AMERICAblog: Supreme Court rejects legal challenge to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It's time for Presidential leadership.
naschkatzehussein
· 5 months ago
Joe, just who are "our friends in the Obama administration"? I am not lesbian, but I have the same concerns as many of you do in regard to LFBT rights in the areas of war crimes, constitutional issues (which includes you of course) and even concern now about reproductive rights. There is a little junta consisting of Obama, Emanuel, Reid and Pelosi who are by-passing the conference rule in the appropriations bill which now includes the Lieberman/Graham amendment on FOIA and emasculating our elected representatives in the House. They did the same thing with the guns in the national parks amendment. This is becoming a pattern. It is happening right now on the Senate appropriations bill and it will happen with other constitutional issues. Just who are these friends of ours in the Obama administration?
scootmandubious
· 5 months ago
Since the request to maintain DADT was made by the Obama Administration, can we please dispel the notion that the President gives a d*mn about glbt civil rights?
JoyceH
· 5 months ago
I'm of two minds about this. Of course I want DADT overturned, but on the other hand, I don't want an executive branch picking and choosing which piece of signed legislation it wants to enforce. We had enough of that in the past eight years, and if the Bush administration had bothered to enforce the FACE Act, Dr. Tiller would probably still be alive. Why is this necessarily Obama's issue? Why isn't Congress on the hook to create legislation to overturn the legislation they passed in the 90s?
cowboyneok
· 5 months ago
It isn't just Obama's issue. The Congress is on the hook, as well. Obama could make a statement he is protecting American lives by refusing to enforce "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" until congress can overturn it. No one could really argue against the choice between "the gays" or "keeping us safe." This is no time to be enabling discrimination based on baseless fears of fellow Americans simply because they are attracted members of the same sex.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
If his administration wants to continue to fight against the civil rights of what is now the 2nd-class citizen minority, then at least come out and admit you have no intention of ever changing this bigoted law. Quit pretending you will. I can take the truth, but, I will not tolerate deception or out right lies from our president, I think we've had enough of that for the past eight years.
nicho
· 5 months ago
Barack Obama -- he'll go down in history as "Old Bait and Switch."
At least Bush told you he was going to fuck you over.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
Yes, I'm in favor of having a warning shot over the bow and not a submarine ramming.
"The gays and lesbians I know are very active in politics. Democrats, ignore this shift in public sentiment at your peril."
FunMe
· 5 months ago
What a great quote!
Democrats better wise up fast, THIS YEAR, or it's over from getting any $$$ or TIME from us!
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 5 months ago
My partner was in the Air Force for six years. Basically he and his gay buddies were pretty open and out for the most part. They had several officers who knew they were gay. The base commander was fairly liberal and just did not give a shit. Most of the men on the base also just did not give a shit. Reason? Their were few if any KKKristianists around...and those who were there were too busy getting cock on the side.
DADT is a joke. The only military officers who use it are the KKKristianists. It's very inconsistent. The victims are the ones working on bases where Jesus is the C.O.
postdamnit
· 5 months ago
I was in the military (I was drafted) and I was thrown out. Now I don't understand why anyone at this point in our history would want to be in the military as a gay person (yeah I know all the arguments for Patriotism, etc.). Since we are treated as second class citizens why should be support an institution that does not support us and essentially vilifies us? It isn't that macho.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
There are gays, just like some of us straights, who really DO care about this country -- or I should say cared about this country enough to serve it until we kept getting slapped in the face by the Great White Christian Fascist Majority who said they cared, but didn't care enough to serve.
I have since become very embittered as a 1970s era female Army veteran to the point of being an anarchist and not giving a GD about my country anymore because the Christian Fascists have gained control.
They can kiss my scrawny white female ass to hell and back before I will give a damn about them anymore and that includes literally ALL THE FRICKIN POLITICIANS.
FunMe
· 5 months ago
What an irony.
The first 1/2 African American in US history who's parents suffered discrimination because they were black & white. Actually they probably benifitted from the civil rights struggles in the 1960s.
Yet here we have that same president not caring about EQUALITY for all including the GLBT community.
This is so wrong in so many levels, it's not even funny.
We are on our own, and this month will be very telling. Do we get more EMPTY WORDS or do we get ACTION. I'm sitting not waiting.
This is MY country and I don't have to be enabling homophobes anymore. No more $$ or TIME to anyone who does nothing for equal rights. Period.
K in VA
· 5 months ago
NO!
There's a better case coming -- Margaret Witt from the 9th Circuit. Fighting this case would have been foolish strategy, when all the stars are aligned in a much better direction with the Witt case.
Don't overreact, people. For once, think before you speak.
nicho
· 5 months ago
Yes, folks -- wait. And wait. And wait. And then, wait some more. Some day. Maybe some day. Keep waiting. Just wait.
As Dr. King said: 'Wait' has almost always meant 'never.'
Gridlock
· 5 months ago
Yeah, thanks for that last line.
Õ¿Õ
· 5 months ago
Shut up. You fight them. You don't "wait."
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
Who are you directing your "Shut up" comment to?
threadmonitor
· 5 months ago
As you can see from the reply path, HelenRainier, Õ¿Õ wrote in response to K in VA.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
Threadmonitor,
I could have assumed that, but to be on the "safe side" I chose to ask Õ¿Õ to verify one way or the other for me instead of just assuming.
Thank you for your interjection, though.
scootmandubious
· 5 months ago
Don't overreact? Get a grip. The fallacy of the right-wing argument has been thoroughly disproven by our allies. When gays served in the military in those nations, the sky did not fall.
Give me one good reason that this policy, based on fear-mongering and outright lies (it has been proven NOT to destroy unit cohesion), should not have been overturned.
This is not an experimental issue. America's military, in this case, is acting more like a Muslim nation's military than one of a supposedly sophisticated Western nation.
It is an embarrassment.
For once, think before you patronize.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
With all due respect -- I don't appreciate being told to not "overreact." The fact is that this issue, along with other equal rights issues have been issues since at least the 60s. When I was growing up we collected food for the poor children in Appalachia. Guess what? Students are still collecting food for poor children in Appalachia.
Don't overreact? We have made relatively to no progress on such important human rights issues as this and you say don't over react. I will say: Don't preach when you don't understand where others have been and what they have seen and done.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
What is this case about that you are talking about? The 9th Circuit and Margaret Witt? Haven't heard of it.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
What a bunch of pukey, gonadless bunch of right wing religious freakazoid yellow belly cowards. Changes are each of the current "male federalist society" believing white old fart jurists (including Uncle Tom Clarence Thomas) who can spout all of their brave macho man garbage can't even find the cajones to make a courageous ruling on this topic without punting off to someone else.
Geez, dried up dandelions have more cajones than this miserable bunch of chinless, neckless, rubber-pencil necked geeks.
I am a "white woman baby boomers Army Veteran" who is sick of these spineless overly privileged white geeks who aren't man enough to spit shine my combat boots!
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
Sorry -- didn't mean to get so "carried away." I'm just fed up with these wimps -- I've had to put with their racist, sexist BS all my life and I've HAD IT! The hippie in me is slowly dying to be replaced be a patriotic anarchist.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
What is ironic is that I do not believe one of those justices voting on the right side of the bench have ever worn the uniform of this United States yet they deny those gays and lesbians who actually have and have fought honorably.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
That really was the crux of the point I was trying to make Butch. I just got a little bit wound up about it.
Sorry about that.
The point remains valid though and I thank you for clarifying it.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
You have every right to get carried away with their boarish behavior. They are not rational in their decision and they only rule on their prejudices. Shame on Clarence Thomas for ever voting against any minorities rights.
As a veteran myself, it bothers me greatly when the "privileged class" of spoilt old men who are used to getting their way, get to rule over another's rights. I always thought of the court system being friendly to the common man and the only protectors of them. Well, that has certainly changed since they seem to protect the corporation or the big guy more times. I wish those old dinosaurs would resign, die off or something. They are detremental to this country and its people if they continue to rule against rights and for the big guy.
RitornaVincitor
· 5 months ago
Two of those Justices voted just a few years ago to uphold the Texas anti-sodomy law.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
This doesn't surprise me in the least. They are nothing but right-leaning, conservative republicans and they always tell you what they are against, never for. I can't wait for them to go out to pasture.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
Well, you can bet that when they do finally go "out to pasture" it won't be with the "Happy Cows" from California who are responsible for California cheese! (My attempt to inject some humor into this entire discussion!).
Butch1
· 5 months ago
;-)
I would love to see someone find something on them serious enough, to have them impeached, if that is possible. There is no honor among that bunch if they can find ways to continue discriminating against the gay and lesbian minority.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
How about just the fact that they are nothing more than hunks of protoplasm serving no useful purpose?
Hell, even dung beetles have cogent reasons for their existence. These clowns, to my POV, have demonstrated no viable reasons for existing.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
They made a big deal trying to rename the democrats as socialists. Perhaps, we should rename them as Whigs and make it stick. Who knows, they may fade away as well with a little luck.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
Butch -- You are correct -- that's what makes their conduct even more egregious to my way of thinking.
They have never even had a "dog" in the fight. I have -- I served proudly with gay and lesbian troops and bixsexual troops and they were all damned fine soldiers.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
They have been so far away from reality, living in those powerful bubbles that they do not remember or have a clue what normal people think or whether they even think gays and lesbians deserve rights at all. This is where their religious dogma invades their rational thinking as justices. They really need to step aside and let some justices without agendas step in and make grownup decisions.
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
You know, Butch, along with equal rights and civil rights, one of the causes that has been "near and dear" to my heart since the 70s has also been a woman's right to choose to make her own decisions for herself without interference from any entity than her doctor. It's appalling that this is still even an issue and that people, such as Dr. George Tiller are being murdered by primarily white male terrorists who masquerade as so-called Christians. The bottom line is that a woman's right to choose is still her right and people are being murdered in this country for exercising their legal rights.
Religionists of any stripe, persuasion or belief are abhorrent. I have never yet seen an atheist or an agnostic murder someone because their political or religious beliefs are different.
I am becoming more and more anti-social the older I become because I am so fed up with those who practice do as I say but not as I do.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
Helen, I agree with you totally. I have always been for the woman's movement, equal pay, and that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body and that the government has no right or business making decisions regarding her womb.
This murder is a terrorist in all definitions. He is trying to scare others into doing what he wants and as Keith Olbermann said today that if his name were a Middle-Eastern Arabic name, the man would have been placed in Gitmo by now. ( I loosely paraphrase his thoughts and added my own )
The right-winged conservative christian churches that feed the thoughts of hate and political views instead of teaching the teaching of their Christ are culpable for planting these "bad-seeds" in our culture watering them and allowing them to grow into these "killing machines for christ." The groups he has been tied to and supported by are culpable and accessories to this terrorist and the murder he committed. These are supposed to be christians and what he did in a worship service and house of god goes against everything he tries to say he is. He is no christian or he wouldn't have defiled a sanctuary with this blood bath. He should be tried as a terrorist and those who nurtured him need to be tried with him. He is now sending out threats from his cell that more of these are going to happen. The urge to torture this fool is tempting but he would wear it as a badge of courge and become a martyr. He is already considered an hero on some of these hateful websites. They all need to be held accountable for this murder.
phoenix
· 5 months ago
http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/dadt-sc... They could have denied cert because they thought the wrong side would win if they took the case. I'm not so sure it's a bad thing that the court didn't take this on now--but I am 100% sure that Obama has not become any more courageous or forthright on LGBT issues and must be pushed continuously until he does the right thing(s).
HelenRainier
· 5 months ago
Phoenix -- You know what? I don't give a GD what their reason or rationale is for not doing anything at all. The bottom line is these neckless, chinless federalist Christian conservative freakzoids are trying to force their views of morality and Godliness on everyone else whether everyone else wants it or not.
They are worthless pukeheads.
postdamnit
· 5 months ago
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Õ¿Õ
· 5 months ago
OK, Obama, this is it for me.
Õ¿Õ
· 5 months ago
On the thread I was fooling around trying to find a reason to support Obama but this is it.
John
· 5 months ago
Obama clearly wants to deal with hate crimes and ENDA first. While DADT repeal might look like a good idea to us, the White House just doesn't want to pick a fight with the Pentagon right now.
The president seems to recognize - and more importantly accept - that the military is basically an arm of the RNC. It is a predominantly Republican organization. And because Obama doesn't want Clinton style drama over it, he has pretty much left the armed services to their own devices. This has made relations between the relationship between this Democratic White House and the military surprisingly good thus far. But it also means we have a Defense Department that, fundamentally, hasn't changed at all since the Bush Administration. The top brass, as well as the civilian leadership, are still largely right-wing and Christian.
So, yes, gays in the military are once again being asked to sacrifice their own happiness for the greater good. Though they certainly don't have to just take it. Bringing pressure on Obama by having employees he fired rant on MS-NBC is an appropriate and proper response. I don't think it'll change his plans or timetable. The man just doesn't respond to emotions. He has a very cool and calculating mind. But at least these soldiers are going down fighting.
Butch1
· 5 months ago
" . . . The president seems to recognize - and more importantly accept - that the military is basically an arm of the RNC. . . " ===========================================
Whether the statement is true or not, they are sworn to obey the Commander in Chief and if Obama can not seem to control them or is afraid or intimidated by them, then it is his own damned fault they are going against him. If he gives an order they can either resign or follow it. It is as simple as that. They may not like him, but he IS the commander and the republicans have no business interfering with the Commander-in-Chief's orders or forming opinion in the ranks, their time is over..
caphillprof
· 5 months ago
Let see, gays have to sacrifice their happiness for the greater good. Bankers need not sacrifice. Health insurers need not sacrifice. Big Pharma need not sacrifice. But gays, they need to sacrifice. Right. I think I see where you are coming from.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 5 months ago
you might have asked what he meant by "greater good".
John
· 5 months ago
I was being sarcastic. The "greater good" is always whatever the White House and Congress says it is.
That's the way American government "works." Health care lobbyists have more money than gay lobbyists. Labor lobbyists have more voters than gay lobbyists. I do not endorse or condone the notion that people's livelihoods and rights should be subject to the Machiavellian schemes of politicians. But since when has that not been the case?
scootmandubious
· 5 months ago
There is no greater good, as you call it, here. The fallacy of DADT has been proven in the military of our Western allies. Adding gays to the military did not destroy military unit cohesion in those countries. We have proof that that argument is a lie.
What other 'evidence' do we need to overturn this joke of a policy?
Õ¿Õ
· 5 months ago
Shut up. You plow on through with what is right or you lose. There is no "calcualtion." That's the way the Universe works.
Chris
· 5 months ago
I'm not convinced of the Palm Center's rationale. I mean, per the executive order that they say Obama can use, he would have to use it on a case by case basis. In essence, assuming they are correct, he would have to issue an executive order for every soldier discharged. That's about 236 executive orders or so.
Secondly, I'm not sure that they are right, in that quite clearly the Palm Center has an agenda. It may be a good agenda, but it doesn't matter. I'd rather wait to see an independent, unbiased firm or organization determine whether Obama has that power.
Third, whether Obama has the power or not, an executive order might conflict with the law, as 10 USC 654 specifically delineates HOW the policy should be implemented.
This is not the way to fight for this policy to change people.
tlsintx
· 5 months ago
scotus. wtf
Õ¿Õ
· 5 months ago
If Obama stopped the bigoted policies, it wouldn't change anything. There would still be the same number of gays in the military. Just stop calling something wrong about us.
davidkc
· 5 months ago
I'm pretty damn well through with Obama. He's showing absolutely zero leadership on this issue, and I doubt he ever will. I will remember this in four years.
RF
· 5 months ago
I had to come here to understand the ramifications of today's decision-
NPR and an MSNBC press release did not give me the gist of the decision; this site did-
Further proof that "Kill your Television" needs a sequel; "Kill your TelevisionII"
:♥)
Steve
· 5 months ago
Presidential leadership? As a strong supporter of Obama in 2008 and generally still so in 2009, when it comes to gays, we are just an interest group to cater votes from and if Obama pisses off a few gays, he still has AAs and Hispanics and the youth. So he can afford to piss off a few gays, including John Aravosis.
Obama never has too much on his plate unless we are discussing gay issues, then we are told to wait our turn at the back of the bus.
Be patient, you whiny gays! Surely in 10 to 20 years you have some equality. What's your hurry? (That's snark folks)
tlsintx
· 5 months ago
SCOTUS punts on DADT. then SCOTUS turns around and does this:
BREAKING NEWS 4:06 PM ET: Supreme Court Grants Request to Put Chrysler Sale on Hold
huh?
Bryan J. Blumberg
· 5 months ago
I got a letter from President Barack Obama today asking me to give money to help him keep the lobbyists out of Washington. So, I used the postage paid return envelope to write a letter telling him that I won't support him or the DNC any more until Barack puts the 8 promises that he made to the Gay Community back on the whitehouse.gov website, and not until he issues an executive order to invoke Stop Loss on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Then I called the DNC at 1-877-336-7200 and told them the same thing.
eclectique916
· 5 months ago
It's my understanding the DADT policy has to be repealed by an act of Congress. It was written into law that way during the Clinton years. The Supreme Court always sides with the military, so no surprise there. However, the majority of the public and active service members feel the time has come to end DADT as a matter of preparedness. Sure, the President can sign an executive order to stop the discharges, but it doesn't repeal DADT. The pressure has to be put on the Congress to end DADT. The President is ready to sign that bill. For more information visit the Service Members Legal Defense Network - www.sldn.org. Also visit Servicemembers United at www.servicemembersunited.org. And watch ASK NOT this month on the PBS series "Independent Lens."
Joe Decker
· 5 months ago
eclectique916: It's my understanding that under the law that establishes the President's authority to issue "stop loss" orders that it's fairly well agreed that the President could use said authority to stop removal of servicemembers under the DADT policy. While not techncially repealing it, that is entirely within his power, a pen and a legal pad will effectively do the job, leaving any technical repeal to play out over whatever time frame necessary.
Nittany
· 5 months ago
DADT, as flawed as it is, is probably as far as a president can legally go to protect gay service members. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) flatly states in 925, Art. 125 that sodomy is illegal for active-duty personal. For Obama to tell the DoD to just ignore that article would be no different than Bush's White House telling the Justice Dept to stop investigating groups harrassing abortion providers; yes, the Bush Administration did just that but we on the left are rightfully castigating the Bushies for ignoring a law on the books. We can't decide to give up our principles in the name of another principle.
The only way to protect gay service members is to modify the UCMJ, which would mean passing the neccessary bill through Congress for Obama's signiture.
This would mean that Obama would have to take an unambigous stand and risk some political capital; he remembers what happened to Bill Clinton early in his first term when he half-heartedly tried the same play. The risk isn't just that the effort fails but also that the GOP could use a victory to rally its base.
Times have changed since the early '90s. Six states now allow same-sex marriage and public opinion has shifted toward acceptance, albeit at a glacial pace and with no movement at all in the red states. Everyone who wants the Obama Administration to stick its neck out had better be prepared to do the hard work of organizing, campaigning, lobbying and convincing everyone without a dog in this fight that law and civil rights mandate equal rights for gay and bi military personnel.
The Neo-Cons have very few issues left that will reliably inflame their base to action so they will be working those issues hard; gay rights still make what's left of the GOP froth at the mouth, so the right will put up a huge fight. Let's be sure we give them a knockout punch and not go into this half-assed.
scootmandubious
· 5 months ago
Sodomy isn't just something practiced by gays. If there were specific anti-gay ordinances, then they could and should be struck down, just as the Supreme Court did, regarding private consensual sex.
Isn't open sexual conduct, in general, something that is prohibited for all sexual orientations? They could not prosecute gays, without prosecuting straights. Or are you suggesting that only gays caught doing it in the barracks would face expulsion? Aren't sexual fraternizing between male and female servicemembers subject to the same penalties?
If sexual relations are kept private, what is the issue? Nobody is suggesting turning the military into a giant Dirk Yates video.
scootmandubious
· 5 months ago
How does Obama get away with arguing FOR DADT? The anger is growing.
Last Thursday, this was posted on Ben Smith's blog at Politico:
"President Barack Obama’s promises of change are falling short for one core Democratic constituency: gays and lesbians, whose leaders say Obama’s administration isn’t keeping up with the times.
"Gay rights campaigners, most of them Democrats who supported Obama in November, have begun to voice their public frustration with Obama’s inaction, small jokes at their community’s expense and deafening silence on what they see as the signal civil rights issue of this era.
"His most important campaign promises repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the military ban on openly gay and lesbian service-members have not been fulfilled.
"And the news, which emerged quietly earlier this year, that he’d supported same-sex marriage back in 1996, then changed his mind, especially rankles. As mainstream Democratic politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) move to support same-sex marriage, gay rights advocates say that the barrier-breaking president looks increasingly odd for opposing what they see as full equality." -------------------------------- There is a little bit more at the site, including a closing comment by David Mixner, and useful hyperlinks.
the obama administration making the case FOR "don't ask, don't tell" makes me sick. where's the "change"? democrats need to learn - and fast - that they can't take our votes for granted.
pjkool
· 5 months ago
Leadership? Don’t hold your breath! The Republicans lost the election but they still control the conversation. Just like the congressional leadership President Obama is afraid of the Republican talk radio shredding machine. It’s the same reason we are going to be handed another piece of corporate welfare called healthcare reform. Smoke, mirrors and the status quo.
william juergens
· 5 months ago
Obama will not change a thing, he is a bigot against gays,
jasonut29
· 5 months ago
Well I'll continue to say...we have been scammed once agan. Obama has made no effort to support or even recognize the rights he insisted he supported for gays. He is just one more politician that in the end will give excuses for why we got screwed (and didn't enjoy it). The Demos ill receive absolutely zero from me....they lied and continue to lie. Obama better pull it out of where ever he's got it buried and fire whoever is advising him before he looses all the gay support....the man needs to remember he didn't win that that much!!!
All Comments
At least Bush told you he was going to fuck you over.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/06/gops-se...
Last line:
"The gays and lesbians I know are very active in politics. Democrats, ignore this shift in public sentiment at your peril."
Democrats better wise up fast, THIS YEAR, or it's over from getting any $$$ or TIME from us!
DADT is a joke. The only military officers who use it are the KKKristianists. It's very inconsistent. The victims are the ones working on bases where Jesus is the C.O.
I have since become very embittered as a 1970s era female Army veteran to the point of being an anarchist and not giving a GD about my country anymore because the Christian Fascists have gained control.
They can kiss my scrawny white female ass to hell and back before I will give a damn about them anymore and that includes literally ALL THE FRICKIN POLITICIANS.
The first 1/2 African American in US history who's parents suffered discrimination because they were black & white. Actually they probably benifitted from the civil rights struggles in the 1960s.
Yet here we have that same president not caring about EQUALITY for all including the GLBT community.
This is so wrong in so many levels, it's not even funny.
We are on our own, and this month will be very telling. Do we get more EMPTY WORDS or do we get ACTION. I'm sitting not waiting.
This is MY country and I don't have to be enabling homophobes anymore. No more $$ or TIME to anyone who does nothing for equal rights. Period.
There's a better case coming -- Margaret Witt from the 9th Circuit. Fighting this case would have been foolish strategy, when all the stars are aligned in a much better direction with the Witt case.
Don't overreact, people. For once, think before you speak.
As Dr. King said: 'Wait' has almost always meant 'never.'
I could have assumed that, but to be on the "safe side" I chose to ask Õ¿Õ to verify one way or the other for me instead of just assuming.
Thank you for your interjection, though.
Give me one good reason that this policy, based on fear-mongering and outright lies (it has been proven NOT to destroy unit cohesion), should not have been overturned.
This is not an experimental issue. America's military, in this case, is acting more like a Muslim nation's military than one of a supposedly sophisticated Western nation.
It is an embarrassment.
For once, think before you patronize.
Don't overreact? We have made relatively to no progress on such important human rights issues as this and you say don't over react. I will say: Don't preach when you don't understand where others have been and what they have seen and done.
Geez, dried up dandelions have more cajones than this miserable bunch of chinless, neckless, rubber-pencil necked geeks.
I am a "white woman baby boomers Army Veteran" who is sick of these spineless overly privileged white geeks who aren't man enough to spit shine my combat boots!
Sorry about that.
The point remains valid though and I thank you for clarifying it.
As a veteran myself, it bothers me greatly when the "privileged class" of spoilt old men who are used to getting their way, get to rule over another's rights. I always thought of the court system being friendly to the common man and the only protectors of them. Well, that has certainly changed since they seem to protect the corporation or the big guy more times. I wish those old dinosaurs would resign, die off or something. They are detremental to this country and its people if they continue to rule against rights and for the big guy.
I would love to see someone find something on them serious enough, to have them impeached, if that is possible. There is no honor among that bunch if they can find ways to continue discriminating against the gay and lesbian minority.
Hell, even dung beetles have cogent reasons for their existence. These clowns, to my POV, have demonstrated no viable reasons for existing.
They have never even had a "dog" in the fight. I have -- I served proudly with gay and lesbian troops and bixsexual troops and they were all damned fine soldiers.
Religionists of any stripe, persuasion or belief are abhorrent. I have never yet seen an atheist or an agnostic murder someone because their political or religious beliefs are different.
I am becoming more and more anti-social the older I become because I am so fed up with those who practice do as I say but not as I do.
This murder is a terrorist in all definitions. He is trying to scare others into doing what he wants and as Keith Olbermann said today that if his name were a Middle-Eastern Arabic name, the man would have been placed in Gitmo by now. ( I loosely paraphrase his thoughts and added my own )
The right-winged conservative christian churches that feed the thoughts of hate and political views instead of teaching the teaching of their Christ are culpable for planting these "bad-seeds" in our culture watering them and allowing them to grow into these "killing machines for christ." The groups he has been tied to and supported by are culpable and accessories to this terrorist and the murder he committed. These are supposed to be christians and what he did in a worship service and house of god goes against everything he tries to say he is. He is no christian or he wouldn't have defiled a sanctuary with this blood bath. He should be tried as a terrorist and those who nurtured him need to be tried with him. He is now sending out threats from his cell that more of these are going to happen. The urge to torture this fool is tempting but he would wear it as a badge of courge and become a martyr. He is already considered an hero on some of these hateful websites. They all need to be held accountable for this murder.
They could have denied cert because they thought the wrong side would win if they took the case. I'm not so sure it's a bad thing that the court didn't take this on now--but I am 100% sure that Obama has not become any more courageous or forthright on LGBT issues and must be pushed continuously until he does the right thing(s).
They are worthless pukeheads.
The president seems to recognize - and more importantly accept - that the military is basically an arm of the RNC. It is a predominantly Republican organization. And because Obama doesn't want Clinton style drama over it, he has pretty much left the armed services to their own devices. This has made relations between the relationship between this Democratic White House and the military surprisingly good thus far. But it also means we have a Defense Department that, fundamentally, hasn't changed at all since the Bush Administration. The top brass, as well as the civilian leadership, are still largely right-wing and Christian.
So, yes, gays in the military are once again being asked to sacrifice their own happiness for the greater good. Though they certainly don't have to just take it. Bringing pressure on Obama by having employees he fired rant on MS-NBC is an appropriate and proper response. I don't think it'll change his plans or timetable. The man just doesn't respond to emotions. He has a very cool and calculating mind. But at least these soldiers are going down fighting.
The president seems to recognize - and more importantly accept - that the military is basically an arm of the RNC. . . "
===========================================
Whether the statement is true or not, they are sworn to obey the Commander in Chief and if Obama can not seem to control them or is afraid or intimidated by them, then it is his own damned fault they are going against him. If he gives an order they can either resign or follow it. It is as simple as that. They may not like him, but he IS the commander and the republicans have no business interfering with the Commander-in-Chief's orders or forming opinion in the ranks, their time is over..
That's the way American government "works." Health care lobbyists have more money than gay lobbyists. Labor lobbyists have more voters than gay lobbyists. I do not endorse or condone the notion that people's livelihoods and rights should be subject to the Machiavellian schemes of politicians. But since when has that not been the case?
What other 'evidence' do we need to overturn this joke of a policy?
Secondly, I'm not sure that they are right, in that quite clearly the Palm Center has an agenda. It may be a good agenda, but it doesn't matter. I'd rather wait to see an independent, unbiased firm or organization determine whether Obama has that power.
Third, whether Obama has the power or not, an executive order might conflict with the law, as 10 USC 654 specifically delineates HOW the policy should be implemented.
This is not the way to fight for this policy to change people.
NPR and an MSNBC press release did not give me the gist of the decision; this site did-
Further proof that "Kill your Television" needs a sequel; "Kill your TelevisionII"
:♥)
Obama never has too much on his plate unless we are discussing gay issues, then we are told to wait our turn at the back of the bus.
Be patient, you whiny gays! Surely in 10 to 20 years you have some equality. What's your hurry? (That's snark folks)
then SCOTUS turns around and does this:
BREAKING NEWS 4:06 PM ET: Supreme Court Grants Request to Put Chrysler Sale on Hold
huh?
The only way to protect gay service members is to modify the UCMJ, which would mean passing the neccessary bill through Congress for Obama's signiture.
This would mean that Obama would have to take an unambigous stand and risk some political capital; he remembers what happened to Bill Clinton early in his first term when he half-heartedly tried the same play. The risk isn't just that the effort fails but also that the GOP could use a victory to rally its base.
Times have changed since the early '90s. Six states now allow same-sex marriage and public opinion has shifted toward acceptance, albeit at a glacial pace and with no movement at all in the red states. Everyone who wants the Obama Administration to stick its neck out had better be prepared to do the hard work of organizing, campaigning, lobbying and convincing everyone without a dog in this fight that law and civil rights mandate equal rights for gay and bi military personnel.
The Neo-Cons have very few issues left that will reliably inflame their base to action so they will be working those issues hard; gay rights still make what's left of the GOP froth at the mouth, so the right will put up a huge fight. Let's be sure we give them a knockout punch and not go into this half-assed.
Isn't open sexual conduct, in general, something that is prohibited for all sexual orientations? They could not prosecute gays, without prosecuting straights. Or are you suggesting that only gays caught doing it in the barracks would face expulsion? Aren't sexual fraternizing between male and female servicemembers subject to the same penalties?
If sexual relations are kept private, what is the issue? Nobody is suggesting turning the military into a giant Dirk Yates video.
Last Thursday, this was posted on Ben Smith's blog at Politico:
"President Barack Obama’s promises of change are falling short for one core Democratic constituency: gays and lesbians, whose leaders say Obama’s administration isn’t keeping up with the times.
"Gay rights campaigners, most of them Democrats who supported Obama in November, have begun to voice their public frustration with Obama’s inaction, small jokes at their community’s expense and deafening silence on what they see as the signal civil rights issue of this era.
"His most important campaign promises repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the military ban on openly gay and lesbian service-members have not been fulfilled.
"And the news, which emerged quietly earlier this year, that he’d supported same-sex marriage back in 1996, then changed his mind, especially rankles. As mainstream Democratic politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) move to support same-sex marriage, gay rights advocates say that the barrier-breaking president looks increasingly odd for opposing what they see as full equality."
--------------------------------
There is a little bit more at the site, including a closing comment by David Mixner, and useful hyperlinks.
Here is the link:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Gay...