Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's Prop. 8?

Adam Serwer is a staff writer for The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

Yesterday, the Pentagon directed military services to begin accepting openly gay and lesbian military recruits, following Judge Virginia A. Phillips's decision to refuse the government's request for a stay of the injunction barring the military from enforcing its discriminatory don't ask don't tell policy. The reasoning was simple -- having failed to prove that allowing gays and lesbians to serve harms military readiness or unit cohesion, there was no reason to grant a stay based on the argument that allowing gays and lesbians to serve harms military readiness or unit cohesion.

The truth is that gay and lesbian servicemembers have already served openly -- as Judge Phillips noted in her ruling, the military has halted DADT investigations for servicemembers deployed in combat situations, undermining the notion that allowing gays and lesbians to serve undermines military effectiveness. Judge Phillips' denial of a stay however, means that the public will be able to see that for themselves.

The arguments for ejecting servicemembers based on sexual orientation are strikingly similar to those put forth by opponents of marriage equality. As with the defendants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the legal challenge to California's Proposition 8, the case against extending equal rights to gays and lesbians falters in court, where proponents are forced to actually show empirical evidence that supports their beliefs. Just as supporters of Proposition 8 failed to provide convincing evidence that allowing gays and lesbians to marry harms heterosexual marriages, the government was unable to prove in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly was at all harmful to the military, and that the government therefore has any reason to prevent them from doing so. In her ruling, Judge Phillips noted that there is evidence the opposite is true -- the financial cost of enforcing DADT, the climate of suspicion it creates for servicemembers, and the loss of recruits and trained experts all harm the undermine the national defense.

The government's case for keeping DADT, like the case against marriage equality, relies largely on an archaic, rapidly diminishing cultural revulsion toward homosexuality. Much of the government's "evidence" consisted of congressional testimony from twenty years ago that assumes that our professional volunteer military is in fact incapable of being professional. The idea that religious servicemembers would be unable to serve alongside gays and lesbians, and that gays and lesbians would somehow be incapable of fulfilling their duties without violating rules against fraternizing is insulting to both. As Judge Phillips noted in her ruling, no empirical evidence was presented at the time to justify this conclusion -- in fact, empirical evidence suggested the opposite -- it was simply assumed. This is more pathetic than prejudice. It is superstition.

Neither is the threat of servicemembers leaving because of moral objections to homosexuality a compelling reason to curtail the rights of gay and lesbian servicemembers. Despite General Colin Powell's argument in 1993 that skin color is a "benign, nonbehavioral characteristic," it's a good bet that in 1948 when President Truman integrated the armed forces that many whites didn't see it that way.

The administration has indicated that it will appeal Judge Phillips's decision, even as it allows the services to allow gay and lesbian recruits and it presses for repeal in Congress. The administration insists it has a legal obligation to defend the statute, although many legal experts say otherwise. This is likely a political decision -- the administration wants to be able to take credit for repealing the law, it wants to keep its promise to the military to allow the policy to be repealed at a pace of their choosing, and it doesn't want to allow conservatives to change the subject from an unjust policy that most Americans oppose to the tyranny of unelected judges enforcing their liberal social sensibilities by fiat.

The administration now finds itself hurtling toward an irreconcilable moral conflict. If its repeal effort fails and another court upholds DADT, those openly gay and lesbian recruits will be in danger of discharge. But just as the images of happy, newly married same-sex couples put the lie to the apocalyptic predictions of societal breakdown made by marriage equality opponents, the admission of openly gay and lesbian service members will further erode the already feeble basis for keeping DADT. The skies will not crack open, thunder will not roll, al-Qaeda will not suddenly establish a Western caliphate with Washington as its capitol. Life will go on largely as it has before.

But if the administration successfully appeals Judge Phillips's decision, it will find itself obligated to enforce a policy the president himself says he opposes and that he says undermines national security, a policy with no empirical, legal, or moral basis. The administration will have effectively instituted its own Proposition 8, retroactively denying rights to individuals who already have them. That will be significantly harder to explain or justify than simply maintaining the status quo. After having promised to repeal DADT, Obama would be responsible for its ongoing survival. 

It's hard to imagine that this is the kind of legacy the first black president of the United States would want to leave.

 

By Adam Serwer  | October 20, 2010; 10:28 AM ET
Categories:  gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Jack Conway's next attack on Rand Paul: Sales tax

Comments

There is simply NO credible argument against Gays serving in the military. And in fact the evidence is overwhelming that there will be no problem when we finally enter the 21st Century.

Armed forces around the world, many of them our allies, have integrated gays into their forces long ago with no adverse effect. Some of them have fought along side of us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here is a list of countries that allow gays 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

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 20, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

They should challenge it but just totally botch the trial and leave it at that.

On a side note, this list of attendees at the Koch planned right wing planning forum on how to take control of this country should be troubling to anyone who gives a crap.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/20/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/

Check out the list at the bottom of attendees. These aholes are going to run this country into the ground if they aren't stopped. Wages will continue to go down to compete with global wages so industry can make more profits, pollution will go up for the same reason. It's all about money for these jerks.

What drives me up the wall is all these teatards running around claiming its all about freedom. Bologna, it's corporate greed masked in a flag.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 20, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

It is not that hard to imagine that the "first black president" might share the view that only blacks are entitled to civil rights in this country.

It is also perfectly clear that Obama does not have the spine to stand up to the incompetent Pentagon, who can't win wars maybe because they are cowards scared of gay dudes. (No wonder we're stuck in Afghanistan...)

The DADT fiasco will be viewed as a critical moment in the Obama presidency, but he has already failed. Obama was handed the death of DADT on a silver platter, but instead of rising to the occasion like Truman, he winced in the corner like a wimp.

Obama=Wimp is the meme result of the DADT fiasco.

Posted by: cambridge-persisitence | October 20, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I live out here in California and voted for Proposition 8 (Obama is against same-sex marriage too). One reason it passed was because a large number of African-Americans voted for it too. There's no basis to make this a "black legacy" issue.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 20, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"I live out here in California and voted for Proposition 8 (Obama is against same-sex marriage too). "

He also disagreed with this law that limited peoples rights.

Same thing with guys like Tim Kaine. He's pro-life but isn't going to try and legislate his religious beliefs.

The overwhelming diff between Dems and Repubs is Repubs will force you through laws to uphold their religious beliefs if given the chance.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 20, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, Lt. Dan Choi re-enlisted in the Army.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/lt-dan-choi-youre-in-the-army-now/legal-issues/2010/10/19/13964

"Lt. Dan Choi, the Iraq war veteran, Arab linguist, and West Point grad turned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal activist, today got what he had said he wanted from day one: the opportunity to serve his country in the armed forces again. This afternoon, amid dozens of reporters, and thousands of passersby — most totally unaware they were seeing history in the making — Lt. Dan Choi, the former Army infantry officer, re-enlisted in the military, this time, as an out gay man."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 20, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington, murder is against my religious beliefs too. Are you arguing for the legalization of that?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 20, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

OT

In 2006, Koch Industries owner Charles Koch revealed to the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore that he coordinates the funding of the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks, media outlets and other anti-government efforts through a twice annual meeting of wealthy right-wing donors. He also confided to Moore, who is funded through several of Koch’s ventures, that his true goal is to strengthen the “culture of prosperity” by eliminating “90%” of all laws and government regulations. Although it is difficult to quantify the exact amount Koch alone has funneled to right-wing fronts, some studies have pointed toward $50 million he has given alone to anti-environmental groups. Recently, fronts funded by Charles and his brother David have received scrutiny because they have played a pivotal role in the organizing of the anti-Obama Tea Parties and the promotion of virulent far right lawmakers like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). (David Koch praised DeMint and gave him a “Washington Award” shortly after the senator promised to “break” Obama by making health reform his “Waterloo.”)

While the Koch brothers — each worth over $21.5 billion — have certainly underwritten much of the right, their hidden coordination with other big business money has gone largely unnoticed. ThinkProgress has obtained a memo outlining the details of the last Koch gathering held in June of this year. The memo, along with an attendee list of about 210 people, shows the titans of industry — from health insurance companies, oil executives, Wall Street investors, and real estate tycoons — working together with conservative journalists and Republican operatives to plan the 2010 election, as well as ongoing conservative efforts through 2012. According to the memo, David Chavern, the number two at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Fox News hate-talker Glenn Beck also met with these representatives of the corporate elite. In an election season with the most undisclosed secret corporate giving since the Watergate-era, the memo sheds light on the symbiotic relationship between extremely profitable, multi-billion dollar corporations and much of the conservative infrastructure. The memo describes the prospective corporate donors as “investors,” and it makes clear that many of the Republican operatives managing shadowy, undisclosed fronts running attack ads against Democrats were involved in the Koch’s election-planning event:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/20/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 20, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Code pink shrews like Phillips making policy for the nation and people are dumb enough to put up with it. We're in a downward spiral.

Posted by: A_P_Eppink | October 20, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Serwer is overly critical of Obama. We get it.

For example, I both oppose DADT vehemently and support the military's timeline for ending the failed policy that has no justification legally nor in practice. But letting the process play out in accordance with the military's wishes is, imho, the smart, judicious way to handle a complex problem both policy-wise and politically.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 20, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"mikefromArlington, murder is against my religious beliefs too. Are you arguing for the legalization of that?"

Nope.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 20, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

PaciolisRevenge, you read the list of attendees and who they represent.

Those jerks are trying to take this country over via propaganda and astro-turf campaigns and the press, apart from the NYT as of late, is just sitting around letting them do it.

Ever major news org needs to focus like a laser on everyone in that list and expose the ridiculous conflict of interests of their campaigns against labor standards and pay, and climate legislation.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 20, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington - It gets worse, I suggest taking a look at the link.

******

– Participants collaborated with infamous consultants who specialize in generating fake grassroots movements, as well as experts on how corporations should take advantage of Citizens United. One session, about how to “mobilize citizens for November,” involved a discussion with Republican strategists Tim Phillips and Sean Noble, anti-union leader Mark Mix, and longtime Koch operative Karl Crow. Phillips — a veteran astroturf lobbyist who previously managed a deceptive grassroots lobbying campaign to help the Hong Kong-based Tan family maintain their forced abortion sweatshops in the Mariana Islands — now leads the day-to-day operations of Americans for Prosperity, the group ThinkProgress first reported to have helped organize many of the initial Tea Party rallies against Obama. Americans for Prosperity, founded and financed by David Koch, has a field team of over 80 campaign staffers spread out around the country, and additionally plans to spend $45 million dollars worth of attack ads against Democrats. Shortly before the planning meeting, Crow authored a campaign finance memo explaining that because of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, he advised specifically that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 501(c)(6) and Americans for Prosperity’s 501(c)(4) can “now use general treasury funds to produce communications materials opposing or supporting specific candidates” and corporations can aggressively pressure their employees to vote a certain way.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 20, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Punishing adulterers in the military also comports with my religious beliefs. Are you for repealing that part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 20, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

This is a purely legal, and not a political, note.

For clarity, DADT is an administrative device to avoid the statutory disqualification [DQ] of homosexuals from military service. DADT is a peripheral matter, the statutory DQ is the central issue.

When the statutory DQ was passed, the JCs testified that it served the purpose of military discipline and good order. The legislative decision that was made is not subject to second guessing by a court because the the testimony Congress relied upon was inaccurate or insufficient in the eyes of anyone. The trial court confused the evidence standards for a facially void statute with the evidence standards for a statute applied incorrectly or with overbreadth. This is the fundamental weakness in the ruling, and it will in this respect be reversed, if Congress does not act to moot the matter.

In another respect, it may stand. Once an individual servicemember has proven his/her worthiness, the statutory presumption of DQ
is arguably rebuttable, if not rebutted, and that complainant cannot be separated as disqualified without due process. For the already serving,the analysis of the statute "as applied" makes sense.

Again, I expect the matter to be mooted as follows:
Congress repeals the DQ; the military completes its assessment, and then the military writes a new regulation which permits homosexuals to serve under the same rules of personal conduct as heterosexuals.

I expect the 9th Circuit to stay the injunction and the political process to conclude before the judicial one.
===========================
A facial invalidity in a statute occurs when it flatly contradicts the Constitution on its "face". Here, that seems impossible to reach, partly because there is no "right" to join the military, and partly because sexual orientation gets almost, or perhaps the same, level of scrutiny as gender, but not as race.

Example of the different level of scrutiny:
women and men have different illness and death rates, so insurers charge men more for life insurance and less for health insurance, based on statistics, a rational basis. However, blacks and whites have different illness and death rates, but insurers cannot distinguish on race, because the scrutiny standard for racial distinctions is higher than rational basis.

I am trying in a short memo to shed some light on a particular decision that in one respect overreached but in another did not.
I hope that I was clear.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 20, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

The administration should have fought the ruling, not because it is incorrect, but because it is bad policy to allow the courts more and more to shape what happens in the military. Within a couple of years you will see a challenge to the ban on women in combat roles with similar results, a court ordered change.

Each successiver ruling will strenghthen the use of the court system as arbiter. I can foresee a challenge to promotions as a logical outgrowth of this.

Again, It makes sense to allow gays to serve, but that policy should have come from the governmnet/military, not the courts.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 20, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

There is simply NO credible argument against Gays serving in the military. And in fact the evidence is overwhelming that there will be no problem when we finally enter the 21st Century.

Armed forces around the world, many of them our allies, have integrated gays into their forces long ago with no adverse effect. Some of them have fought along side of us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here is a list of countries that allow gays 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

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 20, 2010 10:44 AM |

........................

Israel. Wow. Haven't they ever heard of The Old Testament, and where it originated. Snark alert.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 20, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"But just as the images of happy, newly married same-sex couples put the lie to the apocalyptic predictions of societal breakdown made by marriage equality opponents, the admission of openly gay and lesbian service members will further erode the already feeble basis for keeping DADT. The skies will not crack open, thunder will not roll, al-Qaeda will not suddenly establish a Western caliphate with Washington as its capitol. Life will go on largely as it has before."

Classic example of simplistic liberal argument and refusal to engage issues honestly. Liberal "thought" is a matter of slogans and simplistic retorts. It deals primarily in straw men.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Mark, do you think that the punishment for [heterosexual] adulterers should be repealed from the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 20, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

???

He's already "responsible for its ongoing survival."

What's more, he hasn't by all accounts "pressed for repeal" in Congress. The WH has barely lifted a finger.

Posted by: davidmizner | October 20, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

qb, the honesty is that God didn't strike anyone down for allowing for gay marriage as he won't when they are allowed to serve openly.

I wonder if the Phelps family gets tired of being proved wrong over and over.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 20, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

OT:

-GOP's Medicare Part D Has a Bigger Impact on Deficit than TARP, Stimulus, HCR COMBINED-

Calculations by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other independent fiscal experts show that the $1.1 trillion cost over the next 10 years of the Medicare prescription drug program, which the Republican-controlled Congress adopted in 2003, by itself would add more to the deficit than the combined costs of the bailout, the stimulus and the health care law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20spend.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 20, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"The administration should have fought the ruling, not because it is incorrect, but because it is bad policy to allow the courts more and more to shape what happens in the military."

This is what I find most disturbing, and shocking that it isn't receiving attention. It's crazy to have a federal judge sitting in San Diego purporting to determine fundamental military policy.

Congress should remove jurisdiction (assuming it exists in the first place). I'm not expert in the field, but I wouldn't be surprised to see SCOTUS ultimately vacate the decision and hold the issue nonjusticiable.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Did you know that the founding fathers wanted to create a set of laws that would "comport" with Clawrence's(AKA JakeD2) religious beliefs.

Every law they contemplated establishing, they first put through the: Hey will it "comport" with Clawrence's religious beliefs, test. He was the founding fathers' Mikey.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 20, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"It's hard to imagine that this is the kind of legacy the first black president of the United States would want to leave."

Why do liberals HATE the late, REPUBLICAN, MLK? Why can't they be color blind like Dr. King asked? BIGOTS!

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 20, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"Mark, do you think that the punishment for [heterosexual] adulterers should be repealed from the Uniform Code of Military Justice?"

I'm not sure that's a form of discrimination. Or are you making the argument that cheaters are being discriminated against because of some kind of cheating gene they were born with?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 20, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

clawrence, I think that is a decision best left to the military. I cannot think of why Congress would repeal any part of the UCMJ that the military wants, and I sure do not see any constitutional facial invalidity there.

IF the JCs thought that should be repealed, and they repealed it, I would have no issue with that decision, either. In fact, to someone who served in 1968, but only briefly until an HD from a naval hospital, I could imagine the argument that the criminal law is not the best deterrent to broken families still has some validity.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 20, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"The administration should have fought the ruling, not because it is incorrect, but because it is bad policy to allow the courts more and more to shape what happens in the military."

Agreed. Congress passed DADT, Congress should repeal it too.

That said, DADT always seemed like it was vulnerable to a constitutional challenge in the courts. I'd rather the courts stay out of it, but then I'm not gay, nor am I in the military.

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 20, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

How long now will it be till Phillips declares sex between a 'gay' and his favorite poodle shall now be a protected behavior requiring accommodation and encouragement by the military and the rest of society as well. At least she and her ilk should be honest enough to simply state explicitly and clearly in a sentrnce or two what they're ordering society to do and dispense with the reams of legal bs. Which is emphatically what it is. What a crazy situation. And what's even crazier is that people are dumb enough to put up with it. Libs like her wouldn't know how to do what's right it it were explained to them explicitly and dumped in their lap. No, really, they'd simply refuse to do what's right as she's done here. A complete and utter rejection of traditional values by her and her ilk. A LOT of military guys, who put their lives on the line, unlike the wimp (too many anyway) civilians who figure defense responsibility should be borne by someone else, are being screwed by her (and others). We're in an accellerating downward spiral:

Posted by: A_P_Eppink | October 20, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

OT:

RUK,

For you to spread around! Damning video of Rick Scott being deposed!

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/watch-rick-scott-get-deposed

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 20, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Why do liberals HATE the late, REPUBLICAN, MLK? Why can't they be color blind like Dr. King asked? BIGOTS!"

You mean like the VA Beach Republican Chairman who forwarded this joke around:

"MY DOG
I went down this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare.

At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare".

So I explained to her that my Dog is black, unemployed, lazy, can't speak
English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is.

So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify...

My Dog gets his first check Friday.

Is this is a great country or what?"

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 20, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Define adulterers? Are they talking about married people cheating on their spouses, or are they talking about unwed heterosexuals having sex?

Since they call it: The Uniform Code, shouldn't they be required to apply it Uniformly, regardless of sexual orientation? Apply DADT to all, or apply it to none. If they are going to kick out gay people for violating DADT, then they should kick out heterosexuals when the violate DADT. Uniform Code, you know. Just apply it uniformly, and the military brass will rush to demand that DADT be repealed.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 20, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Classic example of simplistic liberal argument and refusal to engage issues honestly. Liberal "thought" is a matter of slogans and simplistic retorts. It deals primarily in straw men.


Posted by: quarterback1
---------------------------------------
Since the overwhelming public sentiment is to end DADT, why aren't you outraged that Congress is shoving this policy down our throat?

Or does your desire to legislate via national polls apply solely to situations where you agree with the majority?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 20, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington - I think illogicbuster is our resident jellyfish's (savetherainforest / classic777 / CapitalorCapital / LeafofLife ) new name.

New name, same ret@rded A-h@#! non-sense (his spelling not mine.)

Posted by: PaciolisRevenge | October 20, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

The overwhelming diff between Dems and Repubs is Repubs will force you through laws to uphold their religious beliefs if given the chance.

Posted by: mikefromArlington
________________________________

You make it sound like the only beliefs have is based on religion. Not to open up the abortion debate here, but there are many scientific reasons for opposing it that have nothing to do with religion.

But back to the DADT ruling, it's a bad ruling for the right reasons. I wish the courts would allow political questions of policy to be decided by the political branches.

Posted by: Bailers | October 20, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"The government was unable to prove in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly was at all harmful to the military."

I don't think the Log Cabin Republicans have received anywhere near the credit they deserve.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 20, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

All, check out Jack Conway's next attack on Rand Paul:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/jack_conways_next_attack_on_ra.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 20, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I don't think the Log Cabin Republicans have received anywhere near the credit they deserve.

Posted by: sbj3 | October 20, 2010 11:45 AM |

...................

You are probably right about that. Palin's Tea Party Express should feature some of them on stage, at each rally from now to election day.

You should get the ball rolling, by contacting your pet candidate, Sharron Angle. You know that she will listen to a frequent donor like you.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 20, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Since the overwhelming public sentiment is to end DADT, why aren't you outraged that Congress is shoving this policy down our throat?

Or does your desire to legislate via national polls apply solely to situations where you agree with the majority?"

I have no idea where you got the idea that I favor legislation through polls, but I never have. Nor did I say anything about it here. In this case, though, I don't for a minute believe there is overwhelming public sentiment for gays in the military.

More importantly, the idea that it is a question for one crackpot judge is lunacy.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I have no idea where you got the idea that I favor legislation through polls, but I never have. Nor did I say anything about it here. In this case, though, I don't for a minute believe there is overwhelming public sentiment for gays in the military.

More importantly, the idea that it is a question for one crackpot judge is lunacy.

Posted by: quarterback1
----------------------------------------
Well you referenced having health care slammed down your throat in another thread so I figured that was in reference to the lack of public support for that bill. If you were referring to something else with respect to the bill being slammed down your throat, let me know.

Here's a CNN poll showing Americans favor letting gays serve in the military.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/99689-poll-78-percent-favor-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell

I agree that a judge, crackpot or not, should not be the one making this decision.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 20, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"I don't think the Log Cabin Republicans have received anywhere near the credit they deserve."

Especially from Republicans. I mean, I'm surprised the RNC isn't running with this win.

Wait, how many Republicans have mentioned this so far?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 20, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

The troops daily stand up for you, now it's your turn to stand up for them. The troops are being attacked by a MILITARY-HATING LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGE IN CALIFORNIA. Your mission as a red-blooded American citizen is to clean out this rat's nest of liberal activist judges by

VOTING OUT EVERY LIBERAL DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS !!!!!

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER !!!!!

Posted by: penniless_taxpayer | October 20, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

So far, Gay Rights is the issue with which I'm most disappointed by Obama's performance. He has had the power from day one to end the enforcement of DADT. On this issue, we need a leader, not someone who is simply doing the politically safe thing. He is giving cover to bigots and liars when his administration appeals this decision. In this instance, he needs to do what's right, politics be damned.

Posted by: eatmesomecookies | October 20, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Adam:

"Despite General Colin Powell's argument in 1993 that skin color is a "benign, nonbehavioral characteristic," it's a good bet that in 1948 when President Truman integrated the armed forces that many whites didn't see it that way."

Are you implying that homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) is, like skin color, a "nonbehavioral" characteristic? Really?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 20, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

eatmesomecookies wrote:

"He has had the power from day one to end the enforcement of DADT. On this issue, we need a leader, not someone who is simply doing the politically safe thing. He is giving cover to bigots and liars when his administration appeals this decision."

You don't have to be a bigot or liar to wonder whether this is a good way to go about this, anymore than you have to be a bigot to be against gay marriage. You can wonder whther or not the court is the right place to deal with such societal changes. The fact that there are people such as Glenn Beck opposed to this, does not mean that everyone opposed is Glenn Beck.

For instance, as I pointed out earlier, the next change will undoubtedly be a successful challenge to the ban on women in combat. I guess I must be a bigot because I don't think it's a great idea.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 20, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Sean,

Why are you against women in combat, and gays serving openly in the military?

Israel allows both, and their armed forces are very effective.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 20, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"I wish the courts would allow political questions of policy to be decided by the political branches."

But every law is a political question of policy! In essence you're wishing there was no right of judicial review, or perhaps even that there were no courts at all.

Posted by: akaoddjob | October 20, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Considering how many generals we have gone through since the start of the Iraq Invasion, to try and find one of them that was competent, just like Lincoln was forced to do, during the civil war; I feel that no major policy decisions should be left up to the military. Especially when you look at how Rumsfeld purged the only independent minds in the General ranks, and kept on all the submissive sycophants.

The Military is not We The People, nor should it ever be, unless we want to be ruled by a Junta.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 20, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Adam:

"Neither is the threat of servicemembers leaving because of moral objections to homosexuality a compelling reason to curtail the rights of gay and lesbian servicemembers. "

Is it really a "right" to be able to serve in the military? People who are disqualified for medical reasons are not said to have had their "rights" curtailed or violated, so it must not be the case that there is a human "right" to serve.

It may be plausible to argue that sexual preference is irrelevant to military performance, and hence should not be included as a disqualifying characteristic, but it doesn't make sense to me to argue that disqualifying someone (for whatever reason) is a violation of their "rights".

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 20, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"But every law is a political question of policy! In essence you're wishing there was no right of judicial review, or perhaps even that there were no courts at all."

Nonsense. SCOTUS has a body of jurisprudence on what are political questions (and other categories of nonjusticiable questions) that it has determined the Constitution does not permit it to rule upon. You might or might not disagree that they always get it right, but no one disagrees that there are broad areas of discretion for the President or Congress to carry out their duties in which the courts have no power to interfere. For a judge to usurp authority to dictate military policy on homosexuality -- which is not even a constitutionally protected category -- is absurd and dangerous.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"Neither is the threat of servicemembers leaving because of moral objections to homosexuality a compelling reason to curtail the rights of gay and lesbian servicemembers. "

There are no "rights" involved, and no "compelling reason" is needed. It is a policy judgment for military preparedness and warfighting capability, period and end of story.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

#penniless_taxpayer: Thanks for letting us all know what we should do to protect the military from all those scary, un-American gay soldiers! Vote out the judges for doing their job and judging a law for constitutionality. It failed to pass the test and so the judge did HER JOB. Oh wait, anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of dangerous, socialist liberal, right? What a sucker you are for spouting this nonsense! And I bet you NEVER even served your country one day of your life.

Posted by: rhysom | October 20, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Liam still wrote:

"Why are you against women in combat, and gays serving openly in the military?

Israel allows both, and their armed forces are very effective."

I am not against gays in the military. I am against how it was done.

Women in the Israeli military do not serve in the same way that men do. Though they are drafted, they have to volunteer for combat, or they will be assigned elsewhere. Also theirs is a two year commitment rather than three.

If we bring women into combat roles it will be at their option. There will be inherent discrimination against men. Furthermore there is the pregnancy issue. These just scratch the surface.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 20, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

54465446-

No, women in combat is a different issue. Show me the evidence and I'll hear your case.

As for DADT, the evidence was presented in court and it turned out those in favor of DADT had nothing! As for Prop 8, the evidence was presented in court and it turned out those in favor of Prop 8 had nothing! Shouldn't that count for something?

You're right, if you truly oppose this soley because you don't think the courts should make decisions that change law, then you're not a bigot. But you are giving cover to bigots who don't give a damn one way or the other as long as they get to impose their narrow mindset on the whole country. And you must hate John Roberts a whole lot.

Posted by: eatmesomecookies | October 20, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

#Quarterback: >>. . . It is a policy judgment for military preparedness and warfighting capability, period and end of story. . .<<
No, no it isn't. Not even a little tiny bit. That is just the story idiots like you use to justify your PERSONAL WARPED IDEAS about life. Even the majority of active service members just don't care-why do you?? Feeling a little threatened, big bad quarterback!?? LOL at you!!

Posted by: rhysom | October 20, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

eatmesomecookies:

Here is my issue with gay marriage and you may find it odd if you are not a lawyer. I have no problem with leagalized gay unions, insurance coverage etc. However no definition of marriage in any society that has existed in the world has ever included gays and certainly never in the US. Even the Greeks, as openly and consistently gay as they were reserved marriage for men and women.

It seems to me to be legally a bad thing to ignore the explicit and implicit definition of the term marriage, because you want to right a wrong.

It is similar to how pornography became a free speech issue. Whether you like pornography or don't, use it or don't, can you really say that it is a free speech issue?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 20, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

544:

"Whether you like pornography or don't, use it or don't, can you really say that it is a free speech issue?"

This reminds me of an early '70s porn movie I saw ages ago. In the middle of every scene in the movie, a woman with a clipboard would walk in, stop the action, and ask a couple of questions about topical political issues. The actors would give their (usually very coherent and extremely well thought out) answers, and she would depart, whereupon the action would resume. In the final scene of the movie, the woman walked in yet again with her questions. This time one of the actors said "Why do you keep walking in and interrupting us with these questions?" And she replied "Oh, I am here to give the film socially redeeming value," that being the parameter by which the court determined whether or not something was "obscenity" and hence not protected by free speech.

I thought that was amusing.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 20, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Classic example of simplistic liberal argument and refusal to engage issues honestly. Liberal "thought" is a matter of slogans and simplistic retorts. It deals primarily in straw men.


Posted by: quarterback1

Yes Q.B. but no matter how much you continue to attempt to insult us we always have one thing that comforts us.
YOU are a conservative!!!!! That makes us all feel better so that we're not in the same group as a selfish egomaniac like YOU!

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 20, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Here is my issue with gay marriage and you may find it odd if you are not a lawyer. I have no problem with leagalized gay unions, insurance coverage etc. However no definition of marriage in any society that has existed in the world has ever included gays and certainly never in the US. Even the Greeks, as openly and consistently gay as they were reserved marriage for men and women.

It seems to me to be legally a bad thing to ignore the explicit and implicit definition of the term marriage, because you want to right a wrong.

It is similar to how pornography became a free speech issue. Whether you like pornography or don't, use it or don't, can you really say that it is a free speech issue?

Posted by: 54465446
----------------------------------------

Historically women weren't granted a wide variety of rights, yet that's hardly a good reason to continue such a practice.


And if you're going to look globally to determine how to behave, what weight do you put on the fact that many countries allow gays to serve openly in their military?

I don't see how it's at all similar to your point about pornography.

I sincerely hope you are not an attorney.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 20, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"No, no it isn't. Not even a little tiny bit. That is just the story idiots like you use to justify your PERSONAL WARPED IDEAS about life. Even the majority of active service members just don't care-why do you?? Feeling a little threatened, big bad quarterback!?? LOL at you!!"

No, not in the least, let alone concerned about a pi**ant like you calling me warped (now there's irony). Whatever the decision is, it isn't one for a judge; that's the point. And I'm pretty certain a pi**ant like you doesn't speak for a majority of service members. Maybe for a majority of those who like to service each other.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

And I'm pretty certain a pi**ant like you doesn't speak for a majority of service members. Maybe for a majority of those who like to service each other.

----------------------------------------
I already proved you wrong about how the public feels about gays serving in the military, isn't it possible you're equally wrong about how those in the service feel about it too?
As for your last sentence...really? It's childish not to mention seems to ignore the fact that women also serve in the military.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | October 20, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

54465446-

"no definition of marriage in any society that has existed in the world has ever included gays"

http://www.good.is/post/infographic-countries-where-gay-marriage-is-legal/

"and certainly never in the US"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

I don't find the argument that we shouldn't do something because no other society has ever done it very compelling. Especially considering other societies have done it, and so have we.

Next, what are the legally bad consequences you're worried about? You say you're in favor of "leagalized gay unions, insurance coverage etc." I'm assuming that "etc." stands in for all the other legal rights granted to married couples. So if you're already in favor of giving all the same legal rights that straight married couples have to gay unioned couples, what legal ramifications could possibly come from them using the word "married?"

Posted by: eatmesomecookies | October 20, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Turning the world's best military into another, homosexual enclave is part and parcel of the ObamaNation. It's a bad idea but the Obamaniacs are full of bad ideas and they just don't care.

Another really bad idea is granting mass amnesty and cheap, American citizenship to zillions of outlaw "immigrants" thus rewarding them for breaking every immigration law on the books.

CRAZY! The ObamaNation is like bizarro world where everything is screwed opposite.

And how about that atomic, stink bomb called ObamaCare?? All my insurance costs will go up in 2011 to cover the costs of the new layers of bureacracy created by the Obamacrats.

Lemme outta here!!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 20, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"I already proved you wrong about how the public feels about gays serving in the military, isn't it possible you're equally wrong about how those in the service feel about it too?"

(1) No, you didn't "prove" anything to someone who has more than a simplistic view of polls and public opinion. (2) Anything is possible; you could even be a mature and intelligent adult, despite all evidence to the contrary.

"As for your last sentence...really? It's childish not to mention seems to ignore the fact that women also serve in the military."

(1) No one really needs a child's scolding about childishness. (2) Okay, so you don't speak the hetero women, either. Got me there.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

ashontinthedark wrote:

"And if you're going to look globally to determine how to behave, what weight do you put on the fact that many countries allow gays to serve openly in their military?

I don't see how it's at all similar to your point about pornography.

I sincerely hope you are not an attorney."


You don't have to agree with me. As I have already said I support the gays in the military thing.

The difference with gay marriage is that gays BY DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, have always stood outside marriage. They were never barred from marrying (until recently) they were never contemplated in the definition of marriage.

It' similar to the cause of animal rights. Whatever you think about the issue for or against, it is a brand NEW issue. No one has historically discrminated against animals, because the CONCEPT of animals having legal rights is a brand new one.

The concept of marriage itself has always been a man and a woman, and other eligibility factors were then considered. When women, and for that matter other groups, gained the right to vote, the CONCEPT of what voting was did not change, only those who were allowed to participate.

I don't know if that helps, but there it is.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 20, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"Even the Greeks, as openly and consistently gay as they were"

It's funny how the left invokes the Greeks (and Romans) for moral authority on this issue (peculiarly), but they were not at all "consistent" in the way you suggest. Homosexuality was even categorically condemned in some Greek city states.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

See the recent National Review editorial on ssm if you want a good, rational, and even nonreligious case against it.

The argument for it is ultimately tautological and nihilistic.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

(1) No, you didn't "prove" anything to someone who has more than a simplistic view of polls and public opinion.
------------------------------------------
Fair enough, I didn't prove anything. I offered proof for my position. The strength of which can be debated. As you have failed to provide proof supporting your position to the contrary, you can conveniently only attack my proof.

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

eatmesomecookies wrote:

"I don't find the argument that we shouldn't do something because no other society has ever done it very compelling. Especially considering other societies have done it, and so have we."

I'm sure that you understood I meant up until the last 10-20 years or so.

If you think my argument that we shouldn't do something because nobody else has done it is incorrect. Why do you then make the argument that we SHOULD do something BECAUSE other societies have done it?

Isn't that inconsistent?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 20, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Democrats need to find someone to run against Obama in 2012. Period.

Posted by: dozas | October 20, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

54465446-

I don't see any inconsistency. A social policy that's never been implemented before shouldn't be discounted just because it's never been implemented before. It should be judged on the merits, not tradition. Conversely, I don't think we should do things that other countries do just because other countries are doing them. Again, judge it on the merits.

But, when other countries/states have implemented social policies that we're considering, we can certainly look at them as helpful examples. It gives us facts and evidence to base our decisions on. That's a good thing!

What difference does it make if it happened 10 years ago or a thousand years ago or last year? The point is, it happened. Your concern over a society defining marriage to include gay people for the first time ever is no longer relevent. That ship has sailed. Let's deal with the new reality. Some societies define marriages to include gay people and some don't. Which do you want to live in and why?

I'd still like to hear about the legal troubles you're worried about that won't come from giving gay couple civil unions, but will come from letting them use the term "marriage" to describe those unions.

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

Social policy? This is a civil rights issue, pure and simple. The LBGT folks are being denied their civil rights guaranteed to all Americans. Pure and simple.

This is where Obama is blowing it. As a man who once practiced constitutional law, and now as President, he should know better.

I once worked in "the Executive Branch" of government and I know for a fact that the Executive Branch, as a matter of policy, does not have to enforce a law (e.g., DADT law). In a 36 year career, I saw it happen, and it was upheld by the U.S. courts (e.g., including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in one instance).

Posted by: dozas | October 20, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

doza:

"The LBGT folks are being denied their civil rights guaranteed to all Americans."

How so? Which rights?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 20, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

....don't ask.....don't wait

Posted by: wp121606 | October 20, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: Here are a few--

1st Amendment: "...abridging the freedom of speech...."

14th Amendment: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Posted by: dozas | October 20, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

doza:

"Here are a few--"

I don't understand how anyone's 1st amendments rights are being denied. Perhaps you can explain to what you are referring.

With regard to the 14th amendment, I assume you are referring to gay marriage (correct me if I am wrong). If so, again, no one is being denied equal protection nor are any priveleges or immunities being denied. Gays are perfectly free to marry, just as are heterosexuals. They just are to permitted to marry someone of the same sex. Nor is anyone else. Again, no equal protection or privileges/immunities issues from what I can see.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 20, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"to permitted" = "not permitted"

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 20, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Imagine if every bit of punditry dedicated to examining Obama's "failures" in regard to DADT instead focused on the only real obstacle to democratic (little "d") repeal of the law: the obstructionist GOP minority in the Senate.

All that is needed is for three GOP senators who are already on the record supporting repeal to cast their votes the way they say they would like to.

Posted by: rmnelson | October 20, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3:

You can read all about it in U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips decision:

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/Cacd/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/4f03e468a737002e8825779a00040406/$FILE/CV04-08425-VAP(Ex)-Opinion.pdf

Posted by: dozas | October 20, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Gays are perfectly free to marry, just as are heterosexuals. They just are to permitted to marry someone of the same sex. Nor is anyone else. Again, no equal protection or privileges/immunities issues from what I can see.

Posted by: ScottC3
-------------------------------------
Wasn't this argument rejected during the interracial marriage debate? Afterall, prior to the decision, blacks and white were treated the same, they could both only marry people of the same race? No rights denied there and no different treatment.

Of course homosexuals are not a protected class so the constitutional scrutiny is different.

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

We have on this issue and in this thread a good example of the difference between conservative and liberal thinking. The left tends to say, as several did above:

"I don't find the argument that we shouldn't do something because no other society has ever done it very compelling."

"I don't see any inconsistency. A social policy that's never been implemented before shouldn't be discounted just because it's never been implemented before. It should be judged on the merits, not tradition. Conversely, I don't think we should do things that other countries do just because other countries are doing them. Again, judge it on the merits."

For liberals, things like "tradition" or what Kirk or Burke might have called the wisdom of our ancestors, or our cultural inheritance, are mere encumbrances or impediments to freedom. They give us no guidance at all about how we should live, or about what is just, true, or beautiful.

To the left, we should evaluate "the merits" of policy apart from our history, apart from our heritage, based on abstract reason. If it can't be proven scientifically or mathematically, it is not a fit basis for policy or social arrangments. In this way, all distinctions can be broken down and leveled, reduced to "arbitrary discrimination" and bigotry.

Conservatives see things very much differently. We say that we shouldn't be so arrogant as to believe we in our logical capacities and abtract reason know better than generations past, just because the beliefs and values we inherited from them can't be proven scientifically. Our society and culture are not merely ours to overturn and trash and "transform" just because we can't scientifically defend them.

Well, that's a poor effort, I suppose, to explain, but I think the comments above about the uselessness of "tradition" and history, and demands for "proof" of immediate destruction of marriage, are a very good illustration of the gulf between liberals and conservatives. Start with reading Burke and Kirk if you want to understand why conservatives reject liberalism.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

54465446-

"no definition of marriage in any society that has existed in the world has ever included gays"

That is simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

http://marriage.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/g/berdache.htm

Posted by: coyotl | October 20, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

It is incredibly obvious that DADT is a violation of the First Amendment on a free speech basis alone.

Both gays and straights are allowed to serve under DADT but with this absurd result:

A person says "I am straight" and there are no repercussions.

A person says "I am gay" and that is grounds for discharge.

There isn't even any proof of conduct required. That is how incredibly silly this policy is.

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

"That is simply not true."

You cite some seriously weak "support." I continue to be amazed that people treat wikipedia as authoritative or even reliable, let alone an article that weak.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 20, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

coyotl:

I was speaking prior to the last 10-20 years or so. Surprised this thread is still going.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 20, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

ATTENTION: All service personnel. All those with a propensity to commit adultery please report next door to be processed for discharge. for the rest of ......hello, anybody...any...wait. what. me too! OH crap!

Posted by: AToddCunningham | October 21, 2010 4:58 AM | Report abuse

Violence against a minority group

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

Gays are being beaten, shot at, sent to the hospital, killed. In the Middle East, they are killing gays among other groups out of hatred. Is this what we want America to become? Do we want America to revert back to the 1960's when groups were killed and segregated against for simply no good reason? Do we want to follow the ways of the Middle East and Al Queda? Let's push forward, it's time to end bigotry, discrimination, hate, and ignorance. This is modern America, not the Dark Ages.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm

Posted by: shadow_man | October 21, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Posted by: shadow_man | October 21, 2010 6:53 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.


And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Posted by: shadow_man | October 21, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Posted by: shadow_man | October 21, 2010 6:55 AM | Report abuse

"Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality."

That's all a sane person with minimal intelligence needs to read of your propoganda to know it is complete rubbish. I've read many of those "scholars," and their claims are laughable sophistry.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 21, 2010 7:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: MarcMyWords"It is incredibly obvious that DADT is a violation of the First Amendment on a free speech basis alone.

-----------------------------------------

Another clueless lib. While in the service you give up much of your 1st Amend rights. Already settled law. Did you REALLY have no clue about this?

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 21, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1-

Thanks for your reply to my post. It's nice to hear a conservative admit that they're not interested in judging things on the merits. I mean, wow.

Here's the thing though. I'm guessing you actually do like judging things on the merits. Just not when you lose. If there was a study out there that said states that allow gay marriages were seeing a big drop off in straight marriages or a higher divorce rate or something, you'd probably be touting that study all over the place. If you had evidence to back up your claims, you'd lay it out. You wouldn't bother with telling us about the problem with liberals or invoking the wisdom of our ancestors.

You see, when someone starts attacking the very idea of wanting "evidence" or talking about how "arrogant" we are for using logic, that's a pretty good sign that they have nothing left. If you had the money, you'd put it where your mouth is.

Posted by: eatmesomecookies | October 21, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1: Ahhhh, personal attacks and comments with no proof. Your trolling has failed miserably :)

Posted by: shadow_man | October 22, 2010 5:43 AM | 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