Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Appeals court grants stay of 'don't ask' injunction

By Ed O'Keefe

Updated 8:10 p.m. ET
A three judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday issued a temporary stay on a moratorium of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law, meaning the Pentagon can once again enforce the 17-year ban on gays in the military while the Justice Department prepares an appeal.

The decision essentially gives the appeals court more time to consider the government's appeal of the injunction issued last week by U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips. The Log Cabin Republicans, who brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the law, have until Monday to appeal the court's decision.

"While we are disappointed with the court's ruling granting a temporary administrative stay, we view the decision as nothing more than a minor setback," said Dan Woods, the attorney representing LCR. "We didn't come this far to quit now, and we expect that once the 9th Circuit has received and considered full briefing on the government's application for a stay, it will deny that application."

The judge's decision "is not a decision on the merits, it's an even more temporary decision," said Richard Socarides, a former gay rights adviser to President Bill Clinton who is tracking the issue closely.

"We believe a stay is appropriate," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith. The Justice Department had no immediate comment, according to spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.

The Obama administration asked the 9th Circuit to lift Phillips's injunction on the gay ban, arguing that a moratorium on enforcing the 17-year-old law jeopardizes an ongoing review of how the Pentagon would end the ban on openly gay and lesbian service members.

In court papers filed Wednesday, the Justice Department said Phillips's injunction "is at odds with basic principles of judicial restraint" because it blocks the Pentagon from enforcing the gay ban across the military and not just among members of LCR.

But LCR dismissed the government's argument, saying the Pentagon "has already acted nimbly" in response to the injunction by ordering military recruiters to accept gay and lesbian applicants.

"The fact that the government can and did issue such instructions and comply with the injunction immediately shows that the military will not sustain irreparable harm from compliance and belies the need for any temporary stay," LCR argued in court papers.

"We're a little surprised that they're making the same old argument again," LCR Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper said in an interview Wednesday. "One has to wonder what the tact here is? Is it that they think they have another shot at making the same arguments again?"

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center at the University of California Santa Barbara, said the government's arguments continue to ring hollow.

"The whole point of the ongoing Pentagon study is how to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'- as if we don't know how to do it," Belkin said. "But look what happened last week? The military suspended it last week with no training and guess what? Nothing happened." The Palm Center is a think tank that studies gays in the military and supports lifting the ban.

"You don't need to teach the troops how to interact with gays anymore than you need to train them how to deal with Jews," Belkin said. "People know how to behave with one another."
The Justice Department continue the appeals process despite President Obama's stated opposition to the law.

"They can only make the arguments that are politically consistent with the president's policy positions," said Richard Socarides, a former gay rights adviser to President Bill Clinton. "And there aren't many of those arguments left."

The White House is pushing Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" through legislation, likely as part of the annual defense authorization bill that is expected to be considered during a lame-duck session of Congress after the midterm elections.

Despite the Pentagon's decision to accept openly gay and lesbian military recruits, gay rights advocates said Wednesday they know of very few people visiting recruitment offices to enlist. Cooper is advising friends and other interested enlistees to be cautious when discussing their sexuality with military recruiters because of the law's uncertain future.

"The statute is still on the books, it just happens to be in suspense right now," Cooper said.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

By Ed O'Keefe  | October 20, 2010; 12:57 PM ET
Categories:  Administration, Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hillary Clinton to gay teens: 'Tomorrow Will Be Better'
Next: OPM announces another overhaul of federal retiree system

Comments

I don't know why Obama's Justice Dept. bothers with this. He will get blamed for the ending of DADT from the right and blamed for obstructing Gay rights from the left.

Posted by: Ralph_Indianapolis | October 20, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Ralph is correct, Obama wanst desperately to find a middle ground, but ends up upsetting everybody. He should just take a side an accept that he will never get votes from the opposition. Man up, Mr President.

Posted by: johnnycomelately1 | October 20, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Ralph is correct, Obama wants desperately to find a middle ground, but ends up upsetting everybody. He should just take a side an accept that he will never get votes from the opposition. Man up, Mr President.

Posted by: johnnycomelately1 | October 20, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Gays serving openly in the U.S. military is a mistake. Military success is based on decisive and aggressive action against the enemy. Military training and discipline is competitive to sharpen skills to achieve objectives.

Compare Gay soldiers to heterosexual soldiers who are competitive to win the affection of opposite sex personal relationships. Have psychologists consider that Gays are attracted to the same sex because they feel inferior in competition for opposite sex relationships.

Preadolescent boys like to be with other boys more than with girls. Gays are developmentally stunted in their growth to maturity and adulthood. Would it be equal constitutional rights to have Gays serve in the military as women serve in the military?

Posted by: klausdmk | October 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I believe there is an enormous problem at the U.S. Department of Justice with Ashcroft/Gonzales holdovers in career attorney and civil service positions where such appeals are crafted. The Bush DoJ was deliberately and systematically politicized all the way down into the clerical ranks precisely for the purpose of thwarting the more enlightened policies of their successors to get through.

This is a perversion and corruption of civil service protections, where those protections, designed to PREVENT politicizing executive branch functions, is now used to protect the tenure of employees the purpose of whose selection in the first place was precisely to bring about the arch-politicization of the functions involved in the administration of justice.

This problem goes higher and deeper than it has ever done before. Indeed, there are even exceedingly biased U.S. Attorneys from the Bush administration still serving in office, and U.S. Attorneys are supposed to serve at the pleasure of the President. They are NOT civil service and should all have been replaced when the new administration was inaugurated. U.S. Attorneys have tremendous power to bring cases out of motives purely personal and political in nature, and it is dangerous to keep political opponents' hands on the levers of such power.

I do not think that Obama or Holder are behind the decision to appeal here. I merely believe that they do not wish to be perceived as overriding the recommendations of their tenured subordinates, which would be painted as "corrupt" by the increasingly disloyal opposition.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | October 20, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Ha!Ha! I love it. Obama has to defend DADT and all of his homosexually loving friends are up in arms!

Just wait until Nov. 3rd, they will really have something to be upset about.

How is that little change thing going, you Obama apostles!

Posted by: numbersch13 | October 20, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

REALLY Klaus?

Do tell where one finds such unbiased psychological evidence.

I'm gay, decisive and when needed aggressive. I have meaningful relationships with both genders among all races and orientations.

Perhaps you should re-examine your thoughts, which pidgeonhole individuals based on their orientation.

By your logic all heterosexual people would behave the same way as well. I don't think that's the case just as it's not among homosexuals.

People are all individuals and the military is just fine accepting heterosexuals who from all races and and genders- despite the obvious diversity it's going to bring to the "maturity" in their soldiers.

Consider your argument debunked.

Posted by: josh2082 | October 20, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Klaus, I have to agree with Josh. Not a gay man myself, but your argument is factless, bigoted and shows that you have no tolerance for your fellow man/woman.

Posted by: micokc | October 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

klausdmk:
Compare Gay soldiers to heterosexual soldiers who are competitive to win the affection of opposite sex personal relationships. Have psychologists consider that Gays are attracted to the same sex because they feel inferior in competition for opposite sex relationships.
______________

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for proving the point that the ban rests on nothing but ignorance and prejudice.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 20, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

All the Obama administration has to do to "win" this one is to sit down and follow the court order. Imagine the inspiration to the base if now, just a couple weeks before the election, they announce they will drop the appeal? True to form though, my expectation is they'll find a way to end up looking bad to everybody--it's what they do.

Posted by: SageThrasher | October 20, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

If the administration really wants to end DADT, why not let the lower court ruling stand? Either it ends, or it doesn't, right? No "study" of the matter can change that simple fact.

Posted by: John991 | October 20, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the number of cases drops off when they need people to fight. Sort of puts the lie to the whole issue of hurting morale in time of war. But, Teabagging scum, don't let facts stand in the way of your moronic prejudices. Of course, given that you'd defend to the death a Constitution that your dear leaders don't even have a clue about, maybe the truth is not what can actually be observed, but rather, it is whatever you want it to be.

Posted by: daweeni | October 20, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

How incredibly bizarre. The Obama Justice Department is saying that only gay service members who are registered Republicans can serve openly.

Posted by: edallan | October 20, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

People who argue that permitting lesbians and gay men to serve openly will somehow affect unit cohesion or morale have no ground on which to stand. Many countries have already allowed lesbians and gay men to serve openly and in NONE of these instances has unit morale and cohesion been adversely affected. Of course, the underlying problem is the pervasiveness of homophobia in our country, most of which is based on fear and ignorance. But rather than deal with the root of the problem, some people would rather let the discriminatory practice stand.

Posted by: binaryboy | October 20, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't mind being in the minority on this topic because there are many valid points that have been neglected during the debate.

It seems every time I voice my concerns over this I receive harmful, ridiculing comments about being bigoted or homophobic. I am neither of these things. And when I say I don't like being called bigoted or homophobic, there is unfailingly someone who announces they don't care how I feel, which hurts my feelings even more.

There are numerous gays and lesbians in the military today who are serving honorably. But they are serving in a presumptuously heterosexual military under the policy of DADT. Their sexual orientation can't be explicitly known in order to protect the privacy of others.

We do not require a woman to say or believe that all men are rapists in order for her to assert a privacy right from all men. Why do we call a man homophobic if he asserts a privacy right from all gays?

The same arguments used against men who assert a privacy right from gays would be considered blantantly misogynitic if applied to women. Can you imagine telling a woman to shower naked with men because men aren't interested in her ugly body? Or telling her that she's bigoted for worrying about her personal safety?

I believed that DADT was a good step forward when it was made law in 1993. I continue to be tolerant of gays and lesbians, but it seems ever more frequent that gays and lesbians act rude and intentionally harmful to others, including me.

I can only say how happy I am that I will never be in the military, unless China invades San Diego and I am conscripted.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Can we just get this over with, please?

Posted by: pcstorandt | October 20, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

What is the origin of the Homoerotic Urge?

Surface observations, and conclusions based on them, while well-intentioned, go nowhere when trying to fathom the reason why an individual can be turned against his own God-Given identity.

Ask any normal male, and they will tell you, that the most powerful thing in their life is their attraction to women.

Sure, men can have an array of other interests, but when you are speaking about the one thing that moves them powerfully, it is their attraction to the opposite sex.

And so, we must ask, what in the world could possibly get in the way of what God intended to be the most powerful directive in the life of every male child?

There is only one answer to this. The force that derails the God-Given identity comes from the outside, and is associated with forces of evil which are intent on destroying what God has created.

This will be proven through sophisticated sensing technology in the not too distant future, that the source of the homoerotic urge has its origin in the black heart of the demonic forces, which reside on the astral plane. The homoerotic urge is broadcast into the astral body of the vulnerable soul, and if the individual acts on the urge, then they become hooked to the demonic controller, who will be able to tug that chain at will. The soul becomes vulnerable to this manipulation when it neglects for too long, its responsibility to work with God our Father to build up a shield of light in the aura.

The only solution to this state of enslavement, which threatens the very life of the soul, is to seek the help of God. Freedom from enslavement to the forces of darkness, can only come through the Intercession of God.

However, the individual trapped in the homosexual lifestyle has another factor working against him. The connection between the astral body of the victim, and the astral body of the controlling demon causes the victims feeling world to be colored with the demons disdain and contempt towards God. Just as the victim believes the homoerotic urge is a natural expression of the identity, so too does the victim believe that this feeling of disdain towards God represents an attribute of his own natural identity. But it is not true. These are both elements of the demonic manipulation.

I believe every individual who is trapped in the homosexual lifestyle knows this is true at some level. They can sense the characteristic of aggressiveness that is associated with every homoerotic urge. I think in some instances it comes upon them when they least expect it. And thus, every homoerotic urge comes with a sense of being manipulated. And they are also aware of the fact that they have an attitude towards God that is not positive. They should add these two factors together, and this will point to the origin of their problem.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

What a complete and total tool we have for president.

Posted by: seabelly1 | October 20, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

This is just one more reason that Obambam is already a lame duck President. He talks the talk but he hasn't got the guts to walk the walk. Too bad. The alternative is going to be even worse.

Posted by: sameolddoc | October 20, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

And GoldenEagles here isn't wrapped too tightly either.

Posted by: seabelly1 | October 20, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

What is the Single Most Important
Reason that homosexuals Should Not
be Allow to Serve in the U.S. Military?

The above observations concerning the origin of the homoerotic urge, locating that origin correctly in the area of demon manipulation, points to the most important reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. Military.

The forces of darkness which have an inroad of direct control over the feeling world of the homosexual, can use that connection to thwart the precision movement of military forces on the battlefield. In a battlefield situation, the homosexual will be used as a pawn to obstruct the operation of a military unit at the most crucial moment. The chain they wear around their collar, in a manner of speaking, can be tugged at anytime. And it can be so tugged to manipulate the behavior of the soldier, for example, who receives a sudden impulse to sit down, when he should be jumping up to fire his weapon. Victory or defeat can turn on a single decision like this.

We should not put the lives of our soldiers in such jeopardy.

Homosexuals should be kept out of the military, because they do not come into the military alone. They bring an attending demon with them, who has control over that individuals feeling world, and who will use that control to obstruct the progress of U.S. military operations.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

As an ex-military I have known and worked with active military gay/lesbian personnel on a regular basis. I assure all, most gay individuals will chose not to openly come out. They just wish to do their job without the worry of some confused, socially disfunctional person(see klausdmk comment) turning them into security for dismissal. All the gays I met were outstanding in their chosen field of work and out performed other personnel. Let the court decide. Yes or No it will not matter, gays will still serve!

Posted by: Carl6652 | October 20, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I hate to break it to those who think that the president can just "sit down and let the lower court stand" but he can't. The President has the constitutional duty to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed and in this instance that means challenging the lower court ruling until the matter is settled by an appellate court. Obama HAS to challenge this, it is his job as expressly articulated by the Constitution.

I'm not saying this because I have a position one way or another on DADT but I do want Obama to be treated fairly by those who would criticize him or the DoJ for appealing the ruling.

Posted by: anon621 | October 20, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The policy of don't ask - don't tell is certainly opposed by the Obama administration. However the issue at stake here isn't one of agreement or disagreement with the policy, gays serving in the military, or anything of the sort.

Obama and his administration is taking the correct path here by defending the right of the military to conduct a review before the policy is discarded.

Having judges interfere with the military should not be casually done, no matter how odious the military policy.

By standing up for this policy, Obama is demonstrating once again that he is overwhelmingly motivated by what is best for America, not what is politically expedient.

I also believe, as does Obama, that don't ask - don't tell is a horrible blot on our national character, violates our values and character as a nation, and is imprudent at a time of war.

Posted by: reussere | October 20, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

As I'm sure has been stated, the Obama White House is intent on trying to placate everyone, and in the process, comes across as weak. If the election comes out as predicted and the Democrats loose the majority, DADT will be reinstated and there's nothing the Dems can do - it will be on Obama's conscience that we didn't end this humiliating law NOW! He just drove more nails in the coffins of the Democrats! If I hadn't already voted, I would not vote! Such a shame. The country really needs leadership, and for the Democrats to to credit for what they have accomplished, instead of running from them. The Democrats are not energized? Why should we be? Where are our leaders???

Posted by: owenaja | October 20, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Preadolescent boys like to be with other boys more than with girls. Gays are developmentally stunted in their growth to maturity and adulthood. Would it be equal constitutional rights to have Gays serve in the military as women serve in the military?


Posted by: klausdmk
***********************

Spend a lot of time "studying" young boys, do you?

Creep...

Posted by: LABC | October 20, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

The policy of don't ask - don't tell is certainly opposed by the Obama administration. However the issue at stake here isn't one of agreement or disagreement with the policy, gays serving in the military, or anything of the sort.

Obama and his administration is taking the correct path here by defending the right of the military to conduct a review before the policy is discarded.

Having judges interfere with the military should not be casually done, no matter how odious the military policy.

By standing up for this policy, Obama is demonstrating once again that he is overwhelmingly motivated by what is best for America, not what is politically expedient.

I also believe, as does Obama, that don't ask - don't tell is a horrible blot on our national character, violates our values and character as a nation, and is imprudent at a time of war.

Posted by: reussere
*******************
The one smart post here - too bad it is wasted on the homophobes and constitutionally illiterate that take up too much time on this board.

Posted by: LABC | October 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I've seen many positive comments about gays and lesbians in the miliary and I must admit that I have not experienced such impressive performance of gays and lesbians in the non-military world.

Gays and lesbians I've seen can be ignorant, selfish, immature, vindictive, and highly emotional. I've been verbally abused by a supervisor for failing to display enthusiatic acceptance of a homosexual when I was new to a job. In fact I was just suffering from indigestion and jet lag. I got over it.

I remain tolerant of gays and lesbians, but it does hurt my feelings to have so much hatred directed at me.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 20, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Gays are ONLY succesful in Military because they must hide their sexuality.

Posted by: pgr88 | October 20, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

This is a perversion and corruption of civil service protections, where those protections, designed to PREVENT politicizing executive branch functions, is now used to protect the tenure of employees the purpose of whose selection in the first place was precisely to bring about the arch-politicization of the functions involved in the administration of justice.
By FergusonFoont.
DADT do violate the constitution of some and was use as tool in like arch-politicization of the functions involved in the administration of Justice. How can the legislative function undermine the gays in serving their country just because someone has preference by choice? If some are more equal than the other; does the Congress must take on the job of the designer on the Constitution to eliminate the less equal? Then, every American is the same but not equal is protected under the thump of the Congress and the Constitution can be interpreted as one intended. So, bow to me; you, peasants.

Posted by: 94134gamesmith | October 20, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

blasmaic says: "Gays and lesbians I've seen can be ignorant, selfish, immature, vindictive, and highly emotional."

You need to factor in the issue of demon control. The astral body of the homosexual is merged with the astral body of the controlling demon, which makes their feeling world very volatile. They do not have control, and they have never experienced a moment of peace in their entire life, once they became enslaved. They are always on the defensive, and only experience solace when someone tells them that their homosexuality is ok. That moment of solace lasts for about a second. That is what the entire homosexual rights movement is all about. They want the whole world to compensate, give them some stability, against the raging battle inside.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Compare Gay soldiers to heterosexual soldiers who are competitive to win the affection of opposite sex personal relationships. Have psychologists consider that Gays are attracted to the same sex because they feel inferior in competition for opposite sex relationships.
=====================================
Oh, YEAH! This explains why women are always complaining about how the best guys seem to be gay.

It is so much easier for an adolescent male to approach the other guys at his school for dates than it is to approach the girls. He will get a much better reception.

Posted by: carlaclaws | October 20, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Really, this is like one huge group therapy session for them. They are using the power of government to force the entire population to take a seat, and keep their lips zipped, so these inherently unstable personalities can feel good about the massive amount of support they are getting.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

carlaclaws says: "This explains why women are always complaining about how the best guys seem to be gay."

I have been on this planet for a very long time. I have never heard a woman express that sentiment. It goes against the grain of common sense. And for that reason, I think it is just another delusionary element of the homosexual mind.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

GoldenEagles, I am a straight woman, and I can't begin to tell you the number of times my friends have voiced this lament. I don't know if it is true that the best looking guys are gay, but the sentiment is so prevalent it is a cultural stereotype.

I am interested to know how you think so many straight women become afflicted with the "delusionary elements of the homosexual mind." (Perhaps you meant "delusional?") What are those elements, anyway?

Posted by: carlaclaws | October 20, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Gays and lesbians I've seen can be ignorant, selfish, immature, vindictive, and highly emotional. I've been verbally abused by a supervisor for failing to display enthusiatic acceptance of a homosexual when I was new to a job. In fact I was just suffering from indigestion and jet lag. I got over it.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 20, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse


So are a lot of heterosexuals that I've met. We're just as diverse as you all are. The point of overturning DADT is that people should be judged on their performance and character, not on whether they're gay or straight.

Sorry if feel like you've been talked down to over this issue, but the fact that thousands of honorable servicemembers have lost their military careers because they were outed by rumors and civilian tips will trump your feelings more often than not.

Posted by: ModestProposal | October 20, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I am deeply disappointed in Obama and the DOJ for pursuing this. They do have discretion in these matters, and could have decided to focus their energies elsewhere. Hopefully, they will staff thismatter with first year lawyers who know nothing, and ahve too much on their plates to give it any kind of good work. That way they can say they pursued the issue. I may be disappointed in Obama on this issue,but he is stil WAYYYYYYY better than anything the GOP or tea baggers have to offer.

Posted by: October10S | October 20, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Funny. President Obama promised that Don't Ask, Don't Tell would end under his watch, and it did.

Sen. Reid has been awfully shifty on whether he's going to bring the bill back to the Senate floor during the lame duck session, and the likelihood of it passing in the next Congress is looking somewhat dim. If Obama's DoJ succeeds in defending DADT and he fails to get the Defense Authorization bill past Congress as it's currently worded, there will be a frigging mutiny in the LGBT Democratic community.

Oh, and there is ample precedent for the DoJ not defending laws that the administration felt were unconstitutional. Ford's DoJ did it, as did at least two others.

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

Posted by: ModestProposal | October 20, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse


Well what do you know leftists, this is EXACTLY what I said will happen. And this case will go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which will overturn the lower court ruling. The DADT law from 1993 is constitutional and it will take an act of Congress to repeal it.

Now all the leftists are wailing and gnashing their teeth, but this is exactly what I predicted would happen.

Posted by: screwjob22 | October 20, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I've seen many positive comments about gays and lesbians in the miliary and I must admit that I have not experienced such impressive performance of gays and lesbians in the non-military world.

Gays and lesbians I've seen can be ignorant, selfish, immature, vindictive, and highly emotional. I've been verbally abused by a supervisor for failing to display enthusiatic acceptance of a homosexual when I was new to a job. In fact I was just suffering from indigestion and jet lag. I got over it.

I remain tolerant of gays and lesbians, but it does hurt my feelings to have so much hatred directed at me.

Posted by: blasmaic
________________________________________
Blasmic, you posted the exact same thing to the "bullying" article and I'll post the same response here:

Try this:

PEOPLE I've seen can be ignorant, selfish, immature, vindictive, and highly emotional. I've been verbally abused by a supervisor for failing to display enthusiatic acceptance of SOMEONE when I was new to a job. In fact I was just suffering from indigestion and jet lag. I got over it.

Your sterotyping is just incredulous. Sometimes people don't realize that it was something they did or said to provoke perceived wrong treatment. I'm just sayin' ....


Posted by: seaduck2001 | October 20, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Look, the people fighting this are the same people that not that long ago would have been saying that having blacks in the military would wreck unit coheasion blah blah blah.

There are always going to be bigots and racists trotting out stale meaningless statements trying to explain their bigotry.

Posted by: cambel1 | October 20, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Everyone here needs to understand that the Justice Department is required to defend existing law. This includes laws that the departments political appointees don't agree with.

Taking this to the Supreme Court is actually a good thing politically though. Based on the decision in the sodomy case several years back I think Justice Kennedy will side with the more liberal wing of the court and uphold the lower court's ruling.

Posted by: cmb1 | October 20, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

You need to factor in the issue of demon control. The astral body of the homosexual is merged with the astral body of the controlling demon, which makes their feeling world very volatile. They do not have control, and they have never experienced a moment of peace in their entire life, once they became enslaved. They are always on the defensive, and only experience solace when someone tells them that their homosexuality is ok. That moment of solace lasts for about a second. That is what the entire homosexual rights movement is all about. They want the whole world to compensate, give them some stability, against the raging battle inside.

Posted by: GoldenEagles
-----------------------------------------
Dude, are you high or did you just finish reading L. Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics"?

Posted by: binaryboy | October 20, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse


Blacks have served with distinction in the U.S. military since before the Civil War so let's just keep that red herring out of the conversation, hmm? That dog don't hunt.

Avowed homosexuals however, have never been allowed in the U.S. military nor are they allowed to now under American law.

Posted by: screwjob22 | October 20, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Where is the tolerance? Every time I hit on a lesbian, I don't get a "no, thank you", I get a rant.

Every time a gay hits on me, I just say, no, thank you.

So much hostility.

In the mean time, the military doesn't seem to want openly "different" personnel. I got news for Obama, he's the commander and chief of the U.S. armed forces. All he has to do is issue the appropriate orders. Any officer that chooses not to obey will be court marshalled, will have to resign.

Posted by: dcorley | October 20, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the Use of the Word “Homophobia”

The term “homophobia” is a powerful propaganda tool which homosexuals and their sympathizers use, both cleverly and effectively, to tar their opponents as irrational fear mongers.

The American people should understand, however, that this label of “irrational fear monger”, that the homosexuals would paste on the forehead of every one of their opponents, is a total falsehood and deception.

The act of labeling anyone as “homophobic” is so far outside the domain of reality, that you might as well be putting a dunce cap on the head of the Master Jesus Christ himself. Or for that matter, on the head of the Prophet Moses.

In the world of reason and intelligence, the truth is, that this label fits no one. And why is that? Because, in all truth, the lawful and reasonable CONCERN about behavior that goes against the laws of nature, represents the epitome of WISDOM. This concern, about behavior that goes against the laws of nature, is part of the universal domain of common sense. And all people share this concern in their hearts. All people.

Here we see how powerful propaganda tools work, as their repetitive use begins to turn people against their own native common sense, and that for fear of being singled out and ridiculed in this manner, among their peers. Millions of Americans have been programmed in their hearts, in this manner, to think, “Heaven forbid if somebody thinks I am a homophobe! God I don’t think I could ever show my face in public again!” This is the fear that is totally irationale.

If people would stop and think, and realize, that these souls who have become trapped in the homosexual lifestyle, have become enslaved to a soul destroying death spiral, they would realize how truly sinister the use of the term 'homophobe' becomes as the very instrument by which it will come to pass, that there will be no left who will have the willpower or desire to step up and come to the rescue of these souls.

Indeed, all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. To be sure, this will be the end result of this propaganda ploy.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Good to read this lunacy may stop. What's next, pedophiles and family fukers serving openly under the banner that it is their 'sexual orientation?' Screw most of the right wing though because they think gayness is natural and normal (like the left wing), but want Jim Crow in the military.

Posted by: robert_curley_jacobs | October 20, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"Where is the tolerance? Every time I hit on a lesbian, I don't get a "no, thank you", I get a rant."

Might be your technique, dude. Just sayin'. I've never seen a gay man get hostile with women who hit on them.

Posted by: ModestProposal | October 20, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"The act of labeling anyone as “homophobic” is so far outside the domain of reality, that you might as well be putting a dunce cap on the head of the Master Jesus Christ himself. Or for that matter, on the head of the Prophet Moses."

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Judging by your posts, I'd say the realm of reality left you behind a long, long time ago.

Posted by: ModestProposal | October 20, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama is getting nuttier by the day. Other nations have already integrated gays & lesbians into their armed services. He needs to ask them how its done.

The November elections will clobber Obama simply because the man does not know how to stand up.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 20, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

seaduck2001,

I was responding to an earlier post by a person who had great things to say about the gays and lesbians he knew in the military. Maybe you can correct him on his silly stereotyping.

Instead of attacking him personally, I just added some balance of my own experiences.

But then you believe yourself to be morally superior to me, so you certainly feel some license to judge my conduct.

It hurts my feelings when gays and lesbians mistreat me. I'm just tolerant. I'm not a raving idealogue or some social scientist. But gays and lesbians seem to always try to make me feel stupid and insecure -- like you just did.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 20, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Blacks have served with distinction in the U.S. military since before the Civil War so let's just keep that red herring out of the conversation, hmm? That dog don't hunt.

Avowed homosexuals however, have never been allowed in the U.S. military nor are they allowed to now under American law.

Posted by: screwjob22
-------------------------------------------
Yes, black men could serve in the military, but they did so in segregated units. This dog does hunt and what he smells stinks,

Posted by: binaryboy | October 20, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Blacks have served with distinction in the U.S. military since before the Civil War so let's just keep that red herring out of the conversation, hmm? That dog don't hunt.

Avowed homosexuals however, have never been allowed in the U.S. military nor are they allowed to now under American law.

Posted by: screwjob22
-------------------------------------------
Yes, black men could serve in the military, but they did so in segregated units. This dog does hunt and what he smells stinks!

Posted by: binaryboy | October 20, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

The government line is that they want to end DADT, but have to wait for the military to study the effects of ending the policy. BS This is a can-do army, navy, air force and marine organization and they can make anything work. They have done it for years, as some of the people just now being outed are 15+ years in service and only now being "found out". The delay is a rouse and is a disgrace and an insult to the members of our military today. Trust them to do the job right and do it fairly. The leadership has no spine for it, but the troops do, so get out of their way.

Posted by: ronjeske | October 20, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Having a girlie-man in the shower room with a manie-man is even worst than having a girlie-girl in the shower room with a manie-man.

So if they segregate men and women shower rooms, why can't they segregate girlie-men and manie-men? And have it be within the law.

Makes sense to me.

Least we forget to segregate girlie-girls and manie-girls, also.

You have to understand that all gays believe all straights are in the straight closet wishing they could come out. In other words, the gays believe everyone is really gay.

So do manie-men really want a girlie-man to look at their genitals? Well the girlie-man wants to look and the manie-man doesn't what the girli-man to look.

Same with the girlie-girl and the manie-girl. No looking.

Posted by: MissClarty | October 20, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Everyone here needs to understand that the Justice Department is required to defend existing law. This includes laws that the departments political appointees don't agree with.

Posted by: cmb1 | October 20, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

...And they did - in the lower court. Whether they takes it to appeal, though, is completely at the administration's discretion. George HW Bush's DoJ dropped an appeal of a constitutionality challenge in '89, and Clinton's DoJ let one go on appeal as well.

Posted by: ModestProposal | October 20, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Manie-men sharing a shower room with girlie-men should be segregated just like men and women are segregated.

Manie-men don't want girlie-men looking at their genitals.

Least we forget, manie-girls looking at girlie-girls genitals. eewwwwwww

Remember that girlie-men and manie-girls believe that everyone is really gay and not straight and need to find out and they are there to help the manie-men and girlie-girls find that out.

eeewwwwwwwwww

The say all straights are in denial.

Posted by: MissClarty | October 20, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Having a girlie-man in the shower room with a manie-man is even worst than having a girlie-girl in the shower room with a manie-man.

So if they segregate men and women shower rooms, why can't they segregate girlie-men and manie-men? And have it be within the law.

Makes sense to me.

Least we forget to segregate girlie-girls and manie-girls, also.

You have to understand that all gays believe all straights are in the straight closet wishing they could come out. In other words, the gays believe everyone is really gay.

So do manie-men really want a girlie-man to look at their genitals? Well the girlie-man wants to look and the manie-man doesn't what the girli-man to look.

Same with the girlie-girl and the manie-girl. No looking.

Posted by: MissClarty | October 20, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Are you 12?

Posted by: ModestProposal | October 20, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Now that Dont Ask has been repealed Im so certain that the liberal, open minded, tolerant, and highly transparent administration at Harvard will quickly and expeditiously open their hallowed campus to ROTC recruiting....

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 20, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Klaus and GoldenEagles--a marriage made in neanderthal heaven. Its hard to imagine two more ignorant and hateful opinions.

Posted by: jimds000 | October 20, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Klaus and GoldenEagles--a marriage made in neanderthal heaven. Its hard to imagine two more ignorant and hateful opinions.

Posted by: jimds000 | October 20, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

all of this would have ben settled if the Obama administration did not appeal the lower court ruling. I support Obama 99% of the time, but his double talk on wanting to repeal DADT is disingenuous. He had a judge repeal it for him--and he appelled it!! I can see why liberals would want to sit on their hands this election.

Posted by: PepperDr | October 20, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

dont care what their sexual proclivities are. if these people want to serve and go in harms way good. stop whining about homos,religion and the rest of the minority fools that want media face time.

Posted by: pofinpa | October 20, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

So the courts are just rubber stamps for the administration. And here I was thinking that actual justice might have something to do with their ruling. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Well, at least the last scales have fallen from my eyes. I will work to ensure this duplicitous administration serves only one term. A pox on both your houses!

Posted by: cgindc | October 20, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

@obama and naacp

It's really dishearting to see that Minorities (Blks/Hispanic, WHITE FEMALES etc) are Consenting TO AND ENFORCING Discrimination and Jim Crow/ BLACK CODES SEGREGATION STRUCTURE, IT'S BEING ENFORCED ON SAME SEX BY OTHER MINORITIES !!!, THAT WILL ESTABLISH A LEGAL "PRECEDENT" (STAR E' DESISIS) THAT GO AFTER THEM AS WELL IN THE FUTURE AND OVERTURN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS etc (GRANTED TO THEM BY REPUBLICANS HISTORICALLY),

BUT BY THEN NO ONE WILL HEAR THEIR PLEAS FOR EQUALITY BECAUSE IT WILL BE TOLD TO THEM , YOU ALL CONSENTED TO IT ON OTHERS,AND BY THE BINDING PRECEDENCE OF STAR E' DESISIS IT ALSO APPLIES TO YOU ALSO, BECAUSE OF THIS "BLACK CODES" STRUCTURE ENFORCEMENT MINORITIES etc HAVE BECOME THAT WHICH THEY HATE AS WELL

THE BIBLE WAS MIS-USED AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS ERA AND TO JUSTIFY SLAVERY AND JIM CROW AS NOW "BLACK CODES" LIKE STRUCTURE BEING USED AGAINST SAME SEX BY OTHER MINORITIES (WIKIPEDIA AND GOOGLE "BIBLE SLAVERY" AND "BLACK CODES) and it wont help you if civil rights is overturn BY CONSENT BY MINORITIES TO SEGREGATE, IT WILL SET A LEGALLY BINDING PRECEDENT (ADA/BLK AA/ NOW,NAACP and others) THAT WILL FINALLY START TO ERODE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND CIVIL RIGHTS....THANK "MINORITIES", ...Bigots,

YOU BROUGHT SLAVERY BACK MIS-USE BIBLE THUMPERS.....BRAIN WASHED!!! AS BILLY HOLLIDAY SONGED "STRANGE FRUIT" HANGING FROM THE TREES, (SHACKLES AND TREE HANGING AGAIN IN MIS-USE OF BIBLES STANDARDS AND CODES TO ENSLAVE OTHERS)

Posted by: shaiarra | October 20, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Buying time? How long have so many former members of the military who were ushered out for being gay been waiting for justice? The fortress of the good ol' boy network in the military (and elsewhere)established over the course of American history will not be easily toppled, obviously. Many comments herein prove that. Discrimination and prejudice in all their ugly forms are unjust, mean-spirited, and inhumane. DADT epitomizes the worst form of prejudice and promotes unbridled discrimination.

Posted by: politico5 | October 20, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Maybe instead of trying to legislate through the court system, we should just wait for the military to complete their analysis and make recommendations.

Sometimes, it's just as easy to follow the process as it is to try and force something.

Posted by: Benson | October 20, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Kind of sad how many right wing Taliban sympathisers we have here on this comment board. And why not just move to Iran, conservatives? They "have no gays" there, it's a right wing paradise.

I also love the arguments that gays can't serve well in the military, despite the countless distinguished careers on record from gay and lesbian Americans. Oh! But they can't serve with straight people. Gosh, how do ALL THESE COUNTRIES do it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service

# 2 Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military

* 2.1 Albania
* 2.2 Argentina
* 2.3 Australia
* 2.4 Austria
* 2.5 Belgium
* 2.6 Canada
* 2.7 Colombia
* 2.8 Czech Republic
* 2.9 Denmark
* 2.10 Estonia
* 2.11 Finland
* 2.12 France
* 2.13 Germany
* 2.14 Ireland
* 2.15 Israel
* 2.16 Italy
* 2.17 Lithuania
* 2.18 Luxembourg
* 2.19 Malta
* 2.20 The Netherlands
* 2.21 New Zealand
* 2.22 Norway
* 2.23 Peru
* 2.24 Philippines
* 2.25 Poland
* 2.26 Romania
* 2.27 Russia
* 2.28 Slovenia
* 2.29 South Africa
* 2.30 Spain
* 2.31 Sweden
* 2.32 Switzerland
* 2.33 Taiwan
* 2.34 United Kingdom
o 2.34.1 Bermuda
* 2.35 Uruguay

Yes -- just as with the death penalty, American conservatives stand virtually alone with only the fundamentalist Islamic countries on this. Allah al akbar, wingnuts. You've been on the WRONG side of history on every question so far concerning integrating people of color and women into the military. I don't know why you'd stop being wrong now. Being wrong seems to just be where you live...

Posted by: B2O2 | October 20, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

hmmm.... let's see a I am career military combat pilot. I have served with GAY Senior DOD career civilian staff, GAY Senior (Republican and Democrat) Presidential Appointess, Gay General Officers, Gay senior officers, Gay senior NCO's, and Gay enlisted ranks. Both Men and Women.

I've served in combat and peacetime -- with every uniform service -- and NEVER ONCE was someone's sexual orientation a problem.

So -- Please let me paraphrase Sun Tzu -- "You are all worried about what? Simple people: we are to WIN in battle. There is nothing else."

So I would ask all of you to please stop giving citizen judgments for something you know nothing about -- you have not been there -- and have not seen it.

Whether someone is Gay means absolutely nothing in war.

Posted by: fngVP | October 20, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

"But, Teabagging scum, don't let facts stand in the way of your moronic prejudices. Of course, given that you'd defend to the death a Constitution that your dear leaders don't even have a clue about, maybe the truth is not what can actually be observed, but rather, it is whatever you want it to be."

Yes, the tea partiers cherish the Constitution... except for all the amendments they want to repeal. The 13th, the 16th, the 17th, probably the 19th... and above all the First Amendment because it keeps us from establishing Christianity as the national religion.

They love America, they just hate half of our Constitution.

Posted by: B2O2 | October 20, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I am very happy that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just granted the stay the Justice Department lawyers have requested. Well, at least until Monday when they hear the full arguments on each side. I predict the Court of Appeals will grant a long term stay of this injunction during the life of the appeal, for the good reason that these judges will know that this decision will be struck down on appeal. This is because it is common knowledge in legal circles that higher federal courts have already ruled that the 1993 DADT law IS constitutional. It is also common knowledge in legal circles that federal judges are not now, nor were they ever intended to be experts on national security, thus, it is too obvioius that the judge in this case overreached. Two strikes against her. The fact that she was so irresponsible in trying to enforce a military wide injunction will not set well with the appeals court judges either. Three strikes, and you are out.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

As I predicted when the CA based judge made the ruling.

Now, 9th will uphold and then it will go to SCotUS and they will overturn based on past decisions in this area.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 20, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

B202 said: "Yes -- just as with the death penalty, American conservatives stand virtually alone "

------------------------------------------
Really? I remember Clinton leaving the campaign trail to go back to his state to sign a death warrant for an execution. Clinton is an American conservative?

No, but YOU are a hypocrite.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 20, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Just another example of Obama caving into the Conservatives. I somehow get the feeling that Obama is using this issue in the fashion he is in order to help protect his re-election bid. Disgusting!

Posted by: Maddogg | October 20, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

fngVP says: "Whether someone is [homosexual] means absolutely nothing in war."

Well, that is your opinion, and strongly held. I can see that. It happens to be totally wrong.

You have left out the all-important element of Divine Providence.

General George Washington, who knew something about Divine Providence, leaves us with good counsel, that wars cannot be won without the help of God. On this foundation did our nation rise.

If Homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Military there is every reason to believe that the American military will no longer have the benefit of Divine Providence.

Even now, military leaders believe they cannot win against a third world insurgency (taliban) who do not even have shoulder launched missiles. This is a fairly sorry state of affairs when it comes to a military who is supposed to have a winning spirit.

Homosexuals are by definition individuals who have surrendered to an enemy that is destroying their God-Given sense of identity. Wherever homosexuals go, they carry this spirit of defeat with them. And you are good example, I think, of how infectious that spirit of defeat can be.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Maybe instead of trying to legislate through the court system, we should just wait for the military to complete their analysis and make recommendations.

Sometimes, it's just as easy to follow the process as it is to try and force something.

Posted by: Benson | October 20, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The current Congress has a (supposedly) filibuster-proof majority for the Dems in the Senate and a huge margin in the House, and even they weren't able to get an overturn of DADT passed. Do you really think that the congress coming in January is going to be more favorable, regardless of the DoD study?

Hold a rock in the palm of your hand and look at it. The rock will turn to sand by the process of wind erosion before any congress in the age of hyper-polarized politics takes decisive action on a controversial social issue.

Also, challenging the constitutionality of a law in court is not "legislat[ing] through the court system." It's called Judicial Review, and we've been doing it since 1803.

Posted by: ModestProposal | October 20, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

@ klausdmk

Your 'theory' ignores the fact that gays ARE serving in the military. If the impact you imagine is real, DADT wouldn't be necessary at all. Everyone would know who was gay and who wasn't by their performance of duty, whether anyone did or didn't ask, or tell, it would just be obvious. Since homosexuals serving now, who are not out, haven't been outed by their performance, it's clear their homosexuality is not impacting their ability to do their duty. Why should everybody go through the ridiculous charade of pretending it matters if someone is openly homosexual, when the fact you can't tell who is, and who isn't unless told, proves there is no difference in the ability of homosexuals to serve?

As long as the guy next to you is a good shot, who cares if that guy is just a bit more "fabulous" than most, as he shoots the enemy's eyeball out of his skull?

Posted by: grantmh | October 20, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

fngVP:

What you write makes sense to me.

Posted by: goofynana | October 20, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

The ban on honesty (which is what DADT is) never made sense and it should not be able to stand up to a legal argument. I can't understand why the different divisions of government are fighting over who should be responsible for the end of this policy. The judicuary department has as much right as the others to make this happen, I just don't understand why it took so long.

Posted by: justgeoff | October 20, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

GoldenEagles said "If Homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Military there is every reason to believe that the American military will no longer have the benefit of Divine Providence."

It would seem by that statement you believe in imaginary beings...you are indeed delusional...and judging by how you are doing in Afghanistan...I think it must be too late...

Posted by: kmdyson | October 20, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Do we suppose the three judges will be labeled 'activist judges' by the anti-gay side, as is always the case when judges rule *in favor of* gay equality, i.e., Judges Walker and Phillips?

Don't bet the ranch.

Posted by: equalitygal | October 20, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Boo. Bad call.

The equal rights issue of our time. Decide now how to tell your kids why you felt someone else was inferior to you and didn't deserve what you could get so easily. Because that's what this court just did.

Posted by: sarahabc | October 20, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Gays serving openly in the U.S. military is a mistake. Military success is based on decisive and aggressive action against the enemy. Military training and discipline is competitive to sharpen skills to achieve objectives.

Compare Gay soldiers to heterosexual soldiers who are competitive to win the affection of opposite sex personal relationships. Have psychologists consider that Gays are attracted to the same sex because they feel inferior in competition for opposite sex relationships.

Preadolescent boys like to be with other boys more than with girls. Gays are developmentally stunted in their growth to maturity and adulthood. Would it be equal constitutional rights to have Gays serve in the military as women serve in the military?
Posted by: klausdmk

_________________

Had to repost the entire thing to fully grasp the sheer, incredible stupidity of it.

How do you think gays who aren't serving "openly" handle military service now?

Do you think that if they are allowed to be honest (one of the fundamental tenets of military service) they will suddenly act like pre-pubescent boys? Gay soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are just as competitive as hetero. Are you saying that if allowed to be open about what they are doing in private now they will lose all their marksmanship medals, leadership awards, and unit citations?

Honestly. After 24 years in the military I thought I had heard every stupid thing about military service possible. Dude. Really.

Posted by: arancia12 | October 20, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

P90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42$$$$$$$
sorry to disturb u. just take u a little time.
If you are in need,
welcome to : http://w w w . b 2 b j o r d a n s . c o m
50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,l nba jersy for sale sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale
free shipping
accept paypal credit card
lower price fast shippment with higher quality
Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code
numder
puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!
new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps
true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35
LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35
NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35
UGG TIMBLAND+LACOSTE SHOES+ED HARDY SHOES$35
DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15
DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15
new brand watches only $$$$$$$60
our website: http://www.b2bjordans.com

Posted by: 1561705755 | October 20, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

What a complete and total tool we have for president.

Posted by: seabelly1 | October 20, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

This is just one more reason that Obambam is already a lame duck President. He talks the talk but he hasn't got the guts to walk the walk. Too bad. The alternative is going to be even worse.

Posted by: sameolddoc |

____________________

I think you two geniuses miss something important. Unlike the Bush administration, we don't have an imperial presidency that runs the courts any more.

Today we have independent courts who make their own decisions. Dick Cheney isn't boss hog and the courts make decisions unimpeded by the Executive. Therefore, they can do what the President doesn't agree with.

Posted by: arancia12 | October 20, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

You have left out the all-important element of Divine Providence.

General George Washington, who knew something about Divine Providence, leaves us with good counsel, that wars cannot be won without the help of God. On this foundation did our nation rise.

If Homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Military there is every reason to believe that the American military will no longer have the benefit of Divine Providence.

Even now, military leaders believe they cannot win against a third world insurgency (taliban) who do not even have shoulder launched missiles. This is a fairly sorry state of affairs when it comes to a military who is supposed to have a winning spirit.

Homosexuals are by definition individuals who have surrendered to an enemy that is destroying their God-Given sense of identity. Wherever homosexuals go, they carry this spirit of defeat with them. And you are good example, I think, of how infectious that spirit of defeat can be.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 8:23 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ROFLMAO The comment is absurd. The USSR defeated Germany in WW II and Russia does not believe in God. Then in Vietnam God favored the North so they won aganist the US?

Think deeper please.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 20, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Wars - Part 1

One may well seek for a reason why Obama allowed an appeal of this decision to go forward. It was his call after all. He would just need to give the word, and the Justice Department would sit on its hands.

We have an example of that out here in California where a Federal Judge struck down Proposition 8, the California State Constitutional Amendment passed by the people of California that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. After the federal court ruled that this proposition was unconstitutional, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to appeal the ruling. Because the Governor personally supports homosexual marriages, and citing a broad latitude of discretion, he was not going to lift a finger to defend the people’s constitutional amendment in federal court. Obama could have made the same decision in this situation. And Obama has much more at stake in holding his pro-homosexual base than Schwarzenegger, who is not running for reelection.

Why did Obama not do what might have been reasonably expected of an ardent supporter of the homosexual agenda to destroy America?

In Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama's Wars, we may have an answer to this question, as to why Obama authorized an appeal of the decision that struck down the1993 DADT law as unconstitutional.

According to Woodward’s inside information, nearly every person in Obama’s circle of advisors, on the civilian side, were opposing General Stanley McChrystal’s request for an additional 40,000 troops for Afghanistan. On the other side, the military was lined up solidly in favor of this troop increase. Leading the support for this troop increase was (Republican) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. As a matter of personnel preference Obama was leaning toward the low end, 10,000 additional troops only, this would make his base happy, and nearly all of his civilian advisors were pulling in that direction as well.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Wars - Part 2

Yes, Obama would’ve had a lot of happy faces in his political entourage, and that includes the base of the Democrat Party, if he would have chosen the 10,000 number. The Democrat Base wants out of that war. But they would have accepted as a booby prize a decision to not escalate.

But the problem was, Defense Sec. Gates made it clear that there was a high likelihood that he would resign if Obama went that low. After all, Gates was on board to maintain a winning war effort in Afghanistan. And Obama valued Gates participation in his national security team. In fact, he is quoted as saying that he could not afford to lose Gates. In the end, this is what Obama decided, that he could not afford to lose Bob Gates as Sec. of Defense. So he chose the number that Bob Gates could get behind, which was 30,000, with a +10% fudge factor.


Now, it is important to understand that Defense Sec. Gates is the most ardent supporter of this internal DOD review process regarding the repeal of the DADT policy. No doubt, Obama only got the cooperation of Gates on the DADT repeal issue, because of an agreement that this review would be done. Obviously, this court decision threw a big wrench in that review process. And Gates was not happy about that. And so it was likely that he called in his chips, in this regard with Obama. In his low-key way, he probably made it quite clear, that if you don’t keep my review process alive, you won’t have my support for a DADT repeal. And if you go forward without this review, I will have to resign.

To keep that review process alive, and to ensure that the results of the review would be studied by Congress before deciding on a repeal of the DADT policy, this court decision had to be appealed. This was the only way to keep Gates happy.

This I believe is the reason that Obama authorized the appeal, and it will be an appeal with significant teeth. We might even consider the possibility that Obama exacted an additional promise from Gates to stay on longer as Defense Sec. if the appeal went forward. Gates had been planning on leaving the administration in January 2011.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Thank god for the wisdom of this court... This is an issue for the military to resolve, not some Lesbian judge in California who has a hate agenda

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | October 20, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Having a girlie-man in the shower room with a manie-man is even worst than having a girlie-girl in the shower room with a manie-man.

So if they segregate men and women shower rooms, why can't they segregate girlie-men and manie-men? And have it be within the law.

Makes sense to me.

Least we forget to segregate girlie-girls and manie-girls, also.

You have to understand that all gays believe all straights are in the straight closet wishing they could come out. In other words, the gays believe everyone is really gay.

So do manie-men really want a girlie-man to look at their genitals? Well the girlie-man wants to look and the manie-man doesn't what the girli-man to look.

Same with the girlie-girl and the manie-girl. No looking.

Posted by: MissClarty |

___________________

Did someone have a widdle unpleasant shower experience once?

Here's a hint chick, from someone who served. "Manie-men" (how utterly ridiculous but I'll speak your language) spend an awful lot of time talking about their own genitals. They are forever adjusting them, scratching them, and checking them. They don't really care who looks at them.

Posted by: arancia12 | October 20, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

This kind of flip-flopping is why this country can't seem to get anything done. Third world USA, here we come.

Posted by: boleson02 | October 20, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

There's a lot of crazy crap in these posts (not that I'm singling ANYone out, but we know who you are). I'm going back to the Christine O'Donnell posts now.

Posted by: DCNative59 | October 20, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

On the other side, the military was lined up solidly in favor of this troop increase. Leading the support for this troop increase was (Republican) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. As a matter of personnel preference Obama was leaning toward the low end, 10,000 additional troops only, this would make his base happy, and nearly all of his civilian advisors were pulling in that direction as well.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you know anything about the US Constitution? It is not the military's right to decide anything. Control of the military is in civilian hands, namely the President.

Please take a civics class and a world history class before you do anymore voting.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 20, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

If Homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Military there is every reason to believe that the American military will no longer have the benefit of Divine Providence.

Posted by: GoldenEagles

____________

Fred Phelps? Is that you? Where is the rest of the Westboro Church?

Oh Mr. Eagles. I served with gays and yet it seems the military still enjoys divine providence. How do you explain that?

You do realize there are gays serving don't you? Oh yes there are. They just don't tell. They still do and no one really cares.

Posted by: arancia12 | October 20, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

The military needs to open a gay & lesbian wedding chapel in the Pentagon, just like they opened a Muslim chapel.

Posted by: Maddogg | October 20, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Gays are ONLY succesful in Military because they must hide their sexuality.

Posted by: pgr8
*****************************************
One could only make that judgment through personal experience. Having said that, numerous armed services around the world have proven it's complete BS.

Posted by: st50taw | October 20, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Do you know anything about the US Constitution? It is not the military's right to decide anything. Control of the military is in civilian hands, namely the President.

Posted by: Maddogg
*******************************************
For people so hung up on original intent, some of these people can't seem to grasp that that this was WAY up on the Founders' list of important things to establish when forming our Constitution. Most would have preferred no standing army at all.

Posted by: st50taw | October 20, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

With friends like these. Clearly the Executive Branch thinks Congress is empowered by our Constitution to make such legislation, never mind the right to associate, and is arguing that it is within the province of the President to sign such legislation into law. The Justice Department is defending the right of government to define with whom a member of the Armed Forces can be intimate. Remember that old warning, first they came for my neighbor, and then they came for me. Next thing you know people will be paying a fine if they choose to not buy a gas guzzler, under the commerce clause, because the government needs to collect gasoline taxes to maintain the interstate highways from which everyone benefits.

Posted by: drray-yup | October 20, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse


maybe you can find answers here:

==== http://www.shoeswholesale.us ====
50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-

shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale

puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!

new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps

true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35

LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35

NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35

UGG TIMBLAND+LACOSTE SHOES+ED HARDY SHOES$35

DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15

DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15

our websit:
http://www.shoeswholesale.us”’
╭⌒╮⌒╮.’,”’,,’,.”,,’,”,.
╱◥██◣”o’,”’,,’,.”.”,,’,.
|田|田田│ ”,,’,.’,”’,,’,.”
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬e:

Posted by: wodwo49 | October 20, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse


=== http://www.sportsellshop.com/ ====
---------------------------

╭⌒╮WELCOME
----- ~ ¤ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╮
╭⌒╭⌒╮╭⌒╮~╭⌒╮
,)))),'')~~ ,''~)t-shirt$13
╱◥█◣ ╱◥█◣coach handbag$33
|田|田||田|田|Nike shox$35
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬ 2010 NEW
input this URL:

==== http://www.sportsellshop.com/ ====

you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
Air jordan(1-24)shoes$30-$34

Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini$25;

Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g)$35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste)$14

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi)$30

Jersey(NHL,NFL,NBA,MLB) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$12

sport jersey(NHL,MLB,NBA,NFL) $30

New era cap$12

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo)$20

UGG$48
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

==== http://www.sportsellshop.com/ =====

Posted by: sportsellshop | October 20, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama brings change to America! Nice work!

Posted by: capscapscaps2 | October 20, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

National security should be the primary interest of the military. When you enlist, the criteria should only be concerned if the person can meet the standards of a soldier. Special interests regarding lifestyle, etc is something one should engage in when they are not being a soldier. As a psychologist working in several VA mental hospitals, I see the problems of people entering the military when they focus on advancing personal special interest agenda - instead of being a soldier, honoring the vows, to protect America's national security. First these people enter, then demand special privileges which redirects funds from America's mission and puts other soldiers at risk, and they then start making excuses why they can't cut it and be successful in the "warrior" environment. They pay mentally; taxpayers pay financially. It weakens the system of national security and puts us all in jeopardy - worst of all - our foreign enemies are watching. Keep DADT - what you do in your bedroom should stay in your bedroom.

Posted by: dlhcommunity | October 20, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps I am over simplifying. DADT should not be a criteria at all. As a hetrosexual I don't introduce myself in that way. As a female I don't say in case you have not noticed I am female.
Forget it! why is any one asking or telling what ones sexual persuation is? What does it matter unless there is an agenda in which case I would have a problem.
Men and women choose to serve in the military then if they meet the requirements to do so than that is the end of it. What their sexual lifesyle is : is no ones business unless they cross the lines of acceptable behavior under the Military code. What about the hetrosexual man or woman who beak the military code? They are subject to military law and so should gay members of the military. Why does anyone need to know!!! You are there to do your job your sexual persuation is redunant.
Can everyone just sop this nonsence there are real problems in this world we need to solve this is Chicken poop.

Posted by: kandjc123 | October 20, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

maybe you can find answers here:

==== http://www.shoeswholesale.us ====
50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-

shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale

puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!

new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps

true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35

LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35

NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35

UGG TIMBLAND+LACOSTE SHOES+ED HARDY SHOES$35

DIESEL T-SHIRT,GSTAR T-SHIRT,CA T-SHIRT,50% OFF FOR SALE $15

DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15

our websit:
http://www.shoeswholesale.us”’
╭⌒╮⌒╮.’,”’,,’,.”,,’,”,.
╱◥██◣”o’,”’,,’,.”.”,,’,.
|田|田田│ ”,,’,.’,”’,,’,.”
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬e:

Posted by: wodwo49 | October 20, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

There are two quite different issues here. One is whether DADT should stay or go and Obama seems to have decided that it should go, but in time.

A more important question is whether a major policy change should be brought about by a single judge, especially someone who has no experience with the army. And there I would say no.

Courts are far more powerful in the US than they are in most developed countries. And the effect has been to paralyze democracy.

Posted by: rohit57 | October 20, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Divine Providence ....

Responding to my reference to Divine Providence, Maddogg says, “The comment is absurd. The USSR defeated Germany in WW II and Russia does not believe in God. Then in Vietnam God favored the North so they won aganist the US? Think deeper please.”

I agree that my statement which read, “General George Washington, who knew something about Divine Providence, leaves us with good counsel, that wars cannot be won without the help of God. On this foundation did our nation rise,” needs additional clarification.

I would change that to read, “General George Washington, who knew something about Divine Providence, leaves us with good counsel, that wars cannot be won by a religious people without the help of God. On this foundation did our nation rise.”

For the People of God, this is a very ancient axiom of national survival.

Psalm 127:1 - “Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

Populations which abandon God fall into a state of slavery, as the fate of both the Russian and German people illustrate, and this ensuing struggle between totalitarian powers, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany, takes place outside the equation of Divine Providence.

America was founded within the equation of Divine Providence, owes all success to the intervention of Divine Providence, and will certainly fall, if it steps outside the equation of Divine Providence.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Why are Americans so stupid? Obama is stupid for letting his Justice Department appeal the ruling, and the Republicans are stupid for opposing the end of the ban.

Time to grow up, humans. Time to give up your stupid prejudices, time to give up your religious bigotry. If the human race doesn't grow up and start learning how to live together, limit its numbers voluntarily, and be less of a burden on the natural environment, it's going to destroy itself, and it won't be pretty. Unfortunately, it looks like the destructors are ascendent right now, so we are doomed. Stupid humans.

Posted by: Chagasman | October 20, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

The countries that do allow homos are weak militarily. Russia does not allow gays in the military that is BS. Putin is probably laughing at Obama right now. The only country that does that is any good is the UK and their military is getting weaker every year. Many of the nations that do have conscript armies.

Posted by: screwjob22 | October 20, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Indulging in sodomy is a choice, sort of like deciding to eat a hot dog or not eat a hot dog. we expect people to not rape children or dogs as a matter of self control.

Posted by: carlbatey | October 20, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Responding to my exposition on the information in Woodward's book, Maddogg says, "Do you know anything about the US Constitution? It is not the military's right to decide anything. Control of the military is in civilian hands, namely the President. Please take a civics class and a world history class before you do anymore voting."

Well, Maddogg, I read the book, and those are the facts. Obviously if you took the time to read the book you would have a greater appreciation of the give and take that takes place between the President and the military. These are people who have to work together on a wide variety of threats, day in, and day out. Working relationships need to be tended like a green lawn in the depth of a Georgia summer. If the military says "A" and the President says "B", the President can of course order "B". But he won't do it if his Sec. of Defense, and all of his generals resign in protest, a fiasco which would cost the President the next election. You should really read the book. It is a good book, very informative, and gives you a perspective that you would never get from watching the news, or reading the newspapers. A good piece of journalism from Bob Woodward as usual (of Watergate Fame).

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse


Actually silly leftists it is Congess that makes laws that regulate the military and that is a power specifically granted to Congress under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Barry cannot undo a law and DADT is federal law. Only Congress can repeal it. If you do not have the votes in this Congress you won't in the next when there is a GOP majority in Congress.

Posted by: screwjob22 | October 20, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Chagasman says, and asks: "Stupid, stupid, stupid. Why are Americans so stupid?"

St. Paul said, "Let that mind be in you, that was in Christ Jesus."

Most of the American people, including about 99.9% of the leftwing simply ignore that piece of advice.

And so, now you know.

And do think homosexuals would still be homosexuals if they took that piece of advice? I don't think so.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 20, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm always amused by the certainty of those who never served that Homo's in the military is a good thing. Largely they are liberal which means they have never served but know what best for us that have. Laughable and tragic.

Posted by: USMC03sje | October 21, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Been in the Army, worked with gays. I knew more women then men that were gay. I never had a problem with any of them. I had more problems with straight guys then gays. The man I married was in the Army for 20 years and often worked with gay women. He said they were better workers then most. He usually ended up with them assigned to him because he treated them with respect and didn't hit on them. The people who have a problem with it are usually the kind of people I have a problem with. To bad there are so many of them.

Posted by: vkmcgee2 | October 21, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

@ GoldenEagles...

Man, you are one piece of work... You have no idea what you are talking about and have no room posting the spew you post over and over. Please crawl back into your little religious hole. You're pathetic and actually embarrassing to think you have a say in anything.

Posted by: darbyohara | October 21, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

darbyohara says: "Man, you are one piece of work..." and so forth.

This is the best argument that the mind of a homosexual sympathizer can come up with. Take note of that.

This is the attitude they take with them into every work environment. Including the military. A poster above mentioned the pattern. It does not have to be this subject area. If you don't agree with them on anything, they take out their baseball bat of character assassination and intimidation, and wail away at your handsome and shining face.

I stand by my basic observation, that the homoerotic urge originates in the black heart of a demonic presence, which broadcasts that urge into the vulnerable astral body of the victim. When the victim feels the urge, and acts on it, they are then hooked. That means the demon has established an inroad of control, and can tug on that control point at will. The soul is now a slave to the demon.

And because of the poison of God-Hatred that the demon injects into the astral body of the victim, along with the homoerotic urge (sort of like what you experience when you are bitten by a mosquito --- and most people wonder what is the purpose of leaving behind that nagging itch, if the only thing it wanted was your blood) the fabric of the soul itself begins to disintegrate and unravel, to the extent that the trapped individual comes to find that he or she cannot think a single positive thought about God. Not one. When the consciousness of the soul is turned towards alienation, this is how souls are not simply lost but destroyed.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | October 21, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company