for those currently in power. Lets save our money for the primaries and give to the challengers.
I am deeply concerned when the Obama starts using Rove/Orwellian double speak. So much for openness.
I also think we need to steer away from the notion that ending the gay ban is some kind of radical departure. For instance, miitary types keep saying that social experiments/engineering are not the mission of the military. I say, if so, then end the gay ban, because the gay ban IS a social experiment. Ike banned gays by executive order in the early 50s at the height of the McCarthy era with its witch hunts for commies and fags in government. Before that, it was unknown, and we, gays and straights together, won the french and Indian war, the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, the civil war, the spanish american war, WWI, WWII & concluded the Korean War. Since the gay ban we have lost in Viet Nam, Somalia, etc etc etc. It is time to go back to the our tradition of freedom. How did we win all those wars without unit cohesion?
Also, the militarists, keep saying that it needs to be studied. They mean the negatives. If done, we must insist that they also study the positives, such as the positive impact on morale of people who are more sensitive/emotive and generally with more of a bent to be entertaining. Such as the potentially greater bravery of people who aren't trying to save themselves for their children.
If there are reports to the contrary, I would like to see them. Otherwise, we are about the last western nation to do the right thing here. This is hardly a social experiment. The facts are in.
There is no excuse for anything but a full, unequivocal lifting of DADT. There are only 2 NATO nations that do not allow gays to openly serve...us and Turkey. The global model has proved that the military arguments were lies. Military cohesion does not suffer when gays serve openly. It is time to end this insanity.
Any partial lifting of the policy, no matter how large or incremental, would still attach an unnecessary stigma to our sexual orientation.
That is not acceptable.