President Obama just signed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal certification which will end the military’s ban on openly gay soldiers on September 20th.
Here’s the official document if you want to print and frame it:
United States Navy Admiral and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen made this statement:
“I believe the U.S. Armed Forces are ready for the implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I conveyed that opinion yesterday to the President and to the secretary of defense, and today we certified this to Congress.
“My opinion is informed by close consultation with the service chiefs and the combatant commanders over the course of six months of thorough preparation and assessment, to include the training of a substantial majority of our troops.
“I am comfortable that we have used the findings of the Comprehensive Review Working Group to mitigate areas of concern and that we have developed the policy and regulations necessary for implementation — consistent with standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.
“Certification does not mark the end of our work. Ready though we are, we owe it to ourselves and to the nation we defend to continue to train the remainder of the joint force, to monitor our performance as we do so, and to adjust policy where and when needed.
“My confidence in our ability to accomplish this work rests primarily on the fact that our people are capable, well-led and thoroughly professional. I have never served with finer men and women. They will, I am certain, carry out repeal and continue to serve this country with the same high standards and dignity that have defined the U.S. military throughout our history.”
While we congratulate all the fantastic activists, politicians, military personnel and others who helped secure the repeal, remember: DOMA still continues to screw over military couples and medical requirements and uniform regulations against “cross-dressing” prohibit trans servicemembers from serving or pursuing their transition during service, leaving them still on the outside.
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.
Rainfish
All of the foot-dragging, since last December’s repeal of DADT, has been unnecessary, dehumanizing, and unforgivably insulting to the tens of thousands of patriotic Gay and Lesbian military personnel who have served and are still serving bravely in the US military. You’d think with all of these arcane “preparations” that the Pentagon might be prepping itself for the same kind of “culture shock” they might experience via their first encounter with beings from outer space. What nonsense!
Now, if anyone counters with “Well, they needed months to do the paper work to update things regarding on-base domestic arrangements to include not only “his and hers, but his and his, and hers and hers”…well of course, that claim would be erroneous. As long as DOMA still exists, Gay and Lesbian soldiers are denied the same benefits for their families that heterosexual soldiers take so easily for granted. Their blood spills the same color on the same battlefields, as precious as any heterosexual soldier’s blood, while they are fighting our enemies, but their families at home are dishonored and denied equal treatment — such as base-housing for them and their spouse and children, death benefits, and numerous other remunerations which are too numerous for me to list here.
And this is how we reward patriotism in this country? …Pathetic.
Hyhybt
@Rainfish: Slow progress beats no progress every time.
inoits2
Please, lets be happy about this happening and thank you Mr. President. I frankly don’t care about DOMA and trans right now. Let’s focus on what just happened. The cup is half full.
L'Herb
Leave it to Queerty to put a big, fat “but” in this headline. If you can’t celebrate our victories, how in the hell do you expect us to have the wherewithal to fight the other battles we have before us?
Rainfish
@Hyhybt: When everybody else is entitled to a full fresh glass of clean water and you are offered a dirty half glass of muddy water…yes, of course, you should kiss the ass of your abusers like good little slaves and never feel outrage and never ask for more. Indeed, Gay pride is alive and well.
Pedro
@Rainfish: Have you ever heard about The Military Code of Uniform Justice? Yes, some things take time, I’m sorry you are disappointed, I for one, am fucking ecstatic! Some of the most whining bitches about this process have never, nor will ever where a uniform, as someone who knows how the military works, I’m shocked it happened this quickly, I was betting on late August to early September.
Roman
Great news! What a fantastic step forward after decades in the hole. We should be proud of all the the fair-mined Americans, advocates and activists who were fierce and fought hard to make this happen. This is our victory and progress – not President Obama’s. His expedient approach will be his legacy on a host of issues.
Mike
So now begins a 60 day clock wherein the GOP (Geriatric Old Pricks) throw every slimy roadblock they can to stop the repeal from going through.
Be prepared for repeal amendments to be attached to whatever is crucial to the left. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the fuckers standing on the floor of the house or senate exclaiming that this surely portends the end of the world! And then John McCain will say that this will literally kill soldiers.
inoits2
@Rainfish: ingrate
Rainfish
@Pedro: My spouse was in Air Force during the Vietnam era and my dad was a Marine in the 5th Division* who were the first to land on Iwo Jima and on Okinawa, so yes I aware of how the military works. I am also aware that DADT would never had happened if it were not for the Federal Court ruling which struck it down last September. A lame duck Democratic-controlled Congress at the 11th hour, in December of 2010, came up with this repeal after having their asses handed to them in the mid-terms by disenchanted progressives who stayed home in droves. Rewarding foot-dragging and failure doesn’t go over very well with some people who aren’t Obots.
It is a long awaited change, but no thanks to Obama and his DoJ who are still fighting the original federal court ruling which struck DADT down. It seems like having a constitutional decision in the favor of the Gay and Lesbian community concerning DADT is not something this administration was prepared for.
*(for your information: “The 5th Marine Division was an infantry division in the United States Marine Corps. Created during World War II, the division saw its first action at the Battle of Iwo Jima where it sustained the highest number of casualties amongst the invasion force.” )
….My dad was seriously wounded on Iowa Jima (he received a Purple Heart), and he yet still went on with the 5th Marine Division and landed with them on the beach in the next bloody invasion of Okinawa. He told me when I was a kid that he knew fellow Gay Marines. He knew they were also part of this band of brothers and he respected that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Marine_Division_(United_States)
Kenny
I hate Obitchba! I don’t care if he lets trans people in the military and repeals DOMA right this minute! He’s a raging homophobe just like every other sub-human groid and nothing he does will ever be enough because, as a groid, there’s no way he could possibly be sincere about what he’s done “for us!” This is all about scoring political points before the election and it’s not going to work!
Gaytorium
The fact that Clinton signed the DOMA irks me to this day. It’s one of the reasons I have trouble getting behind Clinton like a lot of my fellow liberals do. In many ways Clinton was a Republican albeit one who liked to party a lot.
As much as I’d like to see trans issues fixed I think it’ll be a very long time before those are addressed.
Rainfish
@inoits2: Who stupidly wrote “ingrate”.
———————-
Well, “inoits2” (aka dolt), it is a simple equation:
Dissatisfaction coupled with action = change.
Complacency combined with enabling dishonest politicians = status quo.
Take your immature trolling somewhere else. You add nothing to the discussion.
Steve
Mind you, I don’t think it’s just Queerty who believes that since DOMA is around, the repeal of DADT doesn’t mean anything, or it isn’t ‘enough’. There should really not be any buts to speak of; DADT is finally repealed! We do not know why it took so long and frankly, as a member of the Armed Forces, I would rather my superiors and President do this right the first time and make sure their will be as easy a transition as possible. Because in reality, this is a big change which requires the Armed Forces to ensure that it will not be affected.
I’m all for LGBT equality, but at a certain point, we must also remember to not have an affirmative-action-attitude towards the Armed Forces, i.e., trans service members will complain of discrimination against the Armed Forces for disqualification for something that indeed affects the Armed Forces. However, I can see hardly anything the matter with TSM that would interfere with normal military readiness.
Just trying to keep everybody’s (mine included) thoughts open and responsible.
Steve
And of course, we aren’t done. DOMA is still to be repealed by RFMA!
inoits2
@Rainfish: Take your complaining ass over to whiney joemygod where people always agree.
Cam
Everybody attacking rainfish and excusing the foot dragging etc… can go stuff it.
The White House said there would be no repeal, then Pelosi forced the repeal down their throat, but not before the White House inserted another hurdle into it. Additionally they were told that if a court struck it down the govt. could be open to lawsuits from dismissed servicepeople
Then they were foot dragging on the implamentation until the Federal Court surpsed them with a bombshell striking it down, so now they finally signed it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m ecstatic that this law is gone, and I am happy that the Dems and Obama are progressing on it….
But please don’t ever try to tell me that it had to be done this way or that they always planned to do it this way, or anything about a “Long Game”. It is being certified now because a Federal Court lashed out at the govt. and said there was no reason for the length of time this was taking.
Ned_Flaherty
• 14,317 people were discharged under DADT (November 1993 – July 2011).
• 78,000 bisexuals, lesbians, and gays are serving in the U.S. military today.
• Millions served successfully through the 20th and 21st centuries.
• 41 other nations also allow open military service, regardless of sexual orientation.
Steve
I think that regardless of when it was going to happen, it would always have been necessary to ensure a smooth transition, as certified by DOD/POTUS/JCS. The disparity in certifying is another matter. What a great weekend for LGBT equality!
Hyhybt
“Then they were foot dragging on the implamentation until the Federal Court surpsed them with a bombshell striking it down, so now they finally signed it.”
They never gave a specific date, but it was made pretty clear back in December or January that certification would happen sometime this summer. Today, indeed, *is* sometime this summer. Sooner would have been better… but all in all, it’s been a pretty good year.
inoits2's brain
@inoits2: Dearest “inoits2”, take your Obot anal orifice rimming remarks over to some DNC restroom glory hole. You’re just a tiresome flamer and an irrelevant fool.
Kev C
This certification will make gay sex mandatory for anyone joining the military. Read the fine print before you join up.
randy
DOMA is toast — it’s only a matter of time.
I’m confident because once our men and women in uniform meet and mingle with gays and lesbians, the prejudice and hate will fade away. Many of our military members come from rural areas, red states, and conservative families, and no doubt many of them have been taught to hate gays. But now with DADT repealed, they will come to know gays and will be forced to respect us and work along side with us. Eventually, even they will see that gays deserve the same rights, and they will support DOMA.
That’s why I think this is a big step forward. It will take time, but at some point, a clear majority of Americans will support repeal. Of course, as we’ve learned, it isn’t enough to have a clear majority — we have to have about 80% of Americans support repeal before congress will actually do anything. But still, we are on our way!
xander
@Kev C : Citation needed to verify your absurd allegations, please.
Thank you, in advance, for that info.
If it’s a joke of sorts, you’ve missed your mark.
x.y.
Matt
i know im going to get in trouble for saying this, but America is not ready for equal trans rights. If we try to couple them with gay rights it will only hamper the gay rights movement. Trans people need to be patient and realize that everything takes time, and America will need more time to understand and accept trans people.
Obamabot No. 1
Suck it, you bitter bitches!!!!
Obama won’t be re-elected despite the good things he’s done. Let’s see what the Republican asshole you guys are helping to elect will do for us then.
Bunny Snuggles
@Kev C: who wrote: ” This certification will make gay sex mandatory for anyone joining the military. Read the fine print before you join up.”
———-
Well, masturbation is same-sex gratification isn’t it? So, I suppose that makes everyone a little “gay” anyway. As far as the “other” forms of gratification go, well, you wouldn’t be able to pry a straight boy’s head out of his own lap with a crow-bar if their necks (or other appendages) were long enough. The whole notion of touching someone who has the same genitals that you have is somehow “icky” is all for show; sociologically brainwashed into everyone, and thoroughly dishonest. The ancient classical world made no such distinctions, other than some weird desert tribe who worshiped a War God in the Middle-East, believed in talking tree snakes and magic zoological arks some 2,000 plus years ago.
Obots Are as Bad as Teabaggers
@Obamabot No. 1: You make the best argument for the formation of a viable third political party in America. Maybe a liberal version of the Tea Party with the power to keep Democratic Politicians honest (that would take a miracle), or maybe a Labor Party which would actually represent the quickly disappearing middle-income working class in America.
Kev C
@xander: “Citation needed to verify your absurd allegations, please.”
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
Uniform Code of Military Justice – Subchapter X – Section 925 – Article 125 – Sodomy
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found not guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
xander
@Kev C. : Hmmm. Thanks. Somehow, NOT being guilty of something has taken on new meanings, hasn’t it?
See you at the recruitment centre tomorrow, okay? 🙂 Except, AU is sort of far away from here. I’ll have to have a think on how to get there.
Rainfish
@Kev C: Legal action against those who indulge in so-called “consensual sodomy” is no longer enforceable. The UCMJ reg. on this has been successfully challenged in the federal courts. Whether or not it is still on the books is irrelevant.
The military’s sodomy statute had applied to both heterosexual and same-sex consensual sodomy. According to the RAND Institute, 80 percent of military personnel violate the statute on a regular basis.
sheilaputang
The end to DADT is a great thing, and with the comments about that America is not ready for Trans Equality is complete ignorance, because America is never really ready for change or to embrace anything that is indifference with the conservative right wing that has been running this country for 100’s of years. I am very happy to see that DADT has ended and now its time to fight for DOMA!
One step closer to equality is better then no steps at all! http://www.sheilaputang.com
Oh Dear (John From England)
How did the trans movement become a gay rights movement? Did it start first in Europe or the US?
robert in NYC
And if a republican were in the White House, there would be NO repeal of DADT considering the majority in the GOP voted against it and so too would DOMA NEVER be overturned. Anyone voting for a republican including civil libertarian republicans should ask themselves which equality bills are on the GOP agenda in 2012 and beyond? Name ONE! No party is perfect, least of all the Democratic party, but please, think seriously about who among the republican candidates is going to support us? Bachmann, Pawlenty, Romney, or even Ron Paul who’s going nowhere?
declanto
As a queer veteran I applaud the end of DADT. As a queer, I laugh at the whiney, bitchy, self-flagellater commentary. Be gay, dearies, It’s one for our side. As a very proud queer, I stand with my brothers and sisters and move to the next goal, the repeal and death of DOMA.
tjr101
@robert in NYC: For gay republicans, gay rights and having any sense of decency and dignity comes secondary to the almighty tax cut. Well…probably not even secondary.
OutMilitary
OutMilitary.com, the social network for LGBT service members and their
supporters, is proud to support U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision
to certify the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
This was, hands down, the right thing for the president to do. The
estimated 65,000 active-duty and reserve troops that bravely serve our
nation no longer have to do so in silence this September. The end of
DADT will bring equality to the ranks; an all volunteer force comprised
of Americans from every conceivable background – including lesbian women
and gay men. OutMilitary.com members are happy about Obama’s decision
to finally put an end to a discriminatory chapter in American military
history.
OutMilitary.com provides a supportive environment for “friending,”
sharing and networking between active duty military, veterans and
supporters – around the world.
robert in NYC
No. 36, tjr101, exactly! The problem with the GOP is it refuses to take any responsibility for the more than $9 trillion brought about by Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. combined. Obama inherited that mess. We didn’t hear Boehner and Cantor et al when Bush Jr. raised the debt ceiling 7 times, lowered taxes and yet we still ended up with the largest deficit in the nation’s history with very little job creation. They didn’t even include the cost of the two wars which would push the debt to $14 trillion or more which is the more realistic figure. Social security doesn’t even figure into the equation. It’s solvent for another 25 years and isn’t part of the deficit since it is revenue contributed by workers through their employers via FICA deductions. This is a GOP crisis manufactured by the Republicans at the behest of the Tea Party scumbaggers who are in fact voting against their own interests. Dumb bastards!
robert in NYC
When I say $9 trillion, I mean the national debt!
Interesting
DADT is really not that important.
ENDA, then DOMA are the most important and a general civil rights bill would be incredible.
Yes, the President dragged his feet on this issue. Anyone denying this at this point is along the same people denying that the President wants to cut Social Security and Medicare despite the President he will cut both programs multiple times- in others delusional.
Interesting
@Obots Are as Bad as Teabaggers: We do not need another Liberal party in this country. We need a left wing one. There is a difference. I should make it clear. I am not a leftist, but I think there is a lack of a real political center because of the lack of a counter weight to the far right in our society.
Right now, there is no counterbalance to the far right wing ideologies of either the Democrats or Republicans. And, Liberals will not act as that counterweight. Reading recently on some suggested history after I read an article or two- I discovered that much of the problems we face are because Liberals have consistently sold us out to the Right. People for get this- but part of the reason FDR acted as he did is because leftist scared the shit out of him.
In fact, if you look at Obama, he’s acting as he does because he does not fear a left wing craziness like you would find with his Obots or the Tea Party.
Interesting
@robert in NYC: THis is actually inaccurate. It was heading to passage under the GOP as well. I am on the left so I say that will a full understanding of how this game in DC works. The reason why you got such opposition was partisanship. The Republicans wanted to score points with their base once it was a Democratic Congress pushing for DADT repeal. But in terms of the scheme of things- many of them supported repeal as well.
Interesting
@Oh Dear (John From England): Since you are from England, perhaps you are not familiar with American concepts like “equal protection under the law.” Its the same concept regardless of the group. One had to do with the other because of that fact. Then again, may be you just don’t want to get it. If so, I can only suggest you realize what’s called “gay rights” is really just us, like Trans, being included in rights that the majority already has. Its the same debate, just as it was with race and gender. If you go back to look up the arguments in case law and legislation- its exactly the same. The specifics differ, but nto the underlying principles.
Interesting
@robert in NYC: None of what you describe explains why President Obama pushed in the debt ceiling circus for cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The Obots are left on other sites claiming that he really didn’t mean it and other arguments. The biggest problem howeever is the idea that he “inherited” this as if he’s not acting to continue the “this” you are mentioning. We are still in wars that are contributing to the debt. We are still cutting taxes on the wealthy (while he had a Democratic Congress no less at the time that he did it) that’s contributing to that debt. In fact, if you ended the war, and you let the tax cuts subside- it would address the financial issues of this country for the most part. If he had pushed for drug re-importation, public option etc – it would have reduced the cost of health care. All of this “he has no choice” stuff is just excuse.
Daez
@Interesting: Maybe Social Security and Medicare do need cuts. If people had their entire lives to secure their own future and decided not to the whole time then maybe they don’t deserve the same benefits as someone that worked their entire lives to earn money and be a productive citizen (the type of person you now want to raise taxes on).
Doesn’t personal accountability matter to you at all?
Daez
@Interesting: Actually, its pretty hard to make the argument that someone that is willing to fight and die for this country is not worthy of the same rights that someone else is. Also, the black civil rights movement really began when black soldiers were seen as making a huge difference in WWII (granted, much like now, they had no other choice when they started to emphasize recruitment of blacks).
Interesting
@Daez: Your lack of understanding of how markets work and ignorance of history are on display. The reality is that markets are about winners and losers. Even if people plan their whole lives. Someone’s going to win. Someone’s going to lose. That’s by definition how it is supposed to work. We have been where you are describing before the modern state. It was in the 19 century. It produced massive economic upheavals for country. Including depressions that would last 20 years at a time.
Personal accountability is ideological clap trap. I am building a business right now. It may fail. It may succeed. it will be based on market conditions. Not my magical powers to control the market. The market is an aggregation of all of us. Not just me. I can make the best plans possible, and still bet wrong. This is the reality of dealing with an ecomomy rather than just myself. I find right wingers delusional about this. They seem to have this belief that there is this magical quality to personal accountability that means that one must ignore that one is working in a market place where its not just about individual choice. Its about the mass of multiple individual choice, inperfect information (if you don’t understand why imperfect information matters to choice, then I suggest you spend a little time reading books on Game Theory) etc. None of this is in other words as simple minded as you believe.
People often ignorantly assume that the social safety nets are there as a give away. They are there because of the implicit assumptions of capitalism and about understanding history. We create a floor to stabilize our society. We don’t do it for individuals. We don’t want to have a society where things can go completely off the rails as they did with the Great Depression. A quick example: Demand makes up 70 percent of our economy. Part of that demand is spending related to Social security and medicare. What would happen if that demand dies? That’s not personal responsibility. That’s a stabilized society.
Then, to is your utter ignorance about the economic differences between the value of Medicare. Its cheaper than the private sector insurance despite the fact that the private sector covers younger and healthier patients. That means there is an economic value to our society. You are inviting inefficient allocation of resources in the name of an ideology rather than sound economic policy. Right now, I am wasting a lot of money as a small business owner on health care that’s not very good for me a few other people. I do the same thing that I do in every other aspects of my business- i research the issue. if you look abroad, it helps businesses like me to not have to compete with others terms of internal benefits like over priced health care plans.
But, you know what’s the real problem with your statement: Its utter ignorance for what the debate is about regarding the debt ceiling. You are essentially arguing “I owe a lot of money to the phone company so I am going to go pay my medical bills.” That and spitting personal responsibility while pretending you get nothing from the bargain.
Interesting
@Daez: If you look at the numbers of gay people affected by DADT, versus those who will be affected by ENDA, and then a distant second, DOMA, there is no way of earth that anyone can reasonably on the basis of the class being helped or hurt- say that DADT matters more. It has symbolic value. But in real world impact terms, its like Hate Crimes. A small victory for the class. Your way of looking at it has nothing to do with the substantive impact for achieving the best outcomes for the highest number of people, which is how I am measuring value. Not about what it does for the country. That’s not the purpose of the exercise. We are measuring equality under the law and its value to us. In this sort of calculus, it is expected that one looks at the impact on the minority group in question unless the greater society can show a compelling or strong interest in denying such rights. Your argument does not meet the requirement. PR is not an excuse to ignore what has the most impact.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The black civil rights movement to dismantle Jim Crow (which I am assuming is the part you are referring of the Black Civil Rights movement) predates WWII. It began in part with efforts like the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/tushnet605.htm
There are also many other aspects which predated WWII.
Hyhybt
@Interesting: You dismiss DADT repeal as symbolic, but symbols MATTER; they so often lead to changed minds. Meanwhile, while ENDA *in theory* tangibly affects more people, most employers nowadays don’t fire people over orientation anyway. Not even in very red states. Yes, it needs to pass too (or better and simpler, add us to the existing law which is stronger) but they’re all important in their own way and this was the most doable.
Anyway, what good does it do, when a genuine accomplishment is made, to skip over celebrating entirely and go right to complaining over its not being soon enough and not what you would have preferred being done first?
@Daez: People make plans according to the rules in place when they’re making plans. That’s rational. If the law is that at a certain age you will receive this amount per month plus this level of medical care, that goes into long-term planning (for those who do such) from the beginning of their careers. That *is* being responsible and planning for your own future. It might, possibly, be necessary, but it’s certainly unfair, to change the rules and take it away once people have already reached that point, or are too close to rearrange their savings effectively.
Daez
@Daez: Please tell me oh great one, how the hell do you lose on a savings account that is backed by the FDIC. You would have to be an idiot to put all of your savings into the stock market. I’m talking about actually saving money not trying to make an income from interest.
Lets talk about the great depression. Why did it happen? It happened because a run on the banks caused them to fail. Once they failed, there was no money to get out of them. Since then the government created this nifty little thing called the FDIC which protects your savings up to $250,000. That of course means people have to actually save money for retirement which is something that most people don’t do because they lack the ability to control their personal finances.
I love your argument regarding ENDA. Now would you please show me all these out of work gay people and all these companies that (by their own free will) do not offer any protections for gay people. There are enough companies out there right now that offer protections and benefits for gay people willingly that your argument that ENDA is needed is a complete joke. As compared to the military where DADT contributes directly to discrimination.
Daez
@Hyhybt: However, since the beginning of Social Security, people knew that it was not to be counted on, and that they should plan their retirement as if Social Security doesn’t even exist. I have been aware since I graduated high school that there would not be enough funds in Social Security to benefit my retirement. Which begs the question, why am I forced to pay into it at all. I should be given a tax break equivalent to every dime I pay into Social Security if I can prove that I have my own retirement plan. We all should.
robert in NYC
Really, No. 42, heading for passage under the republicans? Then explain why Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) were the only ones who crossed the aisle to support repeal on December 10, 2010, only 6 of them?
Interesting
@Hyhybt: I did not say it was just symbolic. Re-read what i wrote. I said it would not have a significant impact on the lives of gay people. Again the measure I have used now twice. And you and no one here can bring evidence that I am wrong. The bestyou can cite is its impact on gays in the military. By definition gays in the military a subset of gays in the population of gay people. Its not going to have a significant impact to anyone not in the military, which is most gay people. It doesn’t mean that it has no value. it means it has less value than ENDA.
Frankly, I got to be honest, part of the reason why I think some of you can’t read what i am saying as I am saying it is the black and white way you view things. For us or against us.
I w ould love to know how you come by your stats on ENDA’s value. Can you link me to the data that says that most people, even in conservative states, do not fire due to being gay? Of course the problem is that you can’t. And the nature of discrimination in employment isn’t always about annnouncing “I am firing you because I am a bigot.’ In fact, most bigotry in employment -w hether racial or gay related- is often couched in non discrimination terms. That’s why you need the laws. it would allow for what are cases that would look into the very thing you have decided has little impact to find out if you are right. The key element is- however- that the military represents a small population of gays as it does with the rest of the country as a whole.
I don’t discount symbolism. I just find it a weak argument for proclaiming this a great victory for gay people. It okay. Its just not great. And it was something with 70-80 percent support. So the symbolism is actually behind the times rather than making the times.
Interesting
@Hyhybt: By the way, although I can not speak of actual firing, I can speak of employment discrimination more broadly to include things like wage differences.
Gay men, for example, make less than their straight male counter parts:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=gay+wage+gap&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=
This is almost certainly circumstantial evidence of discrimination just it is for gender and race discrimination cases. This gap exists apparently even when one takes into account gender issues, etc. Its also not specific to the U.S., which again gives credence to employment discrimination issues.
Hyhybt
@Interesting: Speaking of not reading what people write, I didn’t SAY you said it was just symbolic. What you did do was discount the symbolism as being essentially worthless by basing your claim that DADT repeal is relatively unimportant on the number of gay people in the military.
You also don’t seem to comprehend the difference between “can’t read what I’m saying” and “we read it just fine, but disagree.”
Nor do I see where I claimed to HAVE any stats. You just made that part up so as to be able to demand a source, when I was clearly speaking opinion.
Interesting
@Daez: I notice you completely skipped over my arguments, which is not surprising, given the nature of the arguments are things your ideological bent can not respond to.
And as for the Great Depression- there were many depressions before the Great Depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
Nor was it the only one:
http://history1800s.about.com/od/thegildedage/a/financialpanics.htm
Second, here’s what a quick google search brings up
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/greatdepression/tp/greatdepression.htm
http://www.museum.siu.edu/museum_classroom_grant/Museum_Explorers/school_pages/bourbonnais/page1.htm
I don’t expect any of this to cut through the fog of sound bites , but I thought it may help others to understand.
People can not “plan” their retirement given the realities of a complicated economic system that’s even more complicated than those that existed either during the great depression or the panics that preceded it. That economy is complicated because its a world economy. Globalization makes your argument absurd on its face. How does one plan, for example, for a job (that would be the source of the income for savings) being outsourced when its not always clear what’s going to be outsourced? How does one plan for education cost that are rising twice and three times the rate of inflation? How does one plan for real estate market bubbles? How does one invest if one does not have the money? How does one invest if one has no major assets?
Part of the issue is once again you assume that there will not be winners and losers. If there going to be losers- it is on you to explain how planning addresses this issue.
Most of the stuff you are spouting are talking points.
Interesting
@Hyhybt: If you can not back up your position with data, then you are talking out of your ass. If you think that providing evidence of your position is optional, then you are just fundamentalist with your own religion with nothing to back it up other than your faith that you are right.
As for the rest of your post, it is just you doing the bullshit artist thing. You don’t have anything substantive to add other than it annoyed you that I said that there is a hierarchy to the value of what needed to pass. For a third time, let’s once again say that this is not a debate about whether it has some symbolic value. That’s your attempt to reframe what I said with a straw man debate that you want to have because its the only one you can win. My statements about actual impact of legislation- and my ordering in he original post- as such is something you can’t refute. So you go on these tangents about symbolism because you can not speak to the substance of my point. Instead, you are left claiming that the substantive point does not matter.
What does it matter whehter a bill helps 1 in 10 or 7 in 10. Its all the same because of symbolism. That’s your argument in a nutshell as a response to my view that it has little real world value to the lives of most gay people.
I am going to again say you have a reading comprehension problem. You aren’t disagreeing with my statement about the numbers. YOu keep changing the subject to something else.
Daez
@Interesting: I would hate to skip your arguments since they are so easily explained.
There are plenty of jobs that are never going to be outsourced. This is a service economy. I’m pretty sure retail and medical industries will never be outsourced (unless you think people will start going over seas to shop and seek medical treatment). Both of those industries are impossible to outsource and there are others.
One pays for education by obtaining a job then working to save for college. I know that is a noble concept, but you can get an associates degree, get a job then work on your bachelor’s then work on your master’s. Doing so also allows you to take advantage of the plethora of companies that have tuition reimbursement.
One plans for real estate bubbles by not buying a house they can not afford. Sometimes you actually have to live within your means instead of expecting a government hand out when you fail to do so.
You start by living well within your means. You save what you do have. Suddenly, if you continue to save what you do have instead of blowing it on ridiculous things you can not afford then you suddenly have a decent amount of money to actually invest.
In an actual savings account which is what we are talking about here. I’m not talking about the stock market. I never once mentioned the stock market. Please tell me how there is a loser when you get a set amount of interest (even if its extremely small) and you actually save your money in an FDIC insured bank. Go ahead, I’m waiting.
Daez
@Interesting:
“If you can not back up your position with data, then you are talking out of your ass. If you think that providing evidence of your position is optional, then you are just fundamentalist with your own religion with nothing to back it up other than your faith that you are right. ”
Need I mention Interesting, that you have not provided any data regarding hiring and firing practices of any company. I don’t have any data, but I can tell you that in a rather red area I was able to find many employers that already had non-discrimination policies that included sexual orientation. Hell, there are even small businesses with such policies where I lived at the time.
One other thing, its obvious you are a lawyer because you have to say a lot to mean a little, but this is a blog not a court room. KISS!
Interesting
@Daez: I already have provided data in the form of a link that is about the gay wage gap in which I point out that its circumstantial evidence of about employment discrimination against gays?
So when you say that I am providing no data, what you really mean, once again, is that you aren’t reading.
I can’t care what you personally believe. That’s asking me to believe in your beliefs.
I can what you can back up, because that tells me whether me whether my views are wrong or not. I don’t have a problem being proven wrong on an argument that I am making. I have a problem being told that I am wrong because someone else “feels” that I am wrong.
Even your comment about red states is absurd. Many employers are not large employers working in multiple states where they have to set up such policies to address the various jurisdictions in which they operate. What you see locally is a product, at least in part, of a wider context than your local situation. However, for small to midsize local business, it would be impossible to know the answer without DATA.
We can look at circumstantial evidence to tell us there is a problem like the gay wage gap enough to know your claim is false.
I decided by the way to look up the question further. I found this stat:
“39 Percent:
As late as 2005, 39 percent of all LGBT workers reported experiencing some sort of workplace discrimination or harassment. Recent polling, however, suggests that more Americans view equal rights in the workplace as a moral issue.”
http://news.change.org/stories/a-few-statistics-on-lgbt-issues
I am sure there is even more data out there like that.
Interesting
By the way, my friends and I discussed why most of the gay elite does not care about ENDA>
The reality is that its about class. A lot of gay people affected by employment discrimination are not of the wealthy and upper middle class gay image that the gay msm likes to present. Its like the whole game of pretending gays are richer than straight counterparts despite the data showing we are not. That we are poorer.
DADT has the advance of making people feel patriotic as long as one does not act like a Choi who brought class and race into the picture and the a lack of middle class civility. Labor issues, which ENDA is, brings up uncomfortable truths.
Daez
@Interesting: A study based on wage gaps has nothing to do with discriminatory hiring practices. You haven’t given any information to show how ENDA would affect this wage gap situation at all.
No, what I REALLY MEAN is that you have shown ZERO EVIDENCE that gay people are getting fired on a consistent basis for being gay. Isn’t that what ENDA is supposed to put an end to?
Take this from someone who has grown up and lived in a deep red area for my entire life…
My friends and I have never been denied a job based on our sexual orientation. Never, not once. Not only that, but the companies I have worked for have ALWAYS had a non-discrimination policy that included gays and lesbians, and I have always been out at every single one of my jobs in a DEEP RED AREA. So, my opinion is based on personal experience. You have provided zero evidence to prove my opinion wrong.
It would be impossible to know the answer EITHER WHICH WAY without data, and you are the one making the ridiculous claim that no gay person in this country can find meaningful employment because we don’t have ENDA passed. I simply told you that is bull shit, and you don’t want to hear that it is truly bull shit.
What is even worse is that you acknowledge the fact that if you do get fired for discriminatory reasons its not exactly that easy to prove. So, if that is the case you are admitting that non-discrimination laws have absolutely no bearing in the vast majority of cases yet you want one so very badly.
Wage gap studies very rarely take any variables into consideration. They simply look at wages. There are many sociological theories in place to explain the wage gap between men and women such as women want time off to raise children and are less likely to keep their skills up to date. Maybe gay men want time to actually enjoy life since they have actual disposable income and in MOST cases are not raising children so they can afford to take time off therefore not making as much money as their straight counterparts that still have less on average to actually spend than the gay males.
39% of all workers can believe whatever they want. Perhaps they just couldn’t find a job in a tough economy and needed a scape goat because you don’t believe for a second they are actually going to blame themselves do you. Oh, and I will go ahead and assume that most of those cases involve the T in the GLBT, and to be honest I give a crap less about the T.
Doesn’t this study actually show my argument more than yours? It means that 61% of all workers believe they were never discriminated against in the work place. You tried to make this problem look bigger than it is. I never said we didn’t need ENDA. It is much more important to end a policy that actively supports discrimination than it is to create a policy that may or may not lessen it.
Daez
@Interesting: Honey, I’m clearly not from the elite. I worked for every penny I had. When I couldn’t find a job, I went back to school to get my STNA (nursing assistant) license and now my job consist of cleaning up shit and getting hit by residents, but still its a lot more honest than living off of social entitlement programs.
I am totally lost but what you were trying to say after that, but my guess is that you honestly don’t believe that any GLBT should bother serving in the military to begin with.
Interesting
@Daez: (a) Wage gaps are a product of work discrimination. You are just talking out of your ass. I don’t have the time or inclination to address the bullshit you are putting out to justify your misreading of my first comment. (b) I gave you a separate stat, 39 percent, that covers the actual issues faced in employment by LGBT reporting. Sadly, I knew from dealing with other bullshit artists that it would be necessary to call you directly on your shit by offering data., something you still have not provided for any of your own arguments on here. In short, I don’t give a fuck about you or your friends, and what anecdotes you bring to the table. I now have confirmed data. You can’t rebut that with “I personally” statements.
(b) Who the fuck cares what background you are from. OBama isn’t from an elite backgroun either. Neither was clinton. They certainly did what the elites wanted while in office regardless of theri background. I am not impressed by “I personally” statements unless they demonstrate an understanding of an issue being discussed. The reason why you are lost is because its about you rather than about whether an issue impacts more people or not. In other words, you don’t really seem to give a shit bout the wider community so much as tell us all about you. The data tells us about something other than you or me. It tells us about the wider community.
Hyhybt
@Interesting: There is *absolutely nothing* wrong with stating opinions as opinions, whether you happen to approve of them or not. As for value… you ARE essentially arguing that symbolism is worthless if you misdefine “actual impact” to include only tangible impact as you are doing by ranking strictly on the numbers. That the impact of DADT repeal beyond its effect on those actually serving now or in the future is difficult or impossible to measure does not mean it does not exist or is worthless.
Interesting
@Hyhybt: If you can’t back up your opinions with facts you are nothing more than a fundamentalist trying to covert us to your religion. The reason why we went through whole age enlightment, why we require reason, is because people like you killed off a lot of people based on nothing more than your ignorance. So,yes, facts and anlaysis that backs up your opinion does matter, and there something wrong with you that you don’t feel you need to offer it. But don’t worry you are in good company. That’s why this country is really going to shit. Good folks like you spouting bullshit that you aren’t required to back up.
Hyhybt
@Interesting: All right then… prove that I’m a fundamentalist trying to covert you to my religion. You said it, and according to your rules you can’t say anything unless you can cite evidence. And I haven’t, so far as I remember, even *mentioned* religion in this thread, nor, since you decided to bring it up, am I even remotely fundamentalist in my beliefs.
Ganondorf
@Interesting:
Yes. There hasn’t been a credible “left wing” movement in the world in decades (and I distinguish a credible left wing movement from the typical palaver of middle class ‘left wing’ pricks who are more concerned with multiculturalist thinky thoughts than hard hitting economic realities and policy). I agree with John Coetzee in that. But specifically, in America, there is no such thing as a left wing movement. You’re either a republican or a republican light (obama and the clintons are essentially gay friendly, pro choice republicans). This is bigger than the triangulation of the a political speech, and unfortunately most people just don’t know enough about economics or political procedure to comprehend the difference. Your average voter is breathtakingly ignorant, though suffers from this ignorance nonetheless. That’s why arguments about which poison is less lethal gain sway, and moronic apologists are feted as insightful. I just don’t have any sympathy for people who view the world in a republican vs. democrat template. It’s just not that simple, and hasn’t been for a very long time. Presidential elections are literally theater, and they never stop even after they’re officially over.
And let’s credit Obama for being there to put his signature to DADT repeal. But that’s pretty much it. Better than Bush or the republican bigots isn’t a compliment or an endorsement of character or policy initiative.