Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Beggars Will Be Choosers: 69 Democrats Plead With Obama Over DADT. 10 States Plead With 9th Circuit Over Prop 8

Sixty-nine Democratic congressmen and women sent a letter to President Obama advising him not to appeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ruling in Log Cabin Republican v. United States, the best part of which is seeing all those lawmaker’s John Hancocks scrawled on a single document. And because ’tis the season for group think, in unrelated news Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming on Friday all signed an amicus brief sent to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asking for Judge Vaughn Walker’s Prop 8 ruling to be struck down because states have the last word on same-sex marriage, not the Constitution.

By:           John Rogers
On:           Sep 25, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 6 Comments
    • reason
      reason

      The president should not appeal this decision, it would be a good plan B if once again in history the legislators fail to do their job and we are left with the unsavory idea of using the courts to grant civil rights. The sad part of using the court system is that the majority of U.S. citizens support DADT repeal and the congress is supposed to be the body most connected with the people. Instead they will use their power to do not what is morally correct, but to hold up unjust discrimination against the peoples will. The GOP is even willing to filibuster to that effect.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      reason said, “…and we are left with the unsavory idea of using the courts to grant civil rights.”

      Courts don’t grant rights. You possess these rights already.

      Where your lawmakers enact unconstitutional laws that purport to grant your government and your neighbors the power to ignore those rights, there is nothing shameful or unsavory about resorting to the courts to vindicate your rights.

      That is the purpose of courts.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 4:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CJ
      CJ

      Everyone should know by now that Harry Reid is the one to blame for DADT’s death this past week. By refusing to work with Republicans, he ensured that they’d vote in clear unison against each amendment he brought up for a vote. Reid did this for political reasons, to assist Democrats get a few more votes in November. Unfortunately, the LGBT and immigrants were just convenient pawns in a game of politics. Is this how the LGBT community and civil rights deserve to be handled? Are we willing to throw the LGBT community under the political bus for a few political scores? Apparently Reid thinks so. And, sadly, even the Republicans that are completely FOR repealing DADT were playing politics too.

      Washington is a sick place at times. So much for civil rights. It seems like the courts are making more progress than Washington.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 4:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 3 ยท CJ wrote, “Everyone should know by now that Harry Reid is the one to blame for DADT’s death this past week.”

      The bill is not dead – it can be brought up for a vote again this session of Congress. Remember too that it is a defense-spending bill, one they have to pass to keep the military funded. It’s too bad the vote failed, but it is not the end of the world, not at this point.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 5:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reason
      reason

      @CJ: If Reid let the GOP add what they wanted to the bill they still would have filibustered. At least now he is on the high ground for the start of the real negotiations. The GOP is probing for weakness but Reid didn’t show any, unfortunately are community is showing some. The GOP wants that Defense Appropriations bill to go through more than anyone as it will keep the war running and continue to enrich their own Dick Cheney included.

      @the crustybastard: It is unsavory, read what I wrote justifying that quote directly after it, it speaks volumes about a critical piece in our democracy. The court is the fail safe like the ejection seat of an F-15, any pilot will tell you that having to eject is unsavory. Using the courts to eject an unconstitutional law, that the majority of the public doesn’t support, as a last ditch effort to save us from failure of an entire branch of government is troubling and unsavory. It is a strong critique of the legislator that is clearly in dire straits and will only get worse when tea party members arrive this coming January. Your missing the forest for the trees, the failure to repeal DADT would be indicative of a tumultuous future that will not just impact the other rights that GBLT want acknowledged but expand far beyond.

      Sep 25, 2010 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rf
      rf

      There is nothing unsavory about having to go to the courts to strike down unconstitutional legislation. I think a lot of people forget that the courts are an equal branch of government – not more or less powerful than the legislative or executive.

      In fact, its supposed to work that way: the courts cannot automatically strike down the legislature when it enacts unconstitutional laws, otherwise they would have extra powers above the legislature. It takes someone to challenge that enactment to get the courts to react and sometimes that can take decades.

      many, many laws are likely unconstitutional but active today, but perhaps they are not so harmful or they effect people who don’t care or the people they effect don’t have enough money to challenge, so they’ll never be challenged. in that sense, the will of the people prevails unless the will of the people is so unconstitutional and harmful that someone does something about it.

      LBGT already have full equal rights under the constitution, the courts are granting nothing but the stoppage of curtailing of those rights. Now just like considering slave males 3/5th of a person, considering equal rights not applicable to women, and stopping the manufacture and distribution of alcohol, if the country decided to make lgbt second class citizens in the constitution, they certainly could.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 8:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.