Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Supreme Court declines to end 'don't ask, don't tell'

By Ed O'Keefe

Rejecting a request by a Republican gay rights group, the U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to stop enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy while a lower court hears a challenge to the ban.

Friday's decision by the high court keeps in place the military's ban on gays and lesbians serving openly as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit prepares to hear legal arguments in a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans. The group is challenging the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell" and in September convinced a federal district judge to briefly block enforcement of the ban.

The 9th Circuit reversed the decision, which led LCR to appeal to the high court on Monday. The Justice Department argued the policy should continue as the court case proceeds.

The justices provided no comment with their decision, but Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, the court said. Kagan previously served as the Obama administration's solicitor general and helped develop the Justice Department's strategy on the Log Cabin case.

LCR Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper said the group will continue to pursue legal and legislative avenues to lifting the gay ban.

"If necessary, we look forward to seeing President Obama's attorneys in court next year to prove, once again, that 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't work," Cooper said.

The legal battle continues as key senators are set to decide soon how to proceed on legislative efforts to lift the gay ban. The House passed a version of the annual defense authorization bill containing language repealing "don't ask, don't tell," but the Senate has failed to do so.

Several senators have said they are waiting to read the result of a Pentagon study on lifting the ban that is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.

The study concludes that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two sources familiar with the report who shared details with The Washington Post.

The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a separate legal effort against the Pentagon's policy on gays in the military. The group is suing to change the military's rules on the amount of separation pay given to service members discharged for being gay.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

RELATED: Sources: Pentagon group finds there is minimal risk to lifting gay ban during war

RELATED: Log Cabin Republicans' leader fights 'don't ask, don't tell'

RELATED: ACLU suing Pentagon over separation pay for gays

By Ed O'Keefe  | November 12, 2010; 1:31 PM ET
Categories:  Military, Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Postal Service posts $8.5 billion loss
Next: Deficit proposal would increase one federal workforce -- at the expense of military jobs

Comments

Now it's President Obama's Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy! He owns it. Thanks for the fierce advocacy, Sir.

Posted by: nycjim | November 12, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

As I predicted.

Posted by: illogicbuster | November 12, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

A Republican group is fighting to end discrimination against a persecuted minority group, gays, while a Democratic administration is fighting to perpetuate it. What a disgrace for Obama and his party!

No wonder so many liberals stayed home last week and handed the Republicans a big victory by default. Why is Obama asking for more of the same in 2012?

If he hates being president so much, he can just bow out, without waiting for millions of voters who support our soldiers but hate prejudice to help kick him out two years from now.

Posted by: lugalgazi | November 12, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

There is something fishy going on here. I think there are a lot of dynamics with LGBT going on right now and no one is reporting on them.

I really believe that the votes are there for gay marriage on The Supreme Court. Ted Olson would NEVER take a case he didn't feel confident he would win. Gates would have NEVER said on camera that they need to repeal DADT now because either the courts will do it and it be chaos or the legislature can do it and it will be much more orderly.

This is why the DADT report was leaked early and why they are going to try (and likely successfully) push ENDA through the lame duck session. If these things do not get passed by Congress now and The Supreme Court rules in favor of same sex marriage (either with the MA case or the CA case), these two laws have to be in place in order to prevent chaos.

If this were five years ago, the noise would be a lot louder on the right on these issues, but they are rather muted. It's because everyone in DC(left, right and center) knows the court has the votes to declare same sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

Posted by: robbygtx | November 12, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Dems are such wusses, they had 2 years to repeal the ban through congress like Obama wants and now his excuse will be that the Repubs control the lower house. I guess the truth is that neither party truly gives a crap about equal rights.

Posted by: ozpunk | November 12, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse


After the gays go on to win their case in the 9th Circuit court of appeals, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court where the gays will lose. We shall see.

Meanwhile the lame duck Senate will not repeal DADT. Two months ago they tried and failed on a 56-43 vote with Lisa Murkowski (R) not voting. In the lame duck session Murkowski will vote ... against ... and there will be new senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) who will also vote against, breaking the cloture attempt on a 55-45 vote.

If Jim Webb (D-VA) who opposes repeal switches sides and votes his conscience, it will be 54-46.


Posted by: screwjob22 | November 12, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

robbygtx,

Please name the five on the Supreme Court and say why the last one will vote for declaring same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 12, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I think it important to remember, the log cabin republicans brought a suit regarding DADT. The Presidents counsel asked that the DADT policy remain in place for now in that THE BROADER ISSUES be considered. Knowing that DADT is not the only issue which defines the LGBTI community it is dangerous to make case law with any decision for the whole community with one stroke of a pen, which is why you have a Republican pro-based movement pushing so diligently for change. One must always beware the wolf dressed in sheep clothing!
The last thing the queer community needs is to be limited by one policy measure when there is obviously much more at risk and at stake in the equal rights movement for the queer community! Never accept less in anxiousness to get a measely little toe hold or a scrap from the page of your entire civil rights!

Posted by: soshljustic | November 12, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I just watched CBC coverage for their Veteran's Day (Remembrance Day) and all their honoured dead who died in Afghanistan.

Hundreds of soldiers. Men and women.

Some were gay. Some were gay and married.

They fought bravely - and they died for their country.

I knew at least two of them - both happened to be straight.

It's been two decades since gays could actively serve in the Canadian military.

And while we in America went off-mission into Iraq, they fought and died.

Gay or straight.

Didn't matter.

Mr. President, TEAR DOWN THIS DADT!

(not that it matters, but I'm straight, and I didn't care when I served, so long as they did their job)

Posted by: WillSeattle | November 12, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

"What's the matter, Private?!?" "You can't do push ups?!?" "Act like a man and stop sniveling!" = EEO Complaint without DADT. REAL TALK! The whole process of motivating YOUNG MEN will have to change so that Gays won't get their FEELINGS hurt during the training process. In what other way can you tell an 18 year old to "man up" without the gay 18 year old complaining that the statement was improper discrimination? And yes, I'm an Army Veteran...

Posted by: thsmith3 | November 12, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse


THE TALIBAN WANTS TO SEE
OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY IN
THE U.S. MILITARY

The American people should stop this head long rush to self-destruction and consider why this is so.

Because Islam teaches that homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God, the Taliban can use the presence of homosexuals in the U.S. Military to fan up a greater intensity of hatred for the American soldiers among the Afghan population (who are universally Islamic).

In this regard, the advent of open homosexuality in the U.S. military will allow the Taliban to affix the label of the “Great Satan” on the forehead of every U.S. Soldier more effectively.

In this regard, open homosexuality in the U.S. Military would be a fantastic propaganda boon for our enemies, for the Taliban, allowing them to grow their numbers, which means higher casualties for American forces. That means more soldiers coming home in flag draped coffins.

It also means that the essential goal of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people will be pushed completely out of reach.

It will be a bell that cannot be unrung.

If that objective is out of reach, as General Patraeus says in his Counter Insurgency Manual, we will not be able to defeat the insurgency, and this is simply because we have given the Afghan people a reason to hate US, more than they hate the Taliban.

This policy of open homosexuality in the U.S. Military will ring the death nell for American efforts in Afghanistan.

And from this fact, you can understand the true nature of the motivating force behind this agenda. It is not Light. It is truly Evil.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 12, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Most of the reporting on this decision is slightly off.

The question before the Supreme Court was simply, should the stay be lifted.

The stay by the 9th Circuit put on hold, the lower District Court's ruling to halt any further enforcement of don't ask don't tell, because the policy was ruled illegal under existing US law and statute.

When the Supreme Court denied a request to lift the stay, all they were ruling is that additional consideration would be required before it was prudent to lift the hold on the District Court decision.

They did not strike down the District Court decision; it's simply on hold.

This is a prudent ruling as bills are pending in Congress which would eliminate don't ask, don't tell, and Congress, more properly, should make changes in the law, not the Court.

The decision is procedural, it leaves a stay in place.

That's all.

A decision on the merits of the case has yet to be issued from the US Supreme Court in this matter. They simply left the matter on hold.

Posted by: inojk | November 12, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for some measure and sanity inojk.

Posted by: CincinnatiRIck | November 12, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for some measure and sanity inojk.

Posted by: CincinnatiRIck | November 12, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

.

Hey Democrats,

Can't win by (buying) votes and the U.S. Supreme Court even turns you down.

BYE BYE

DEMOCRATS

.

Posted by: kstobbe1 | November 12, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

The contrast in rationality between inojk and GoldenEagles is like night and day.

Posted by: ajlerner1 | November 12, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Read the US Constitution.
Many rights are clear, many rights granted by our creator. No where is there a right for the GLBT addressed.

Posted by: commboss | November 12, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"In what other way can you tell an 18 year old to "man up" without the gay 18 year old complaining that the statement was improper discrimination?"
Posted by: thsmith3 | November 12, 2010 3:05 PM
==
This is your excuse for this discriminatory witch hunt contaminating our armed services?
thsmith3, this is an "excuse" shot through with baloney.
All the military top brass has no problem with lifting the ban because 70 percent of those serving, even in war zones, have no problem with serving with gays.
Except for the Marine Corps commandant, and if he resists an order to drop the ban, he needs to be replaced.
Implementation will largely reside with firm command.
Simple as that.
This witch hunt is slowly but surely coming to an end, and it's time.
It's a violation of the very Constitution all soldiers, male and female, swear to uphold.
This ban has been an excuse for a witch hunt, which devolves even to denial of benefits after they terminate someone on the basis rumors or secondhand snooping.
Such treatment after discharge is punitive, illegal (I suspect) and just another sign that the armed services is contaminated by discrimination when they behave in this manner.
Oh, yes.
I'm the daughter-in-law of a 30-year Airborne drill instructor and the wife of a 33-year veteran, now retired, who served in Vietnam.
My father-in-law is deceased, however my husband and I both strongly support the repeal of DADT.
It's a curse on the military, and in no way does it make the services more militarily effective.
If anything, the result is the direct opposite.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | November 12, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hmm, so apparently GoldenEagles agrees with Taliban. How ironic...

Posted by: ozpunk | November 12, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"In this regard, open homosexuality in the U.S. Military would be a fantastic propaganda boon for our enemies, for the Taliban, allowing them to grow their numbers, which means higher casualties for American forces.
That means more soldiers coming home in flag-draped coffins."
Posted by: GoldenEagles | November 12, 2010 3:25 PM
==
If that's the case, GE, then the percentage of deaths and injuries to British troops should have been monumentally higher than those suffered by the "Great Satan" -- U.S. military.
Actually, the direct opposite was true.
In fact, if the Taliban was so focused, they tripped up allowing ANY British soldiers to escape alive.
That has not been the case at all.
What's next?
Do you want General Petreaus going along with Karzai to form a coalition with the Taliban, as Karzai threatened to do earlier this year?
You want to give a leg-up in allowing the enemy to take over Afghanistan again?
Give me a break.
Behind that kind of rationalization is the spirit of a coward and a bully who loves a witch hunt.
The key to this issue is do you, or do you not support the Constitution?
Or, do you support discrimination and a caste system in this country, and the Constitution be dammed?
Simple as that.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | November 12, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It's simple. This law is wrong! It's Immoral. Stop defending it!

I am so mad at the president. If he doesn't stop and start standing up for what is right, he has lost my vote! I haven't voted for a republican in over 20 years, but I will -- He and the democrats, have done nothing, except spout words. If this lawsuit gets to the supreme court, and it's lost, Obama loses my vote, and probably the vote of the LGBT community.

Posted by: yogi1231 | November 12, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

.

Hey Democrats,

Eric Holder leaving too?::

While President Obama has said he disagrees with the 17-year-old law and has urged Congress to repeal it, the Department of Justice has defended it in court as part of its traditional role in treating laws passed by Congress as presumptively constitutional.

BYE BYE

DEMOCRATS

.

Posted by: kstobbe1 | November 12, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

The court system and the Congress, both have no balls, but can be as homophobic as anything. Where is the consideration of anti-discriminatory law?

We elected an administration for change, but this is crazy. Over 80% of the nation and most of the military want it to end and these do-nothings sit on their thumbs. Sad.

Posted by: ronjeske | November 12, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse


Never mind what the Dims won in 2008, two years ago. This is 2010. The GOP won a huge election one week ago. There will be a new GOP senator seated in two weeks; the other five new GOP senators join him on January the 3rd.

The only question for Dims should "Do we still have the votes in Congress?" and the answer to that is No.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 12, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: robbygtx, "I really believe that the votes are there for gay marriage on The Supreme Court."
------------------------------------------

Not even close. They'll fall back on precedent. Polygamy. They've already looked at Gays in the military. That'll also die at SCotUS.

Posted by: illogicbuster | November 12, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Sensationalize much with that headline?

Posted by: pry001 | November 12, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

SCOTUS has placed back to the 9th Circuit about 7/8ths of the appeals before consideration by the 9th Circuit. This was to be expected as a delaying tactic while Congress has one last chance to work a deal to eliminate DADT with a repeal of the law.

NOW the real truth will be told, if the Republicans that have pledged to overturn DADT if the defense dept study comes back with a positive statement to repeal DADT. McCain and others made that a campaign promise.

We'll see if their word is their bond or not.

Posted by: WagonMaster | November 12, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

A person who can read should be able toascertain from reading the bible that being gay is sinful and aganist nature,therefore the military service should question the mental acumen of gays.

Posted by: jdharwell85 | November 12, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Why would the US Supreme Court hear this case when it is being heard in a lower court? What is the point of a lower court having jurisdiction if it going to be usurped by a higher court?

The decision by the S.Ct. is the conventional course of action.

Your article was not worth writing.

Posted by: robertjames1 | November 12, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

It is so disingenuous to read all of the defending comments here re:homosexuals in the military! Not one post ever cites the destructive, disease spreading acts of sodomy and the devastating AIDS problem-especially the millions of our tax dollars that are spent in attempting to cure, or at least stem the AIDS holocaust!
No study has ever proved the source of a "sexual orientation",yet we continue to allow homosexuals to claim special rights to simply practice the degenerate acts of "fisting, golden showers, and feltching'!
Tell the TRUTH and quit tip-toeing around this issue!

Posted by: lyn3 | November 12, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

FROM A FIGHTER PILOT/USAF,I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH lyn3 AND GOLDEN EAGLES. WHERE IN THE HELL IS THIS JUDY-IN-TEXAS COMING FROM. SOUNDS LIKE A LESBO FRATENIZING WITH A COUPLE OF HETEROSEXUALS. GIRL GET WITH THE GOD-DAM PROGRAM; GAYS AND LESBIANS ARE NOT NORMAL PEOPLE. THERE IS A SHORT CIRCUIT SOMEWHERE , SIMILAR TO THE ONE GOING ON IN YOUR HEAD.

Posted by: VORGETTS2 | November 12, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Eucharist (communion) =is pagan in it's origin for CANNIBALISM / HUMAN SACRIFICE SYMBOLISM THAT OTHERS CONDEMN FRATERNAL ORDERS FOR ALLEGEDLY PRACTICING, BUT THE BIBLE THUMPING XTIANS DOIT AND YET BLOOD/FLESH CONSUMPTION EVEN SYBOLICALLY IS AN ABOMINATION DEATH PENALTY BY BURNING IN FIRE, ie Eat Flesh/ Drinking Blood (vampire),THATS AN ABOMITABLE UNNATURAL FOOD AND DRINK CONSUMPTION

But some religious fanitics will do anything to try to get a wedge issue into the mix to advance their agenda of social AND MONEY COMMERCE control over others. JEWS NEVER DID THIS, ITS PAGAN LEVITICUS 17:1-16, Lev. 26:29 , Jer. 19:9, Ezek. 5:10, GOOGLE: BIBLE DRINKING BLOOD CANNABALISM, SEE THE PUNISHMENT FOR XTIANS
exp The Neighbor Sacrifices Her Husband, Then "Symbolically" Dirnks his Blood and Eats his Flesh....Should we let the Kids visit and be Baby Sitted by her?????

DO XTIANS BOMB CLINICS etc? DO XTIANS SEND TERRORIST LETTERS TO THE US GOVERNMENT??? DO XTIANS ENCOURAGE ATTACKS ON SAME SEXERS??? DID THE CHURCH START SLAVERY IN THE US AND EUROPE??? DO XTIANS QUOTE FROM A BOOK (BIBLE) THAT ENDORCES GENOCIDE?/ SLAVERY AND CHILD MARRIAGES TO ADULTS??? POLYGAMY??? INCEST??, A MAN IS ALLOWED TO SALE HIS WIFE AND KIDS INTO SLAVERY TO PAY OFF HIS DEBTS..STONEING TO DEATH DISOBIDIENT KIDS(CHILD
ABUSE)...GOOGLE: BIBLE RAPE LAWS ,the shock of whats it says about RAPE OMG....SOME FAMILY VALUE HUH, RELIGION IS NO EXCUSE TO BE INHUMANE PERIOD, HUMANE CIVILITY

WARNING: ALERT LEVEL CAT-5 Evangelical Thought Police or E.T.P. Virus detected – Administer Anti-Mind Programming Counter Measures. Clearing Sequence to begin in 1,2,3,………..Clearing Complete – E.T.P. Virus Removed.
Clear and present danger

Posted by: shaiarra | November 12, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

GoldenEagles: Don't you think the Taliban are much more upset about women soldiers than they would be homosexual soldiers? You argument for keeping DADT is stupid.

Posted by: willisforrester | November 12, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse


"It is so disingenuous to read all of the defending comments here re:homosexuals in the military! Not one post ever cites the destructive, disease spreading acts of sodomy and the devastating AIDS problem-especially the millions of our tax dollars that are spent in attempting to cure, or at least stem the AIDS holocaust!
No study has ever proved the source of a 'sexual orientation',yet we continue to allow homosexuals to claim special rights to simply practice the degenerate acts of "fisting, golden showers, and feltching'!
Tell the TRUTH and quit tip-toeing around this issue!"

Posted by: lyn3 | November 12, 2010 8:24 PM


Damn, lyn3, you're on this site too-- and with the same homophobic comment. Let me repeat my earlier comment to you and your fellow homophobes:

Reading your homophobic rant makes me think of what happens when someone "passes gas" around others. Should we politely say nothing as we try to hold our breath or discreetly cover our nose? Or should we burst out laughing hysterically, and shout, "Stop farting!!!"

Posted by: tttvance | November 12, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

GOODNESS GRACIOUS, NOW WEVE GOT THE DADT CROWD TRYING TO OUTLAW FARTING IN PUBLIC.THESE MISFITS REALLY TAKE THE CAKE !

Posted by: VORGETTS2 | November 13, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

I don't understand Obama at all anymore. The guy stands for nothing that he pretended to support during his campaign, and seems almost a coward in fighting the right while giving lip to his natural constituency.

Does someone have a dark dirty secret on one of the Obamas? Is he a closet reactionary? What the hell happened to this guy? Bill Clinton seems like Stonewall Jackson in comparison to the suddenly little Barak.

What a disappointment. I'll support an opponent in the 2012 primaries if this guy doesn't get tough and moderate real quick. If he bends to the Tea Party I'll puke.

President Obama the New Brickhead: No effin' rich tax cuts, and poof! ...no need to threaten the vast bulk of America dependant on Social Security - that AMERICANS pay for; it's no entitlement, Tea Creeps - and Medicare. Who gives a damn about tax cuts for the rich when so many senior and disabled are dependent on them? What do the New American Fascists think will happen...old folks will start working at McDonald's with emphysema or arthritic hips? Do the Tea Baggers advocate getting retired people "dead" sooner, by denying them healthcare and a modicum of monthly income?

Welcome, America, to Tea Compassion, equivalent to a mathematic null set.

Posted by: 2229 | November 13, 2010 3:32 AM | Report abuse

Vorgets2: "GET WITH THE GOD-DAM PROGRAM; GAYS AND LESBIANS ARE NOT NORMAL PEOPLE."

Dear Confederate bigot: you must've gotten drunk one teenaged night and given your brother a BJ. People like you usually have a reason for hating someone so much. Maybe you enjoyed it a bit too much? ...until that hangover whacked you the next morning.

I hope you won't reproduce. Thanks. I can just imagine the homophobic little brats you'd "raise".

Posted by: 2229 | November 13, 2010 3:44 AM | Report abuse

"NOW the real truth will be told, if the Republicans that have pledged to overturn DADT if the defense dept study comes back with a positive statement to repeal DADT."

While I hate DADT and would love to see it repealed, the Republicans only won the House, not the Congress. They can't overturn anything on their own, campaign promise or not. If the study supports repeal, Democrats will want it gone far more than homophobic Republicans ever will. Being the party with less backbone, the Dems need the extra assurance of a positive study to act.

Posted by: 2229 | November 13, 2010 3:55 AM | Report abuse

"The American Civil Liberties Union has launched a separate legal effort against the Pentagon's policy on gays in the military. The group is suing to change the military's rules on the amount of separation pay given to service members discharged for being gay."

...yet the ACLU was completely silent in defending the Reverend Jones' right to free speech to say he does not like Islam. I wonder why?

Posted by: garrafa10 | November 13, 2010 4:04 AM | Report abuse

lyn3: "Not one post ever cites the destructive, disease spreading acts of sodomy and the devastating AIDS problem..."

Heh heh. Who is this wingnut? Um, Honeybunch, AIDS is spreading far more quickly these days amongst HETEROSEXUALS than homosexuals, and has been for quite a while.

Now, what were you saying?

"...-especially the millions of our tax dollars that are spent in attempting to cure, or at least stem the AIDS holocaust!"

In recent years, a great improvement in drugs to treat the disease has reduced AIDS from a "holocaust" to a, still, menacing danger.*Not* spending millions to prevent this and many other deadly diseases would be the height of stupidity.

It's spread from unprotected sex, no matter the genders involved.

Do you think, lyn3, that homosexual soldiers will be raping everyone else, spreading the disease? Just what the hell are you thinking, or saying? What is cooking so hotly in your imagination? Sodomy orgies with every male soldier turning feverishly homo? Gads, you're funny.

Wipe that foam off your mouth or somebody'll think you have hoof and mouth. Just ask Bill Cosby.

Posted by: 2229 | November 13, 2010 4:11 AM | Report abuse

garaffa10: "...yet the ACLU was completely silent in defending the Reverend Jones' right to free speech to say he does not like Islam. I wonder why?"

Jones was hate speech; this is about protecting a persecuted minority. Sorry you're so confused.

Reverend Jones is lucky someone didn't break his teeth down his throat. What human garbage, an extremist christian with no brain. What's to defend?

Posted by: 2229 | November 13, 2010 4:17 AM | Report abuse

"A person who can read should be able toascertain from reading the bible that being gay is sinful and aganist nature,therefore the military service should question the mental acumen of gays."

Anyone so slavishly controlled by an ancient book filled with unlikely myths should see a psychiatrist. Who gives a crap what St. Paul the Misanthrope thinks? Besides homosexuality, the Bible also calls women without headwear on the Sabbath an "abomination" along with the "abomination" of eating shellfish on the Sabbath.

We gonna start attacking women and seafood like you homophobes attack gays based on your idiot bible? Read the good parts - there's excellent social commentary most zealots never pay attention to - but realize there's also junk and murderous crap in there as well, and shut the hell up. Nobody knows anything for sure until they die, if there is anything.

If your God doesn't like homosexuals, he should quit creating them. Sounds like massive incompetence to me.

Posted by: 2229 | November 13, 2010 4:45 AM | Report abuse

"Jones was hate speech; this is about protecting a persecuted minority. Sorry you're so confused.

Reverend Jones is lucky someone didn't break his teeth down his throat. What human garbage, an extremist christian with no brain. What's to defend?

Posted by: 2229"

You are a mongoloid. Reverend Jones merely expressed his opinion that Islam is evil and it is your definition this is hate speech. The ACLU defended the rights of Nazis to march in Illinois or do you forget this unpleasant fact? You and your Muslim friends are fortunate to not be subjected to extraordinary rendition. You are an idiot.

Posted by: garrafa10 | November 13, 2010 5:13 AM | Report abuse

Lots of farting going on since I wrote my comment last night to lyn3-- on both sides.

Those who are for repeal of DADT: We do not need nor should we want to get in a farting match with the right wing because, one, it gives their prejudice credibility; two, it makes us looks as bad as them; and three, we don't need to name-call because we have reason and right on our side.

So hold your nose when they fart in the knowledge that they will, in time, lose the argument. It is inevitable, even with President Obama holding things up by trying to get along with those who hate him.

Posted by: tttvance | November 13, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company