We’re not quite sure the Justice Department’s latest motion is “extraordinary,” but it is typical: Obama’s lawyers are trying to get a court to throw out a case filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, claiming Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is discriminatory. Put your eyebrows back down; don’t look surprised
“In a move consistent with other contradictory behavior on LGBT issues,” LCR writes in a release, “the Obama administration has directed its Justice Department to file an extraordinary motion to get Log Cabin Republicans’ lawsuit against the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law thrown out of court, despite a federal judge’s ruling that it can proceed. The 11th-hour move for interlocutory appeal, which seeks to stay proceedings and block discovery, was surprisingly formulated at the same time that President Obama was reassuring LGBT activists that he still firmly opposes the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner earlier this month in Washington, DC.”
So what happened? Well, Obama doesn’t want to deal with Log Cabin Republicans vs. the United States of America, where plaintiffs like former Army soldier Alexander Nicholson (a multi-lingual Human Intelligence Collector) say they were fired under DADT. (The case also includes a “John Doe” plaintiff, who remains unnamed because he’s currently serving in the military, and outing himself would get him dismissed. Though by not being dismissed yet, we wonder if a judge will find that he has standing to bring the case.)
The case was filed over four and a half years ago, and currently sits in the hands of Judge Virginia Phillips in the Central District Court of California (that’s federal court). For its part, LCR, represented here by White & Case LLP, has been a vocal critic of Obama (which was to be expected because of his political party), but has joined most gay groups aside from HRC is pointing out Obama’s failures to live up to promises made to the LBGT community.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Though here’s the real frustration: Judge Phillips already denied the Justice Department’s attempt to dismiss the case.
But hey, it’s par for the course when it comes to the White House and handing gay issues in the courts. Obama’s strategy? Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.
YellowRanger
I was going to post a sarcastic response feigning surprise, but I can’t even manage to work up faux shock at this kind of thing anymore.
Attmay
Is the LCR now part of the Internet Left Fringe™?
Alexander
Is this just an administrative knee-jerk reaction? If a case has the word “gay” or “discrimination” in it, does the Obama camp immediately decide to push for dismissal?
It feels like the Justice Dept is like a Dalek:
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
tjr101
Can Queerty be any more sensational?…OOO a mean looking Obama!
TikiHead
I feel disillusioned that you have not yet been called a knee-jerk Obama-hater yet, Queerty. It’ll happen soon, surely.
Ron Hager
Money is why. Our government is too damn cheap and too concerned about America’s “Human Rights” international reputation to ever allow a ruling in this or similar cases. They know they would lose because they also know as does the rest of the world that our government’s record is dismal.
B
You do realize, don’t you, that if the Obama administration told the justice department to refrain from fulfilling its obligation to defend laws passed by Congress, then the Republicans would accuse the Democrats of hypocrisy, since the Democrats have complained about the Republicans using the Dept of Justice for political purposes.
Since the Republicans are not getting many votes from gays due to the Republicans’ support of anti-LGBT legislation, they would like to find some way of denying the Democrats LGBT votes. Don’t put anything past these people – the Republicans are opportunists almost to the point of being sociopaths.
rudy
Holder should not screw up like he did by having Bush-appointee Mormon W. Scott Simpson write the brief defending DOMA.
There is nothing wrong with Holder limiting his lawyers to non-bigoted and honest arguments.
Yes, he will probably lose then – which is a good thing – and with no loss of political capitol and Obama wouldn’t have to lift a finger.
The Republicans will be quiet as it’s their Log Cabin that won the case, and THEIR right-wing base will be pissed off.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
There is only one explanation for this and it ISN’T the “Eichmann/Nuremberg Defense” of “we have to follow the law.”
It’s that, just like Clinton, Obama is letting the Pentagon tail wag the dog. Haven’t you all seen the “US Constitution 2.0” in which the President, Congress, and Courts report to the Military?
See recent remarks by plaintiff in the case, linguist Alex Nicholson of Servicemembers United at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBTe2odMi4o
Brian NJ
Interlocutory appeals are requests for emergency relief. Somehow, Obama does not feel any national security emergency to keep gay American soldiers in their jobs fighting two wars. He does not feel any emergency to follow his own Oath. He does not feel any emergency to please gays who put him in office by putting pressure on Congress to pass TWO SIMPLE REPEALS. Oh, and don’t tell the champagne gays, they will want to throw him another party, thinking that will ingratiate King Fucktard to our cause.
Brian Miller
I just think it’s funny to watch how gay Democrats are Democrats first when it comes to criticism coming from the other party on a factual and legitimate issue of record.
If they’d kept their election promises and ended the policy the day Obama took office with an immediate executive order, then this lawsuit wouldn’t even be an issue. Unfortunately for the homophobic Democrats, they’ve left the window open for the opportunistic Republicans, and I hope the Log Cabin people nail ’em to the wall.
The only way they can win now is to end the policy — as they promised, without delay. No more bullshit excuses.
B
Brian Miller wrote, “I just think it’s funny to watch how gay Democrats are Democrats first when it comes to criticism coming from the other party on a factual and legitimate issue of record.
If they’d kept their election promises and ended the policy the day Obama took office with an immediate executive order, then this lawsuit wouldn’t even be an issue.”
Except that there was an act of congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell states that “Don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy regarding gays and lesbians serving openly in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654).” That has to be repealed and Obama does not run the legislature.
Congress is in the middle of a health-care debate, with a vote scheduled before the end of the year. Let’s get that out of the way first. If they stopped insurance companies from using a preexisting condition as an excuse, it would let anyone who is HIV+ either get insurance or change insurance companies, neither of which is particularly easy right now. It’s not like the health care issue doesn’t impact gays – it impacts everyone.
tjr101
@Brian Miller
This is one gay who doesn’t give a fuck about when DADT and DOMA is repealed. Healthcare reform comes first in my book. The Log Cabiners and their bigot GOP can try to score political points all they want.
Brian Miller
TJR, that’s a common viewpoint, just as there were slaves who preferred getting a roof over their heads and a meal three times a day to their freedom. They and you both came to be known as Uncle Toms.
Republican
Brian Miller,
Right on, brother.
B,
He has every bit of authority to temporarily suspend the dismissal of people from the military due to their sexual orientation. He can’t change the law, but it’s dishonest to suggest that he can’t do anything while its repeal is being considered.
As for your argument regarding the law in general, that only works if Obama himself is absolutely consistent about it. He has already decided not to enforce the drug laws against medical marijuana users who live in states that permit it, despite federal law (which reigns supreme) against it. Apparently it’s a waste of federal resources and taxpayer money to pursue those users, but it’s not a waste of federal resources and money to court martial those who are ‘guilty’ of being gay and then attempt to find replacements who have their years of experience in translation and other fields.
Patrick Garies
This is so *not* “change we can believe in” and is exactly why our government is broken. I don’t understand how the head of the executive branch can declare a law to be evil then justify having his branch enforce it anyway. I thought there was supposed to be a thing called “checks and balances”, but apparently we have a chief executive that’s powerless to even control the armed forces (part of his branch) and totally subservient to the legislature.
InExile
All of this mess would not be happening if Donna Brazil and Nancy Pelosi had honored the will of the voters in this country and made Hillary the democratic nominee. This is all their fault and we are the ones stuck with it. This man can’t seem to make any decisions or show any leadership on anything. How does he expect to win re-election without showing any leadership?
Brian NJ
None of the defenders of the democratic government’s decision to put gays and lesbian civil rights on the bottom of the to do list, can explain why they can’t repeal DADT and DOMA. One of the arguments that is infuriating to me are these statements — which I think are lies — that they have more important work to do. I am suspicious that Obama does not want anything done until after the midterm elections and his reelection, and that HRC has agreed that it should be put off. But when they talk about “work,” I don’t believe it. The repeals of DADT and DOMA are not the difficualt creation of new leagislation, they are simply the removal of old, discredited laws off the books. There is logistical work AFTER the repeals, but not before. I think all this talk about the prepearation needed is not true. The discharges stop, period. Any problems that arise, arise after the repeal. It is the same with DOMA. Federal agencies and states have to deal with the technical details of the repeals AFTER the repeal.
So this idea that they are too busy to engage in two repeals, and the intentional conflation by Obama supporters of repeals of OLD law with the NEW creation of policy seems ludicrous; it should anger everyone.
Brian NJ
Don’t believe all of the bullshit that there is so much work Congress and the president have to put gays at the bottom of the list. Check what the commitees are having hearing on. The House Armed Services Committee just had a hearing entitled, “The Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee will meet to receive testimony on Charting the Course for Effective Professional Military Education.” Check here: http://armedservices.house.gov/hearing_information.shtml
Throwing gay vets on their ass gets a lower priority than making sure the straight vets get enough power point presentations? No, they put gay vets at the bottom of the list because of bias and re-election fear, not work.
B
Republican wrote, “B, He has every bit of authority to temporarily suspend the dismissal of people from the military due to their sexual orientation. He can’t change the law, but it’s dishonest to suggest that he can’t do anything while its repeal is being considered.” Obama can issue a stop-loss order, but he should not be doing that unless it is justified by what the military actually needs. Unlike Bush, Obama is taking his responsibilities seriously and is not trying to circumvent the legislature just because he does not like a law. What’s “dishonest” is your attempt to pretend otherwise.
Brian Miller went on to say, “As for your argument regarding the law in general, that only works if Obama himself is absolutely consistent about it. He has already decided not to enforce the drug laws against medical marijuana users who live in states that permit it, despite federal law (which reigns supreme) against it.” That is a specious argument – even at the local level, the police decide what crimes to go after. They have limited resources, so they won’t have an officer out there looking for jaywalkers when they need everyone they have to prevent burglaries. The decision BTW was Eric Holder’s, who stated “It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws,” and added “But we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.” You can find the quotes at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=agjC2C1A8LGU .
So, they are not deciding to “not enforce the drug laws” but are simply setting priorities as to what they investigate. It’s no different than the police not trying to catch people rolling through 4-way stop signs on residential streets when they have a problem with people running red lights at major intersections, with a potential for some serious injuries.
B
Correction … in the last comment, Brian Miller got cited instead of “Republican” – I pushed “Submit” a little too quickly and didn’t catch the error in time.
Brian NJ
@B
So, Holder can decide not to actively enforce a law as applied to groups of people in the case of medical marijuana, but goes as far as filing emergency appeals in the case of gay marriage. Sounds like discriminatory judgment in law enforcement to me. If it does not look like that to you, take off you mind-control sunglasses.
B
Brian NJ wrote, “@B So, Holder can decide not to actively enforce a law as applied to groups of people in the case of medical marijuana, but goes as far as filing emergency appeals in the case of gay marriage. Sounds like discriminatory judgment in law enforcement to me. If it does not look like that to you, take off you mind-control sunglasses.”
There is a distinction, which is apparently too subtle for the likes of ‘Brian NJ’, between allocating law-enforcement resources and fulfilling a legal obligation to act as the country’s lawyer and defend laws passed by congress in court. Our legal system is an adversarial one, with both sides having to be represented in court. No one in the Obama administration decided to file a lawsuit regarding DOMA. Once one was filed, though, the government deserves representation in court just as much as some lowly pickpocket, and the attorney general acts as the government’s lawyer. A lawyer representing a client may not like what the client did, but still has an obligation to defend that client in court.
People like ‘Brian NJ’ who don’t understand that and simply spout mindless insults about “mind-control sunglasses” would be well advised to follow Abraham Lincoln’s advise that “it is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”.
If congress repeals DADT or DOMA and Obama vetos it. complain then, but so far that has not happened and is not likely to happen.
Bill Perdue
DNC apologists and Obots are missing the point. Obama and the Democrats repeatedly promised to repeal Bill Clinton’s DADT and DOMA and the truth is that they show no signs of doing either. They’re just trying to appease idiots and fools and are having limited success even with that crowd.
Obama and the Congressional Democrats are little more than a collection of bigots and those who cater to bigots, supporters of imperial wars and hand puppets of the rich. The day people quit falling for the idiocy that there are real differences between them and the Republicans will be the day the LGBT movements begin the real battle for equality with a chance to win.
For now Obama is very popular because the full impact of his betrayals hasn’t hit home. But it’s beginning too.
• Every time a coffin comes home from the Middle East his ability to fool people changes. The antiwar vets group IVAW is growing and sentiment against the war is growing where it counts – in the armed forces and among insurgents in Palestine, everybody in Pakistan, oil workers in Iraq and insurgents in Afghanistan. http://ivaw.org/
• Every time new films of butchered and burned children from Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are shown on the news people begin to see that he’s no different than Bush or Clinton. The antiwar movement is planning a full schedule of local, regional and national actions and marches.
• Every time workers talk about Obama’s gutting the UAW contract while giving billions – make that trillions – to the obscene rich he loses votes. Spurred by the success of our march unions around the country are pushing for a mass AFL-CIO march on Washington.
• Every time states cut health care, unemployment insurance and other social programs Obama loses and no one wants to go back to the Republicans so people are becoming independent in huge, record numbers.
• Every time someone gets unemployed Obama loses. That’s 15,000,000 and counting.
Obama is a Clinton-Bush-McCain-Palin clone and we’ll keep getting more of the same as long as people fall for the lesser evil scam. What’s likely is that the intersection of insoluble crises in the economy and a series of unwinnable imperial wars for resources will deepen the radicalization and polarization of political life and lead to the creation of mass sentiment for fundamental, revolutionary change.
Republicans are just Democrats in drag. And vice versa.
1776! Again, please.
Bill Perdue
About the surge in independents here are a couple of good leads on what’s happening.
http://people-press.org/report/517/political-values-and-core-attitudes
and
http://www.alternet.org/politics/140493/grand_illusion%3A_the_myth_of_voter_choice_in_a_two-party_tyranny/
B
Bill Perdue, resorting to silly name calling, wrote, “DNC apologists and Obots are missing the point. Obama and the Democrats repeatedly promised to repeal Bill Clinton’s DADT and DOMA and the truth is that they show no signs of doing either. They’re just trying to appease idiots and fools and are having limited success even with that crowd.”
Odd that you people ignore the fact that legislation to repeal DADT had already been introduced.
The fact is that Obama has been in office roughly 9 months, and right now the Democrats have just enough votes to stop a filibuster in the Senate if every single Democrat agrees to that. There are some time-critical things that have to get fixed – the ecnomomy and health care. If we don’t get health care fixed during a possibly narrow time window where the Republicans might not be able to stop it, it could take several decades before we get another chance. And right now, the vested interests are spending at a rate of over 1/2 billion dollars per year to kill it, so this is a time-critical issue. You can’t always do everything you want to do at once.
Brian NJ
@B
It doesn’t matter how much abuse Obama or the democrats put on you, you bottom for everything — from Bill Clinton’s hillbilly hack job on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to Holder vigorously attacking DADT in briefs, even when DOMA clearly violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The democrats have placed you under a strange sexual spell. You have clearly abandoned your gay brethren for the Government, which you mistakenly think has been remade in you hideous image. Your fawning over Obama is no different than the ugly guy enchanted; disgusting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWHLNgcn-DE
Bill Perdue
No. 24 • B – if the shoe fits OBoy, then I guess it’s yours to wear.
I know it’s been introduced, and if the causality counts continue to rise it may pass as a measure to avoid the draft, although the fact that 15,000,000 are out of a job because of the Clinton- Bush-Obama recession wanna-be depression.
The Democrats have super majorities. They have no excuses, although Obots will continue to try to convince us otherwise. Good luck with that, you’ll need it.
Obama, a tool of the insurance giants, HMOs and Big Pharma has vetoed the one option that could cure what ails us – socialized medicine.
His war policies – illegal invasions and occupations to steal oil conducted with a genocidal fury against civilians – is wasting civilians lives and those of GIs, but the megalomaniac in the White House is pursuing the same strategy Nixon did in Vietnam and will lose just as convincingly.
Obama’s economic policies are a combination of stealing our taxes to give additional trillions to the looter class, busting unions and imposing austerity on working people.
So in a sense B is right. Obama is busy, busy, busy killing civilians and GI’s for oil and making the rich richer at our expense. I shudder to think what might happen to us when it’s our turn and he gets in his Obus and comes looking for us.
Brian NJ
Bill Perdue is right. Oblahblah will get on his yes we can — fierce urgency of now bullshit bus — and try to drag us back to the polls once more will no explanation of why two discredited laws had to stay on the books. He can brag all he wants about all his other complex new legislation, programs and policy achievements, but give no valid reason there were no simple repeals of Bill Clinton’s hate legislation.
We are expected to hang on the arm of the Democratic Party like some battered wife, explaining away all their abuse, black eyes from legal briefs, compromise and inaction. So many insider gays are happy to stand by the democrats like the wife in sunglasses standing next to the disgraced senator. Not me. I am out the door, honey, and it feels great.
Ted NY
DADT is nothing new. Why didn’t the Log Cabin Republicans file this during the last Bush administration?
Bill Perdue
Ted NY no. 28 – Good question, Ted. And so is this one. “Why didn’t the Stonewall Democrats and SLDN file under Clinton or since the Democrats took Congress in 20006.”
Bill Clintons DADT, like his DOMA, has been around a long time and neither party has much interest in repealing either.
That’s because they both cater to the bigot vote. Right now it’s a tossup. Obama definitely went after the bigot vote in the last election and took a lot of it back from the Republicans. He’s not about to do anything to endanger that.
B
Brian NJ, not understanding the U.S. Constitution, says, “@B
It doesn’t matter how much abuse Obama or the democrats put on you, you bottom for everything — from Bill Clinton’s hillbilly hack job on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to Holder vigorously attacking DADT in briefs, even when DOMA clearly violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”
In fact, DOMA does not “clearly” violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause. http://works.bepress.com/mark_rosen/3/ (written by a law professor) has the abstract; for the full paper (87 pages long) go to http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=mark_rosen or click on the link on the side of the abstract.
Just because you don’t like DOMA doesn’t make it unconstitutional: the constitution does not stop Congress from making every bad decision.
B
Bill Perdue wrote, “No. 24 • B – if the shoe fits OBoy, then I guess it’s yours to wear.” (followed by a mindless rant and some conspiracy theories and lies). Hint: it is idiotic to accuse Obama of vetoing something that Congress has not yet passed.
Frankly, you and your friend “Brian NJ” are completely out to lunch and are just babbling for the sake of babbling.
Brian NJ
@B
DOMA has plain wording: that gay-friendly marriage laws are not entitled to the Full Faith and Credit Clause requirements, that permit marriage portability from state to state. But what bottom bitch has to realize, it that the Democratic Party — my party — has to account for the creation of their monsters by Bill Clinton.
STOP repeating the democratic line, and start DEMANDING why no action has happened. STOP making excuses, and acting like a fucking functionary — a little bitch law clerk — of the government, and start THINKING.
tjr101
@Brian Miller
You have the audacity to compare DADT and DOMA to SLAVERY?!?!? People choose to join the military and it’s backward culture. Getting married is not life and death… sorry. You are completely off base and don’t know what the FUCK you are talking about. Millions of Americans have priorities and needs that are different from yours.
Besides… what do YOU KNOW ABOUT SLAVERY ANYWAY? See it’s Republicans that spew crap like that.
B
Brian NJ, ignoring the competent legal opinion I cited (all 87 pages of it) muttered, “@B DOMA has plain wording: that gay-friendly marriage laws are not entitled to the Full Faith and Credit Clause requirements, that permit marriage portability from state to state.”
“Brian NJ” simply does not know what he is talking about. The Full Faith and Credit clause states, “Article IV Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Note the last sentence – Congress has some say in the process. If Congress could not in any way modify the effect of this clause, that sentence would not be there.
Go back and read the URL I cited (written by a professor of law). His opinion is far more informed than that of “Brian NJ”, and from what I can gather, he isn’t particularly a fan of DOMA.
Republican
B,
With all due respect, it’s clear that you put the politics of your party first before gay rights. (Of course, you will argue that I do that, too, and that claim is not entirely without merit.)
As for “that decision was Eric Holder’s, BTW”, I hope you don’t think you revealed anything new with that comment. Yes, we are all aware that Holder is the attorney general, but there is no way in hell that Holder would make such major decisions on his own. These are the decisions that “the administration” makes and what that boils down to in reality is that while, yes, the AG and his staff come up with these recommendations, they are then discussed with Obama who gives the thumps up or down. Therefore, I have no problem with saying that such major decisions are Obama’s decisions. The buck stops here and all that.
I see the conversation has shifted from DADT to DOMA, so let’s focus on that for a bit. There I think you have a much better argument, as there isn’t a whole lot the President could do on his own in that area without violating the law himself. However, there’s one part of your position that I don’t find entirely convincing, and that’s where you discuss the duty that the executive branch has to defend laws in court. I am well aware of the federal rules and precedent in this area, but it’s not at all uncommon for state AGs to decide not to defend certain laws in court, so, to be blunt, I think it’s wrong. (Of course, one might then ask whether that means that the federal AG should be elected rather than selected, but that’s getting a little off the topic for now.) To enter the world of the hypothetical, I do not think the executive should, for example, feel the need to defend a law in the federal courts that orders the immediate execution of every woman in the USA.
jim
Is it possible that the Obama administration is doing this because it fears what could come out of a final appeal (as inevitably it will)with the Roberts court? One WRONG, right-wing, inspired, GOD-FEARING, TEA PARTY-PLEASING opinion from the Supremes, and GAYS in the MILITARY, and maybe OUTSIDE of the military are DEAD.
Might be better to work incrementally in the sympathetic states through the ballot, etc. than to expect “Right” to triumph in a court. Need I review recent Supreme decisions? Let’s start with Gore v. Bush. We all know the result.
Sadly, and maddeningly, the wheels of social change work very slowly – especially with the right wingers foaming at the mouth about our “socialist” country.
But remember also that less than 50 years ago, African-Americans got to use their OWN drinking fountain in half of the country – and inter-racial marriage was not only illegal, but could get both parties SHOT in much of the good ole U S of A. Times, they have a-changed. Now let’s hope that kind of change continues – and not the kind that ends with Chrystal nights – and I don’t mean PNP.
Darrek
These is just great for LCR. They can support any candidate for office (even those who appose LGBTQI rights) because THEIR not sitting around waiting for politicians to get their acts together. They can also smear democrats for acting to slow. I actually considered joining them, but fundamentalist (anti-) Christians still scare the H##L out of me.
Why didn’t the president and congress jack up the retired chaplains who stated lifting the ban would get in the way of them ministering to the troops? Don’t they realize this chaplains are saying they have a right to enforce their religious beliefs on other service members? They are violating the first amendment.
Darrek
@Ted NY: They filed in 2004. the last bush administration ended in 2008. So, yes they did. They saw an opening when the courts ruled on a different case, over turning another ruling that weakened attempts to defend DADT in court.
Patrick Garies
#39 Darrek wrote: “These [sic] is just great for LCR. They can support any candidate for office (even those who appose [sic] LGBTQI rights) because THEIR [sic] not sitting around waiting for politicians to get their acts together.”
Not really. Despite winning a case at the federal district court level, they’re far from winning a final judicial repeal of DADT. It would be much more expedient to try to accomplish repeal via the legislature and part of that means not supporting anti-gay candidates.
#40 Darrek wrote: “@Ted NY: They filed in 2004. the last bush administration ended in 2008. So, yes they did.”
I think this helps make the above point. Assuming that your 2004 date is correct, it took six years merely to get through one court. That’s six years that LCR could have been exclusively supporting pro-gay candidates to office.
#39 Darrek wrote: “They can also smear democrats for acting to [sic] slow.”
LCR certainly can do that, but the fact remains that opposition to pro-gay rights measures is predominantly from Republicans at every level of government.
#39 Darrek wrote: “I actually considered joining them, but fundamentalist (anti-) Christians still scare the H##L out of me.”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.
#39 Darrek wrote: “Why didn’t the president and congress jack up the retired chaplains who stated lifting the ban would get in the way of them ministering to the troops?”
Again, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. What does “jack up” mean?
#39 Darrek wrote: “Don’t they realize this [sic] chaplains are saying they have a right to enforce their religious beliefs on other service members?”
Assuming that they know about this at all, they probably do. I haven’t heard any member of Congress or the president use this as an excuse to uphold DADT.
#39 Darrek wrote: “They are violating the first amendment.”
I’m not sure how they’re doing this if they’re retired.
Darrek
@Patrick Garies:
#41 Patrick Garies “Not really. Despite winning a case at the federal district court level, they’re far from winning a final judicial repeal of DADT. It would be much more expedient to try to accomplish repeal via the legislature and part of that means not supporting anti-gay candidates.”
It would be more expedient if the rest of the country agreed. Three points though: First, asking for everyone else to grant equal rights isn’t usually effective. Most civil rights are won in court. Second, the efforts to repeal have been going on for over ten years (at least). Third, the LCR has been trying to get the republicans to be more inclusive and trying to get fiscally conservative canidates to fight for gay rights.
#41 Patrick Garies “LCR certainly can do that, but the fact remains that opposition to pro-gay rights measures is predominantly from Republicans at every level of government.”
Why would a democrat need to make a stand against gay rights when all they have to do is let the republicans do it for them and not stand strong? They get the gay vote and don’t really have to do anything for it. It’s not bringing us any closer to repeal if the congress doesn’t move forward. I’m not saying all democrats are basically lying, but some are. They don’t want to lift the ban either, think about it.
#41 Patrick Garies “I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.”
Fundamentalist Christians candidates, the ones how misread the bible to make it say anything they want. The ones who say (on the record) that they want to make homosexuality a crime. Tea Party gang. Extreme right wing. Sarah Palin, etc. This doesn’t scare you?
#41 Patrick Garies “Again, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. What does “jack up” mean?”
I’m sorry your right I used slang. “jacked up”, they should have made a public statement that the chaplaincy doesn’t have the right to dictate religious belief to our service members. The only way that lifting the ban adversely affects the chaplaincy is if the chaplaincy has the right to condemn service members of a different faith based on their beliefs. They don’t have that right now, therefore the retired chaplains who spoke out about this ‘for serving chaplains who most remain quite’ are advocating that chaplains have the right to violate the first amendment rights of service members, which they don’t. The congress didn’t say anything, neither did the president, leaving this in the public sphere as a VALID argument, which it flatly isn’t. Every person involved has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and have failed to do so.
#41 Patrick Garies “I’m not sure how they’re doing this if they’re retired.”
I’m sorry your right I meant they are arguing for the ‘right’ of current chaplains to violate the first amendment rights of service members.
I haven’t heard anyone say that’s a reason to uphold the ban either, but that doesn’t mean these ploy shouldn’t have been answered better. The chaplaincy helps service members in a lot of different ways from every religion. They are the first person you go to for religious guidance even when their faith is different from your own. They serve in the military in a very different capacity than a civilian pastor. This attack on the ban not only is a low blow for repeal it harms the chaplaincy, which protects our service members religious freedom. The chaplaincy program has had to defend itself from attack already on the grounds that the government doesn’t have the right to establish religion. The chaplaincy is the only institution that gets government money to tend to the religious beliefs of the American citizens. They serve a valuable role in the moral and well being of our men and women in uniform. I personally feel that this tactic from right wing religious groups is an attack against the chaplaincy and it’s role in the U.S. military. Which weakens the whole military if this should harm the chaplaincy.
Patrick Garies
#42 Darrek wrote: “It would be more expedient if the rest of the country agreed.”
We’re talking about LCR here though. Nothing forces /LCR/ to bolster anti-gay candidates with their support.
(I’ll acknowledge that LCR’s options are limited though since, given the nature of their organization, they are presumably unable to endorse a non-Republican. I think this is a fatal flaw in their organization as a whole; it doesn’t allow you to pick the most-gay friendly candidate, but limits you to picking from the most-gay friendly /Republican/ candidate. That quickly becomes ironic when they do things like endorse Texas Republicans in a state where that party’s official platform includes re-criminalization of being gay.)
#42 Darrek wrote: “First, asking for everyone else to grant equal rights isn’t usually effective. Most civil rights are won in court.”
I don’t think this is a good excuse for giving up on the legislature. It’s sad that we have to vote on rights at all, but we still need allies in the legislature to not only fix inequalities, but to block anti-gay legislation.
I’m not talking about just DADT either; this judicial strategy simply falls apart when you start talking about /new/ law rather than repealing /existing/ bad law. I don’t expect courts to grant us ENDA or UAFA rights anytime soon. The extension of existing hate crimes law to cover sexual orientation certainly could not have been done by a court.
And, if asking is ineffective, offering support to people that have no qualms about publicly spitting in your face has to be even less effective.
#42 Darrek wrote: “Second, the efforts to repeal have been going on for over ten years (at least).”
I guess I didn’t adequately make my point.
The point I was getting at is that there’s still a long way to go to rectify this in the courts (likely to the tune of years since it still has to go through a circuit appeals court before the Supreme Court and the decision of the district court can be reversed or refused review or limited to a specific circuit during that time).
On the other hand, we’ve come the closest we’ve ever come to getting rid of this policy in Congress, being only a few votes short of doing so, yet LCR seems content to put us a few yards /further/ from the goal post by endorsing anti-gay candidates.
#42 Darrek wrote: “Why would a democrat need to make a stand against gay rights when all they have to do is let the republicans do it for them and not stand strong? They get the gay vote and don’t really have to do anything for it.”
So you’re saying that it’s fine for Republicans to take anti-gay positions because, otherwise, currently pro-gay Democrats would turn around and take anti-gay positions? That’s a pretty bold claim. Do you have any evidence for it?
#42 Darrek wrote: “I’m not saying all democrats are basically lying, but some are.”
Which specific legislators are you referring to?
#42 Darrek wrote: “Fundamentalist Christians candidates, the ones how misread the bible to make it say anything they want. The ones who say (on the record) that they want to make homosexuality a crime. Tea Party gang. Extreme right wing. Sarah Palin, etc. This doesn’t scare you?”
I think it was pretty clear you were referring to fundamentalist Christians. I don’t understand what that has to do with LCR though; I haven’t heard about religious fanatics in that organization. I’m further confused by the “(anti-)” you stuck in your sentence as I haven’t heard about LCR being generally anti-Christian either (though I would expect them to oppose anti-gay positions based in Christianity).
#42 Darrek wrote: “I’m sorry your right I used slang. “jacked up”, they should have made a public statement that the chaplaincy doesn’t have the right to dictate religious belief to our service members.”
I agree that this would have been/is an ideal response, yes. Realistically though, I don’t expect it; there’s only so much time in a day.
#42 Darrek wrote: “The congress didn’t say anything, neither did the president, leaving this in the public sphere as a VALID argument, which it flatly isn’t. Every person involved has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and have failed to do so.”
I disagree. They haven’t violated their oath of office by merely ignoring an invalid argument from retired government personnel.
In fact, given the reality that Congress gets so little done, I would prefer if Congress not do things like issue non-binding resolutions to make a statement that they hold certain position (assuming that this is what you were proposing) since I consider those a waste of time and money.
#42 Darrek wrote: “The chaplaincy is the only institution that gets government money to tend to the religious beliefs of the American citizens.”
On a personal note, while /not/ outright opposed to the offering of religious services in the military, I think it’s stepping over the line when the government specifically pays someone to offer religious services and even has its own formalized religious ministries. That’s just too much government entanglement with religion.
#42 Darrek wrote: “I personally feel that this tactic from right wing religious groups is an attack against the chaplaincy and it’s role in the U.S. military.”
I’d expect that to be unintentional given the source.
The military chaplaincy is not likely in danger of such attacks; I’d guess that these threats are hollow and that religious denominations wouldn’t go so far as to forsake an opportunity to maintain a religious presence in our armed forces to make a point over DADT repeal. Those that did would quickly be replaced by chaplains from other denominations; this would be fine given that “[t]hey are the first person you go to for religious guidance even when their faith is different from your own”.