I could definately see myself not voting for a party that doesn't deliver even when it can at no costs. Even if that means a party less friendly wins; it should be a great way to focus the minds of those people who take my vote for granted.
I could definately see myself not voting for a party that doesn't deliver even when it can at no costs. Even if that means a party less friendly wins; it should be a great way to focus the minds of those people who take my vote for granted.
Congratulations America
Republican Senator Candidate does not like teh Gays!!!...shocker.Originally Posted by GGT
We actually have a candidate running for US Senator of Colorado (Buck) who believes that homosexuality is a life choice, and compares it to alcoholism:
go go USA #1!
Democrat President thinks that they should fight to keep DADT...cause he does not like the way it was being removed. And it's Congress's fault.
Gotcha.
GGT, we expect some R's to be stupid about this, it being true to form.
When Obama dicks (teeheehee) around with this issue, some of us are a bit surprised. (Well, not really...he's a Politician, and he is not scared of losing the homo vote...so, he never had mine anyway)
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I'd definately vote for Palin if I were American and she'd be running against Uncle Tom.
Congratulations America
Well...let's not get carried away. I'm not sure she is electable, and I would be hard pressed to vote for her in a primary...and I would be very despondent in a general election...
Even though she signed a civil union law I believe, as she thought as the Alaska Constitution was written, she saw no justifiable way she could not...which I think is a positive in her favor. She will follow the law as written, not how her religion says it should...but she is still a divisive figure...
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I wouldn't. Hell that's why I finally voted for Obama last time, because I just wasn't confident McCain would make it through a four-year term and I did not want to see Palin move into the Oval Office.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Aw, come on you guys
Palin 2012
Just for four years?
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
On the one hand I can understand that. On the other I think that if the rot has affected a system in the way it has in the US you can try to muddle on but it's better to bring it down. I feel that The Netherlands became a better place because of the dumping of the notions of political correctness and multiculturalism on the dungheap.
The rulers are helt to account much more than they were 8 years ago. They don't get to cover up real problems with make-belief solutions. Populists can be extremely useful to make the powers that be feel that they can with a move of the voter's hand become the powers that were.
Congratulations America
Palin isn't the sort of figure who can or would convincingly present populism. She's GOP establishment, just relatively young and unfamiliar, which lets both idiots and political users glom on to her and think she'll serve/supports their purposes.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
October 19, 2010
U.S. Military Moves to Accept Gay Recruits
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
The United States military, for the first time, is allowing its recruiters to accept openly gay and lesbian applicants.
The historic move follows a series of decisions by a federal judge in California, Virginia A. Phillips, who ruled last month that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law violates the equal protection and First Amendment rights of service members. On Oct. 12, she ordered the military to stop enforcing the law.
President Obama has said that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “will end on my watch.” But the Department of Justice, following its tradition of defending laws passed by Congress, has fought efforts by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay organization, to overturn the policy.
Judge Phillips ruled on Tuesday that she was denying requests by the government to maintain the status quo during the appeals process.
The Pentagon has stated its intent to file an appeal in case of such a ruling. But meanwhile, it has started complying with Judge Phillips’s instructions while the dispute over her orders plays out.
New instructions were e-mailed to recruiters on Friday for handling situations in which applicants volunteer their sexual orientation. Recruiters do not ask about sexual orientation and have not since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law went into effect in the 1990s.
Recruiters were also told that they must inform the applicants that the moratorium on “don’t ask, don’t tell” could be reversed.
R. Clarke Cooper, the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, applauded the Pentagon decision as “a huge deal.”
Mr. Cooper noted, however, that under the new rules, a service member who announces his or her sexual orientation “does run the risk of discharge if the ruling is overturned — if there is a successful appeal by the Department of Justice.”
“They do need to be aware of that possibility,” he said.
Mr. Cooper, a member of the Army Reserve, said that he was taking part in training last week at Fort Huachuca in Arizona when the injunction was issued, and that he was surprised by the lack of visible opposition or outcry.
He likened it to a “giant shoulder shrug of ‘so what?’ ”
Most of the people he was with, he added, were younger members of the service, and “a few people actually thought repeal had already occurred.”
Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, would not address a question about whether a recruit who volunteered that he was gay during the current suspension of the law might face expulsion from the military if the decision were appealed.
She called that situation hypothetical and said only that recruiters had been reminded that “they need to set expectations by informing the applicant that a reversal for the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law may occur.”
An opponent of service by openly gay men and lesbians dismissed the Pentagon shift as “a political ploy.”
Elaine Donnelly, the founder of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative organization that opposes gay service in the military, said Congress, under the Constitution, has the authority to draft rules for the military.
The Department of Justice, she added, acted properly by filing its request for a stay.
“There was no need to introduce this additional element of disconnect with the law and precedent and policy,” Ms. Donnelly said. “The military doesn’t need this — but this is what the Department of Defense did, and frankly, I find it inexplicable.”
Military recruiters around the country were adjusting to the change in policy on Tuesday.
Dan Choi, who was discharged from the Army under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” tried to re-enlist at the Armed Forces Recruiting Station in Times Square. Photographers and reporters crowded around the door, and they, in turn, were ringed by tourists and bystanders.
Mr. Choi emerged from the recruiting station and said, “They’re processing me.”
He added that the recruiters had not been rattled by his request, and he poked fun at the oft-repeated argument that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would affect unit cohesion in the military. “They didn’t disintegrate in there,” he said. “Their unit cohesion is doing just fine.”
Another former service member was not as successful in his attempt. Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, who is the president of the Log Cabin Republicans’ San Diego chapter, showed up at a recruiting station in El Cajon, Calif., on Tuesday afternoon to see if he could rejoin the Marines after being honorably discharged two years ago.
The visit was brief. The Marines, the recruiter told him, had very few slots for prior-service Marines to return to duty, and the current quota was filled.
“I have to wait now until December or January” to find out if more spaces open up, he said.
“I have no idea what to do now other than wait,” said Mr. Rodriguez-Kennedy, 23. He then went back to San Diego Mesa College, where he is a sophomore, to take a Japanese exam.
Omar Lopez, who served four and a half years in the Navy and was honorably discharged in 2006 under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” tried to re-enlist the day after Judge Phillips issued her injunction. He was rejected by recruiters who said they had received no instructions about the injunction, or about accepting gay recruits.
Dan Woods, the lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans, sent a letter to the Department of Justice warning that rejecting Mr. Lopez and other openly gay recruits meant that “the Defense Department would appear to be in violation of the court’s injunction and subject to citation for contempt” of court.
Mr. Lopez, a college student in Austin, Tex., said he is not a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, and in fact is “mostly Democrat.”
He said he was gratified to hear that his experience might have nudged policies forward. “I’m really glad that it had that impact,” he added, and vowed to try again. He said he was not concerned that returning to the military at this point might put him under special scrutiny.
“I think I wouldn’t go back as a gay man,” he explained. “I would go back as a soldier.”
Elisabeth Bumiller and Andrew Keh contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us...0military.html
Yeah, well that is odd isn't it? One wonders how they are going to defend doing that if it's all so harmfull and they absolutely need more time for the implementation of policies without don't ask don't tell in place. I mean, who are they trying to fool really? Are we going to see memo's telling that you can't allow gays in the military to be out untill you have separate showers ?
Congratulations America
Society changes it may be a rough transition at first. I doubt they're going to all leave the military considering all the perks and other losses that come with that. I really think the social atmosphere (how gays behave in public) isn't going to change terribly. I don't think they're going to be hitting on all their straight comrades, I think they'll be very much the same. Maybe they won't have to whisper in secret to their secret gay lover that'll be the biggest change. They probably still will even straight couples, generally, aren't openly talking about the "dirties". Maybe they'll hold hands or kiss, that'll probably be the biggest change but that won't even happen over night.The DADT-scrapping is problematic, since if repealed it would mean one of two things: Shoving all the faggots out of the armed forces (not possible since the world police are already running dangerously short of fresh bodies to shove into the grinder), or forcing the armed forces to quit being insane bigots and telling them to get rid of ancient policy saying sodomy is grounds for discharge. (lol, discharge!) The US armed forces are also notoriously full of all brands of Mormons and evangelical nut-jobs who would go absolutely ape at the idea of having to live and serve with faggots.
Our military encourages out-casting gays so it happens if the rules change they'll change with them. It'll take some time though. They'll make fun of the gays that start to come out as the repeal of DADT takes effect; however, their supervisor will be told to crack down on that behavior to educate these guys, and as everything it'll become the norm over time. We need to make this change we can't just wait for all the soldiers to be reflective and think about this and finally they come to the conclusion to accept it. I think our soldiers are smart enough to understand and after time it'll become the norm.
As a Democrat he VERY likely is against DADT, but with elections around the corner perhaps that issue is not what he's trying to draw attention to. He's going to be focusing on whatever he can to sway those in-between voters. Ah, I saw Loki's reply, basically what he said, except I've never met a democrat that was anti-gay lol. I'm sure they exist. Hazir it's really simple all this stuff. Think about what Obama wants (or any person) think about what is NECESSARY to do to achieve it, and you will understand a large part of why they say something a certain way, or why the did something.Well, now I am very curious what is Obama's real position on DADT. After today's ruling he can either be good for his word or fight to re-instate what he promised to abolish.
Hope is the denial of reality
Cool, I'd go for it if I were American. The Democrats are too confident of getting the gay vote without doing anything more than the Republicans after they get in. I hope they'll get a lesson about delivery this time.
Congratulations America
I think the republicans would be fighting to keep DADT in place, whereas the Democrats wouldn't be. I think as far gay rights and other civil rights issues they gay community is better off with liberals.
Not true, the main reason why DADT couldn't get through the senate was that the Democrats tagged it on to a finance law they knew would be unacceptable to most Republicans. They wanted to tar the Republicans as 'anti-gay', and didn't succeed.
Also, let's not forget who put this policy in place; another Democrat president. So as for being better off with Democrats; that's really not the case. Democrats do the talk but they don't walk the walk either. It's about time they learn that getting a bloc vote comes at a price bigger than empty words.
I find it interesting that my interests as a gay person would be safer in the hands of the most conservative right winger on this forum than in the hands of the Obama administration.
Congratulations America
From here.The DADT Appeal and the District Court's Worldwide Injunction
Professor Tobias Barrington Wolff discusses the DADT injunction.
The Obama administration recently decided to seek a stay of the injunction that prohibited enforcement of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the Log Cabin Republican lawsuit and (for now) to contest the ruling on appeal. There has been a vigorous discussion about that decision, much of it focused on whether the administration was obligated to defend this odious statute, even while they are working hard to repeal it, and what broader implications a decision not to appeal might have had for the rule of law in future cases.
My purpose in this essay is to clarify what is at stake in this discussion -- in other words, to make clear precisely what options we are debating. The back and forth over the administration's obligation to pursue this appeal has often proceeded on the implicit assumption that, if the government did not appeal, then DADT would be permanently over, a thing of the past. The assumption, in other words, is that we should be measuring any political, legal or institutional costs associated with the government not appealing against the benefit of eradicating DADT once and for all.
That assumption is incorrect. In fact, if the Obama administration were to decline to appeal this injunction, a hostile administration could come back at a later time and ask the federal courts to lift the district court's injunction and allow the DADT statute to go back into effect.
HOW INJUNCTIONS WORK
This is a complicated issue, relating to procedure in federal court and how injunctions work. Here is my best pass at a concise explanation.
When a federal court finds a federal statute to be in violation of the Constitution, as Judge Phillips did in the LCR case, we often speak of the Court "striking down" that federal statute, as if the court's order removes it from the books altogether. That is not, in fact, what happens. Federal courts don't have the power either to enact or to repeal federal statutes. What they have the power to do is declare federal statutes unconstitutional and issue orders prohibiting their enforcement.
When a court issues a decision like that, it has three potential types of impact.
First, the court's decision binds the parties to the lawsuit itself. In the LCR suit, the government is now bound to a ruling that the DADT statute cannot be enforced against LCR's members.
Second, the court's decision may set precedent that other courts must follow, so that if the same issue ever comes up in a subsequent lawsuit the earlier opinion will control the outcome. Federal district courts do not have the power to set binding precedent in this way -- only federal appeals courts and the Supreme Court can do so.
And third, the court may issue an injunction to carry into effect its ruling, requiring the losing party to take or refrain from taking certain actions. In this case, the federal district court issued a worldwide injunction prohibiting the government from enforcing DADT anywhere, against anyone.
The only part of the district court's LCR decision that affects people other than LCR and its members is the court's worldwide injunction. LCR did not bring a class action lawsuit that purported to include past, current or future members of the military as parties before the court -- it was only litigating on behalf of its own members. And, as mentioned above, the district court cannot establish binding legal precedent for any other courts, not even other district courts.
It is only because the court issued such a broad injunction that the ruling applies to anyone other than LCR. As a point of comparison, think of the case of Major Margaret Witt, who recently secured a ruling from a federal district court in Washington ordering that she be reinstated to the military. Her victory resulted in an injunction that applies only to her.
ENFORCING THE INJUNCTION
Even when a defendant decides not to appeal a ruling in a case like this, the federal district court needs to retain some kind of ongoing jurisdiction over the case in order for the injunction to continue in effect. Otherwise, for example, there would be no one to turn to if a party thinks that the injunction is not being complied with and a contempt citation is necessary.
Thus, the observation that frequently gets made that there cannot be any appeal once the time for requesting the appeal expires -- in other words, that a decision not to appeal a ruling is permanent after the clock runs out -- is not the whole story in the case of an ongoing injunction prohibiting enforcement of a federal statute. Rather, even when a party to a lawsuit does not appeal the original ruling, the party can still come back to the court and ask it to modify or end the injunction on the grounds that enforcement of the order is no longer equitable or appropriate.
"FACIAL" VS. "AS-APPLIED" CHALLENGES
Some commentators have pointed out that LCR brought a facial challenge to DADT, rather than an as-applied challenge. That fact is indeed important, but it does not change the impact of this ruling at the district court level. A facial challenge argues that the statute cannot be applied constitutionally to anyone, while an as-applied challenge argues only that the statute cannot be applied constitutionally to someone in the plaintiff's specific circumstances. (Once again, compare the recent victory of Major Margaret Witt, who won an as-applied challenge to the policy.) A victory in a facial challenge can thus set a precedent that renders the statute completely unenforceable. That precedent can then be invoked by future litigants, even if they were no part of the original lawsuit.
But, as noted above, a district court doesn't have the power to establish binding legal precedent for other courts, even within its own district. The significance of a facial challenge vs. an as-applied challenge comes into play primarily at the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court stage. When one of those courts grants a party a victory in a facial challenge to a statute, it establishes a legal principle that applies as precedent to everyone else in the Circuit (in the case of the Court of Appeals) or in the country (in the case of the Supreme Court). When the case is at the district court level, however, the difference between winning on a facial challenge and winning on an as-applied challenge is less significant.
All of this is separate from the question of the type of injunction that the district court enters to enforce its order. When a court issues an injunction, it is crafting a remedy to carry into effect the rights of the parties that are before it. The court has very broad discretion in determining what type of remedy is appropriate. But its task is still to carry into effect the rights of the parties that are before it.
I assume that the district court in this case felt justified in issuing a worldwide injunction because, having ruled on a facial constitutional challenge, it had concluded that the DADT statute could not be applied constitutionally to anyone, anywhere. But it is still the case that the district court's task was to issue an order that would enforce the rights of the parties before the court -- here, LCR and its members. As I understand it, that's part of why the government took the view that the worldwide injunction was inappropriate -- because, in the government's view, it was an excessively broad and unwarranted way of enforcing the rights of LCR and its members, which was all that was before the court.
WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?
According to my best understanding, here is the bottom line.
Even if the Obama administration were to embrace the LCR ruling and decline to take an appeal -- and even if members of Congress did not step in and continue pressing the appeal, which they could try to do -- the DADT statute would still be on the books. Only a repeal by Congress can change that. The only thing stopping the DADT statute from being enforced would be the court's worldwide injunction.
And if a hostile administration were to come into power in 2013 or 2017, that hostile administration could come to the court and ask it to lift or modify the injunction. If the court refused, a hostile administration could take an appeal from that refusal and ask the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court to do so. The original ruling on behalf of LCR and its members might still be permanent. But the worldwide injunction would be vulnerable and probably would not survive, meaning that the DADT statute would go back into effect for everyone else.
This does not resolve the debate over what the Obama administration should have done in this case. Some people might take the view that allowing the injunction to stand right now would make it easier to enact a legislative repeal of DADT, even if the injunction itself is not a permanent solution. I think that the opposite is true -- that allowing the worldwide injunction to stand would make legislative repeal politically impossible in the present moment. There is room for disagreement on that issue.
But the assumption that has informed much of this debate -- that not appealing the LCR ruling would mean that DADT would be permanently gone, once and for all -- is incorrect.
bama
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Well, that is one legal opinion. And it doesn't take into account that for a 'hostile' party to exist there must be a reward in some way for a future government to challenge the injunction. With an overwhelming part of Americans being against such a move there would be no pay-off for a future government and thus the chance of DADT returning would be slim to say the least.
The academic risk of a reversal is no excuse for uncle Tom.
Given the fact that he claims to be against don't ask don't tell he could have not asked for a lifting of the injunction and appealed the case in the interest of the law but doing so with a brief that stated why the administration deems don't ask don't tell unconstitutional. I'd have serious doubts about the Supreme Court upholding the policy under those circumstances. And even if it would then the pressure on Congress to move would be significantly higher than it already was.
Congratulations America
Plus once the ban on gays ends, it would take a lot of resources for the military to reimpose it. I highly doubt it would try if gays were allowed to serve openly for say a year.
Hope is the denial of reality
I agree, even if uncle Tom felt he needed to appeal there were other ways to go about it (see my edit)
Congratulations America
Frankly, all he had to do was not appeal, and have the Senate block any attempts to bring the policy back (not that I think there would be any serious attempts). Even if he doesn't get reelected in 2012, gays would have been serving openly for 2 years (and presumably everyone would realize that it doesn't make a bit of a difference), and this would be a non-issue by then.
You can always hope that this is just posturing for the upcoming election and he'll drop the appeal shortly after (using the DoD report that's due in December as cover).
Hope is the denial of reality
My political history, I don't really know. However, placed in context I would not be surprised if that law was a progressive move, allowing gays to get into the military at all. Especially considering the narrow mindedness of our society 50-60 years back. When you have fewer people, worse communication, small communities will define what's normal for them, and anything different than that will be met with great resistance, and often hatred. As society matures and populations grow, and communications improves (via better transportation, phones etc...) then ideas spread we begin creating one larger community and the community values change as they begin to include a broader network of people. In particular they become more flexible to have room for all these different people/groups. I don't know when DADT was enacted, I might be wrong, but I would not be surprised in the slightest, if at the time it was seen as a progressive law. Meaning, "hey you can be gay and join the military and the compromise was don't tell anyone." Verse not being able to join at all.Also, let's not forget who put this policy in place; another Democrat president. So as for being better off with Democrats; that's really not the case. Democrats do the talk but they don't walk the walk either. It's about time they learn that getting a bloc vote comes at a price bigger than empty words.
The majority of democrats I've talked to will support gay rights, and many republicans be on the fence or flat out against. Some are for it, I'm sure there are gay republicans, but i think by nature gays will lean incredibly liberal. I'll explain why... They're in a society where the status quo rejects them so they are going to be more open minded people. They'll realize well society was vastly wrong about how they treated me because i'm gay, I'm sure they can be wrong about others things, and society itself will push them away to be distinct from it. This is going to lead them to explore other communities, and also question other forms of conventional wisdom.
As for walking the walk... Perhaps looking historically they've made a lot of progressive political moves. But moves are by nature slow, due to them being politically placed, and met with cultural resistance (as they should be). Change being slow is good, and also implemented slow. It helps people transition, it makes sure things get argued out well, it gives time for things to gradually be tested. People hate how long the process takes, but there is a need for it to take a decent amount of time for anything substantial to get done.
It wasn't untill WW II that the US army (commander in chief : Roosevelt (D)) started to actively discharge people from the service for the single reason of being gay.
It wasn't untill after WW II that the US army (commander in chief : Truman (D)) introduced policies upon which to discharge people from the service for the single reason of being gay.
In 1993 the policy of 'don't ask, don't tell' was introduced by the US army (commander in chief : Clinton (D)). Supposedly to introduce a more forgiving attitude towards gays in the armed forces. Delivering nothing of the sort.
In 2010 yet another Democrat commander in chief is fighting to keep don't ask don't tell. Supposedly this Democrat believes it's unconstitutional, but there is a strong suspicion said Democrat just doesn't like to do anything for gays.
These things move slow only because - again - said Democrat is fighting the best he can to keep anti-gay legislation on the books. But gays should vote for him because he's against people of the same gender getting married and his favorite hobby is to keep legislation that discriminates against them.
Gay people who vote Democrat in the upcoming elections are fooling themselves. Untill they show that not getting their votes can loose the Democrats elections, the Democrats are going to screw them over again and again.
Congratulations America
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I love the guy at roughly at 4:00 min into your vid Ness. There are more gays in washington than san fransisco, if those are the people that wanted to work.. hell.. if ya need help ya need help. awesome... has to be scripted the guy is hilarious.
Thanks for the info Hazir, I think looking at the context and based on what you said DADT was initially passed, at the time, as an improvement over laws that said gays can't be in there at all. That law wise, even if it didn't change much, is a better law, clearly it didn't hurt them. Now we're ready to push the best law, which Obama has promised he'll pass, within his term, that no gays can be kicked from the military, open or not.
I'm not sure why (no gays can be in in the military) was initially passed under Roosevelt, I don't know if he had to sign off on that rule or if that happened outside his control. I don't know if he personally wanted that rule/the dem party or it was more of that was the politics he had to deal with. If he did sign off on it he is partly to blame... But... There is definitely a misconception that the president can do whatever he wants, there are many invisible strings and interests groups, and political situations. The president has to have some flexibility on some things to get anything done. Especially at that time, one would think the Christian groups probably even had more power than now. So for roosevelet regardless what he wanted there may have been to much pressure.. But that's speculation.. I'm not sure why that got passed then, and I don't plan to defend the entire history of the democratic party...
My guess is democrats were responsible historically for many LGBT advancements. I'll see what i can find, maybe they were just "all talk". That would surprises me, since you'd think someone who is liberal would legitimately want to push those issues, maybe not as their #1 concern, but as a concern. For example, I wonder on the non-discrimination laws for employment whether that was passed by Dems. That would be walking the talk.
I'm not a hard-core dem by any means, but i like their "Sales pitch" whether it's b.s or not we'll see.
---
Reading a Gay rights history site found here : They list some interesting things, and they do list DADT as a progressive act:
The “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy is instituted for the U.S. military, permitting gays to serve in the military but banning homosexual activity. President Clinton's original intention to revoke the prohibition against gays in the military was met with stiff opposition; this compromise, which has led to the discharge of thousands of men and women in the armed forces, was the result.
In November of 2007, the House of Representatives approves a bill ensuring equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. (Democrats were in control)
On June 17 of 2009, President Obama signs a referendum allowing the same-sex partners of federal employees to receive benefits. They will not be allowed full health coverage, however. This is Obama's first major initiative in his campaign promise to improve gay rights.
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 10-28-2010 at 04:24 PM.
How does one sign a referendum, and what exactly are the reasons to exlcude health benefits for gay partners of federal employees? The other law never made it to the books as far as I know. It really amounts to two times nothing with a ribbon on top.
Congratulations America
I'd guess the official reason is the Feds still don't recognize same-sex unions under DOMA, so they wouldn't qualify for benefits because they aren't a legally recognized spouse/partner.
I read a bit on wikipedia, and came across:
Looks like on the work force issue that was spear headed by democrats. I think that make sense intuitively, considering the kind of people that are democrats.The Democratic Party has been largely divided on the subject of same-sex marriage, though support for it has been increasing and most of the support for same-sex marriage in the United States has come from Democrats. Some members favor civil unions for same-sex couples, others favor full and equal legalized marriage, and others are opposed to same-sex marriage on religious or ideological grounds. A June 2008 Newsweek poll found that 42% of Democrats support same-sex marriage while 23% support civil unions or domestic partnership laws and 28% oppose any legal recognition at all.[55] The 2004 Democratic National Platform stated that marriage should be defined at the state level and it repudiated the Federal Marriage Amendment.[56] Senator John Kerry, Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, did not support same-sex marriage. Former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore said in 2009 that they now support gay marriage.[57][58]
President Barack Obama has stated that he considers marriage to be "something sanctified between a man and a woman". He campaigned for the election promising to "give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples" in civil unions.[59] At the same time, Obama opposed California's Prop 8,[60] and he has promised to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.[59] Obama has stated that generally "decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."[61] However, when running for the Illinois Senate in 1996, he said that he "unequivocally support(ed) gay marriage" and "favor(ed) legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."[62]
A broad majority of Democrats have supported other LGBT related laws such as extending hate crime statutes, legally preventing discrimination against LGBT people in the workforce, and repealing Don't ask, don't tell. Some issues are controversial while others have wide support. A 2006 Pew Research Center poll of Democrats found that 55% supported gays adopting children with 40% opposed while 70% support gays in the military with only 23% opposed.[63] Gallup polling from May 2009 stated that 82% of Democrats support open enlistment.[64]
As for the referendum, I think sometimes you have to realize that people may not want to exclude health benefits, but in order to get bills passed one has to make compromises, slow progress. Kind of like it said Bill Clinton wanted gays to be allowed fully and openly in the military, but due to stiff opposition had to compromise with DADT. I don't know how many federal employees that affected, or what benefits the partners now receive, I'd have to read that. It's good for federal employees, I suppose. Not as good as repealing DOMA, and DADT which he's promised to do.
Let's start with definitions; gays aren't asking for 'gay marriage' they are asking for an end to them being excluded from being married by the state. Gay marriage is not what gays want or ask for.
Now, I will admit that this is a hot issue and not one that's likely to win any politician votes. I could even understand uncle Tom's reluctance to touch it.
However, we are not talking about equal rights to marriage, we are talking about Don't Ask, Don't tell. The abolition of which is not a hot topic for voters at all and which could have been out as we speak if it weren't for the administration that serves at the pleasure of the President fighting it's abolition with everything it's got.
As for the rest of your quote; two times nothing with a bow on top, just like the first time round.
I think gays would do well to give Democrats a real scare this time and not vote for them. A couple of years in the cold may make people think about not making good on promises that could have been held easily.
Congratulations America
I think it's clear that the democrats have made major strides for minorities both racial and LGBT issues. I think that makes sense that the liberal group would be the one to do that.
We'll see after November what issues are being pushed. Though it is curious, if like you say, the issue of DADT is not really of interest to voters, why then do you propose Obama doesn't push for it?
Is it that he really has no personal caring for gay rights? Is it just low on his priority list and he can only do so much with his time/resources? Has he given in to other special interest groups that he has to appease? What's your conjecture on the issue.
My thoughts, and this might be wrong, that it's partly the political climate having to overcome certain groups fighting the change of DADT, and it's partly he's working to pass other bills aimed at the economy. So he has to pick his battles. Maybe not... I know there is a good opposition to such provisions or else how did DOMA get in place?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
