Americans as a whole “are six percentage points more likely than they were four years ago to favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, 69% to 63%.” But that’s not the really good news: Gallup reveals “the biggest increase in support has been among conservatives and weekly churchgoers — up 12 and 11 percentage points, respectively.”
Sure, it’s those crazy liberals who most want to see Don’t Ask Don’t tell disappear, but some important revelations: “First, the data show that these traditionally conservative groups are shifting on this issue, supporting it to a far greater extent than they support legalized gay marriage. Second, it suggests the political playing field may be softer on this issue, and President Barack Obama will be well-positioned to forge ahead with his campaign promise to end the military ban on openly gay service members with some support from more conservative segments of the population. […] In particular, the more conservative segments of the population who could be expected to be most resistant to such a policy change have shifted in favor of repealing the existing ban, to the extent that majority support now spans all segments of the population.”
Maybe the Human Rights Campaign didn’t get this data?
petted
So we can get shot at in service of our country just not have equal rights at home – gee that sounds peachy
InExile
Looks like the problem isn’t with the voters, it is with our politicians. I guess they are too worried about themselves instead of the people that elected them. It is time for us to DEMAND EQUALITY and quit asking for it!
Qjersey
And if I die defending my country, my partner gets shit
schlukitz
@Qjersey:
And what a revoltin’ development that would be!
The Gay Numbers
@InExile: The reality across the board is that the issue is rarely the American public. It is often the DC concensus. The concensus believes certain things whether it is true or not. Poll after poll will say Americans want by 60 percent a public rather than private healthcare insurance system, and yet, the politicians (bought and paid for by private interests) will advocate for the private interest. The public will say that across idealogical lines they support the repeal of DADT, and yet, in DC, the politician will say no because that’s not the DC concensus. You will have a Republican talking head and a Democratic talking head get on the tv as I saw the other day to say that “The American people are not quite there yet.” What they mean is “DC is not there yet.” Unfortunately many things are protected both structurally (the founders built the system this way) and perceptionally by the internia of what has happened before.
TANK
@The Gay Numbers:
That’s a roundabout way of saying what, exactly?
strumpetwindsock
The government and its bureaucrats are living in a bubble and out of touch with the public.
InExile
They need us to rattle their cages!
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
And I thought we were all full up on generic cliches.
InExile
A progressive blog Buzzflash.com did a story about the HRC drama this week, check it out in the buzzflash.com blog area.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Hey baby, if you had understood what he said in the first place the cliches wouldn’t be necessary.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
I’m not your baby, guy!
The Gay Numbers
@strumpetwindsock: Thank you. I thought that was obvious from my saying DC concensus has nothing to do with the public’s views and the examples of the disconnect between how public views the world and DC. Of course, with gay rights issue there is even a third level- the disconnect between how the DC bubble views the issues, how the public views the issues AND how the constitution says they should view the issue. In the case of the Constitution, often times people do not understand the basic structure of their government or the meaning of concepts like equal protection under the law. This third disconnect (ignorance) is something that the politician is willing to exploit.
They not only do this with gays and the Constitution, but again issues like healthcare in which people think we have the best system in the world, but it’s actually more expensive and by a factor of two with results that are far behind those of developed countries like Japan and regions like the European Union. It is the intermingling of this third element which makes change hard as well because living in the DC bubble means manipulating the underlying facts toward one’s ends rather than the public good.
Going back to the Constitution- it’s in the interest of the bubble reality in DC to leave people confused about what equal protection under the Constitution means because that protects the status quo.
The Gay Numbers
I should write this shorter for Tank who seems to only like arguments: The point is that the DC crowd has one agenda and the public another and our system requires another, but the DC crowd gets what it wants by promoting ignorance so that the beliefs of the general public are reduced in impact but also so are other tools that would require the politician to be held accountable for his or her actions.
TANK
And are you really saying anything with those painfully trite “POLITICIANS ARE CORRUPT AND INFFECTIVE! BLAH BLAH BLAH! DC BELTWAY INSIDERS ARE RUINING THIS COUNTRY *hrrmpf* *hrrmpf* *hrrmpf*!” I mean, are you saying anything more than what could be conveyed with a good old fashioned hand wringing?
TANK
@The Gay Numbers:
Special interests control politicians?! That, sir, is madness. It’s crazy talk, and I’ll have no more of it! Unamerican, goddamnit!
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
Plus there’s the whole layer of lobbying and backrooming, which government seems to pay more attention to than they do to the people who got them elected in the first place.
Dealing with the issues and one’s constituents takes a back seat to serving one’s party and its supporters.
Seeing as they only HAVE to pay attention to the electorate once every four years I can understand how many politicians might dismiss us as being ignorant and irrelevant the rest of the time.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Back rooms filled with seeegar smoke? Closed door secret negiations? THat may be how things are done in canada, but not here in the states.
InExile
@TANK: Oh, so that explains how Nancy Pelosi knew nothing about torture even though the entire country and the entire world knew about it!
The Gay Numbers
@InExile: My advice is to ignore Tank. I plan to from this point.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
LOL
No… of course not.
@The Gay Numbers:
Our reliance on sound bites and TV sure doesn’t help in getting complicated issues across to the public.
Speaking of being out of touch with the constitution, we had a situation like that this winter – our minority goverment accused the opposition of staging a coup and overruling the election when in fact they were calling for a confidence vote which was completely correct and procedural.
Unfortunately a lot of people believed them.
And down south you have that whole lobby of people who believe your constitution and government were inspired by god, when in reality its founders were doing their damndest to keep the church out of government.
TANK
@The Gay Numbers:
HEy, you started getting all hot and heavy with the platitudes. It’s stagnant.
PKintheHouse
I think the problem is one that we see often with many worthy causes. Politicians are only interested in action when there is big money involved, and the legislation will bring money to them and their friends. They have no interest, by and large, in improving the criminal justice system, or advancing people’s rights, or making life better, or making the system more fair. And the reason is that these things don’t make big money. If there was big money to be made there would be powerful interests advancing the cause. The progress the gay community has made has mirrored the emergence of gay economic power. That’s why companies are coming on board faster than the government. Politicians don’t stand to gain much from gay rights. They take in some in campaign donations, but supporting gay rights alienates other contributors with anti-gay views. So, the net financial effect is modest. Like Deep Throat said,”Follow the money.”
The Gay Numbers
@strumpetwindsock: You get at some of the core problems. The founders of the US government intended for internia and conservatism, but what has happened is that things like an independent press have gone the way of the Do Do bird. This has been self evident for a long time. The lead up to Iraq is just one of many examples. The problem is that it is very difficult to hold any segment responsible in such a process. That’s why I advocate to people that they remain realistic about how best we can affect the processes. For example, the S.Ct., which conservatives have spent the better part of 2 decades packing with conservative judicial activist, I point out it is a mistake to think that they will consider the “merits’ of the gay civil rights issues. They are there to accomplish the conservative agenda. this is a court that currently trying to destroy the racial protections that are plainly the law right now because they want to regress our legal system back to the place it was 75 years ago:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/6/5/82858/12069
Alot of ignorant people say stupid shit not understanding that this stagnancy and regression is the goal because there are people who voted politicians who are willing to use ignorance as a tool for action or to push for agendas that have nothing to do with what our system presently is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_in_exile
The term Washington Consensus was first thought of in a more narrow sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
My point is that whether it is free market fundamentalism (the bed rock of much of the economic policy coming out of DC is based on these ideas- indeed the healthcare reform effort here reflects some of these tenets) or gay marriage, the same underlying forces are at play- that DC politicians- not the Constitution or the American public- knows best.
The Gay Numbers
@PKintheHouse: I agree with this. I used to work on poverty issues as an activist. One of the big problems is that by nature the poor are often the least powerful in our society in either money or organizational power such as acting as a voting block.
JP
Incredibly, one of those obstructions inside Washington is now SLDN – – the gay lobby group that is supposed to use its $3.3 MILLION a year budget to fight to stop DADT discharges.
Forget any alleged “go slow” recommendation to Congress from HRC when SLDN is instead FIGHTING AGAINST the President freezing discharges under his “national security” powers, given to him by Congress.
Parroting Robert Gibbs’ nonsense they’re bleating that it’s because it wouldn’t be a “permanent” solution even though THEY keep pushing the idea that O take funding for discharges out of the next annual Pentagon budget….which would be even less permanent IF you could get Congress to approve it.
Why would they approve that if they’re not yet ready to approve actual repeal????
I suggest a Centers for Disease Control emergency team be rushed to SLDN’s offices to determine what’s contaminated their water coolers and eaten the brains of its director and communications manager.
The Gay Numbers
@JP: You have to understand DC-speak. What this really means to me at least is that the real fear is that they will be stepping on toes. That stepping on those toes will mean any efforts later attempted to repeal DADT will be harmed. Now, whether that is true or not- one can speculate to say maybe not. But, if you got them drunk- I think that’s what they would blurt out. That they are trying to build DC consensus rather than ramrodding it. The funny part about DC consensus is that it is meant to retard or end liberal leaning or progressive actions, but does not work well with conservative actions because that remaiins the DC default position. What do I mean? I mean that bush could ramrod things through in DC because everyone assumes that what the American people really believes (despite the polls) and that the Constitution when changed can only be changed because of liberal bias (the narrative they have heard- including Obama- for the last 40 years).
The Gay Numbers
This “and that the Constitution when changed can only be changed because of liberal bias (the narrative they have heard- including Obama- for the last 40 years).”
should read:
“and that the Constitution when changed can only be changed because of liberal bias (the narrative they have heard- including Obama- for the last 40 years) rather than also according to conservative biases such as those of the present conservative extremist Supreme Court that no one is talking about because it is not left leaning.”
The Gay Numbers
No one being the Main stream american press. Instead we here how Sotomayor is a liberal activist when in fact her record is one of judicial restraint in most of her cases, and the cases of the present S.Ct. conservative justices is to just make shit up. See for example their rulings on race, gun control and the takings clause.
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
Likewise the belief that they shouldn’t do anything to impede the free market when in fact much of your government involves corporate welfare doled out by a corporate oligarchy.
Our government is no different, but we have crown corporations (government-owned) without the assumption that we are communist.
Of course since the bailouts anyone with any sense should see the situation for what it is, but I’m sure those same arguments will still be used against universal healthcare.
JP
@The Gay Numbers:
Rather than “that they will be stepping on toes,” could it also be that the leaders of SLDN can’t admit that THEIR approach has failed for 16 years so they just keep pushing variations of it? [The most ludicrous angle is that SLDN’s cofounder, who is also against a freeze, has been writing a book on how to win in Washington…even tho he only lost for 14 years.]
And which toes? The latest defense of their “DON’T FREEZE DISCHARGES, MR. PRESIDENT…FORM A COMMITTEE THAT HAS TO GET BACK TO YOU IN FOUR MONTHS” message came yesterday in response to questions from the “Washington Blade” about HRC now calling for a freeze.
There has been ongoing competition between SLDN and HRC over DADT turf for a few years now. HRC, not SLDN, funded the speaking tour of gay Iraqi vets to lobby voters to support repeal. [And one assumes those vets first approached the most obvious organization, SLDN, and were turned down for their first, longer speaking tour the year before, which they ended up raising money for themselves.]
It’s only a matter of time before NGLTF which has been mirroring HRC’s previous party line that “Everything Is Beautiful in Obamaland” is forced to join, as HRC has, the call reverberating across the gay and straight mainstream media world for a freeze while lobbyists continue to work for repeal.
At that point, the egg now on SLDN’s face will become a souffle.
The Gay Numbers
@strumpetwindsock: The arguments over healthcare reform are bizare. They aknowlege that the government could actually run health insurance better and at a cheaper cost, but they say that is unfair to private companies to have to compete against an entity that can run healthcare with better result at a cheaper cost. It’s like bizaro because no where do they include the idea that the focus should be on the American healthcare consumer (who wants good healthcare at a cheaper cost) or the impact on businesses of having to run their business with healthcare at twice the cost of other countries. So, yes, you see the exact same arguments as we see with gay issues in other areas. It’s just that some gay white men feel entitled so they do not include themselves in the other debates as I do. Whereas, they can see the “truth” of the system with the gay issues. The gay issues are really no different than any other outcome in the system, in that the DC political system is designed to retard progress of any kind- not just progress on gay rights.
The Gay Numbers
@JP: Well if my theory about the underlying real reason for the behavior you are seeing is true, it has little to do with facts or reality. DC is its own reality that has very litte to do with facts, figures or even past failure. It’s one of thos eplaces were you can fail upward. the other being corporate America. The point is that I am just saying what I think they believe rather than that I think that belief is valid or not. You could be entirely right that it is not. THe problem is in convincing them that the fears they have are not legitimate fears. This is true of gay issues in general. Obama is acting the way he is acting for example because as John Avarosis astutely points out someone has his ear and they are telling him that gay rights issues are something that he should avoid. That it is a third rail in DC politics. The thing is-f or DC politics- that’s true. The problem is that outside of DC the world is changing at a rapid clip on gay rights. Linking that outside the beltway reaility with well “reality” is another thing entirely. Hell, it’s hard enough trying to convince the American people at large much less politicians who have their own special kind of logic. At leasat with the public it’s because they are mostly either ignorant or bigots, but with DC it’s because that’s the narrative, and they believe in the narrative. SO you are overcoming entrenched belief that resists all facts and arguments.
JP
@The Gay Numbers:
We don’t exactly disagree. Fact vs. perception vs. self-serving motivation behind doors few of us will ever go through. Absolutely. And I agree the greater leverage the ones closest to the President have is the ultimate obstacle. But I also believe that if outsiders can unite to cause ENOUGH noise they can drown out those First Ear whisperers. SLDN is, as it were, aiding and abetting the enemy.
The current edition of former White House aide “Bill Moyers’ Journal” on PBS has an interesting relevant discussion…how “reality,” “what is important” is framed by the media generally and policial spin meisters specifically. He begins with NBC’s Brian Williams:
“BILL MOYERS: Meanwhile, NBC news this week delivered a candygram to the president – two prime time specials called “Inside the Obama White House.” President Obama couldn’t have asked for a sweeter salute…
BRIAN WILLIAMS: People react strongly to this president. We’ve seen people moved to tears after just the briefest encounter with him.
BILL MOYERS: As for an exclusive revelation about your government from behind the White House’s closed doors, well, hold your breath, here it comes…
BRIAN WILLIAMS: There are apples everywhere. Orchards worth of them in bowls throughout the building. They are meant of course to promote healthy eating but what we saw more often is this: the West Wing may lead the western world in candy consumption.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFER: These are official White House M&Ms.
BILL MOYERS: Now, I’ve been there, done that and got the tie clip. I can tell you this is the kind of Valentine every White House press secretary yearns to hand the boss. And it’s not all that hard to achieve, because many of our watchdogs are as housebroken as Bo the White House puppy…”
He, and his guests, go on to dissect the Right’s deceit meisters, too, and how the media empowers them.
“BROOKE GLADSTONE: What I see is that there’s a desperate need on the part of media all the time, and increasingly year after year, to respond to what they think are the concerns of the news consumer. And so, there’s a tendency to bend over backwards to prove they aren’t liberal. This is a canard that began with the Nixon administration, probably before, but really took off steam then. And they’re continually in an acrobatic position, trying to overbalance, show what they think are both sides, a side that isn’t being expressed by a mainstream media that is perceived to be liberal, or they believe it’s perceived to be liberal.
JAY ROSEN: …And I think this involves one of the subtler things that journalists do in our public life, Bill. Which is they set the terms of what a legitimate debate is. They marginalize certain people as not a part of it. And they include other people, who perhaps ought to be marginalized as a central part of it. And it’s very hard for us to hold them accountable for those decisions, because they are subtler than we sometimes recognize.”
They even dare attack the idea that the spectrum of ideas only spans, for example, Gingrich on the Right & Obama on the left…and recognize that there ARE people with positions to the left of Obama…though they don’t mention that those include people who think his position on marriage equality and his inertia on other LGBT rights issues are more Right than Left.
Which brings us back to the issue of a stop-loss order [and, to a lesser degree, marriage equality….except for Brian Willian’s softball question to Obama]. More than ever, the mainstream media are focusing on, sometimes even taking, and taking agressively, what’s been perceived as the “liberal” position on DADT….and the great news is that this poll will give cover to them and those yet to weigh in.
Support for gay integration of the military is now a mainstream issue….making it harder and harder for those in the White House and Congress to continue to ignore, even pretend we don’t exist. Yesterday, Obama was at Buchenwald. Did he mention the gays that died there, too? I’m sure he never mentioned the gays that died at Normandy when he was there today.
The Moyers’ show [which also has a chilling discussion of how long and how much the government REALLY expects to be in the Mideast] can be accessed by video and transcript at:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06052009/profile2.html
The Gay Numbers
@JP: I didn’t think we were disagreeing. I am blunt so that can come off as disagreement.
I actually have no idea what i think about the Servicemen’s actions. Really, I am not saying anything new. I am just trying to get gays, who typically live in our own bubble to get away from the pain of being a minority, to understand our predicament in context of the larger dysfunctional society.
I mean Rove was right- America is a faith based society, but it was not religion to which he was referring. He was referring to how we are trapped by our mutually exclusive perspectives. It’s ironic because we were suppose to be the great experiment that escapes this sort of entrenchment that one found in Europe. In the end, when someone writes the last chapter of our society, I think they will say nice experiment, but really just a re-invention of the same wheel (problem) that plagued man for ever.
I first truly became aware of the problems of how debates are framed to control content of what is the “acceptable” in 2004 when Jon Stewart so expertly took down Teg Koeple on that issue on Nightline when he pointed out that Koeple’s version of “reporting” favors the liar rather than truth since it approaches journalism and he said-he said rather than trying to discern any underlying factual truth of the matter.
I think what you ae discussing is the Overton window-which I believe in a lot:
* Unthinkable
* Radical
* Acceptable
* Sensible
* Popular
* Policy
What is acceptable conversation in America has to go through this process from unthinkable to policy. We see this with gay rights from marriage being impossible in 2004 to being reality now.
I am reminded of how this plays out in other ways, such as the recent piece in the New Yorker about how David beats Goliath, Why Underdogs break the rules:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell
Or as Paul Wellstone used to say (an Al Franken now repeats): The way you win is that you got to want it more than the other guy. That’s at the core of the gay predicament. Until last fall, we did not want to beat them more than the right wanted to defeat us. We let them define us. We let them attack us like we were dogs. And then something happened.
And then, something inside shifted like Stonewall- a kind of tipping point. I don’t think the politicians have caught onto that yet. I don’t k now if its even real. I was surprised by some of my friends reaction to Prop 8. These are people who were preaching about the evils of marriage to me weeks before. So to hear them so emotional about the issue, and to see apolitical friends develop a political interest- was shocking. I don’t know if this will continue, but suspect the politicians do not yet know it even exists. But then, that’s true of a lot of what’s going on.
JP
@The Gay Numbers:
“we did not want to beat them more than the right wanted to defeat us”…absofuckinglutely.
My fear is that too many of the “new” movement, particularly the younger portion, have no perspective of what has been tried before and worked [rarely] or failed [usually]. The passion in self-righteousness is still too often confused with power and certainty of success.
But, yes, “Come mothers and fathers throughout the land and don’t criticize what you can’t understand. Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command. Your old road is rapidly agin’…Come Senators, Congressmen, throughout the land…There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’. It’ll soon [hopefully] shake your windows and rattle your walls….”
JP
PS.
SLDN: get out of the way.
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
Another problem is that much of our news is spot pieces – crime, stats, polls – but very little or nothing in the way of analysis.
I certainly agree that a lot of stories are off limits, but much of it is simply not making the connections as to why things happen. The people are kept so busy reacting to crime, scandal and hollywood that most people do not even think about putting the pieces of the puzzle together.
And as I said, I think TV news, in particular TV in our legislatures, is making our politicians go for five-second sound bites rather than the reasoned analysis that many issues deserve. They also focus more on scoring points against opponents than on solving problems.
And you mentioned faith (non-religious, I know). I think all our societies have myths and illusions that constrain us. Looking in from the outside I think religion is a big one for the U.S. I don’t know of any other developed country that is so dominated by religion as yours.
It’s not that we aren’t religious up here, it’s just that it doesn’t mix well with politics. No politician up here would be photographed going to church, and even our PM, who is an evangelical, stopped saying “God Bless Canada” when he realized he was creeping people out. I have spent some time in England, Germany and France, and there is nothing like the religious climate in the U.S. either.
We certainly have our own illusions (like all societies, I think) and I’m not saying we are any better than the U.S., but I think these common myths are like a set of blinders – very much like the acceptable left-right constraints you speak about.
The Gay Numbers
@JP: That’s why I say it is important to separate what is good for activists on the street from what say we should be doing in the courts. I point out that you need to know what say the black civil rights movement did to achieve Brown v Board as it pertains to legal strategy, but that this is separate from what happens on the street to create pressure. but are important, and overlap,b ut are not the same thing. this is why I am against the Boies/Olson case. Not because I do not want to take it to the S.Ct., but because i realize there are steps we need to do to get non reactionary activist judges on the S.Ct. because right now we have 4 definite No’s and have to pray for a clean sweep of the remaining 5. This is not about me wanting to go slow, but about a) realizing the crazies on the court b) what worked with the legal strategy for black civil rights and c) what we need to do (push for more receptive judges before the case is heard because the precedent would harm us in the near term. I beleive that even a difference of 2 or 3 years could make a huge difference in the effective of a case. Again, I am not advocating waiting decades- just a couple of years to see how other cases such as DOMA Claus 3 and DADT are decidec by the courts.
strumpetwindsock
@JP:
About re-learning past lessons – I agree.
Also, I think there is a mistaken assumption that positive necessarily comes from the extremes of the political spectrum.
I can think of many cases where progressive policy comes not in a hot political climate with hard right and left factions, but from the centre, when a society is less concerned about fighting.
I know that may not seem like relevant advice when you are in a situation where you are actually forced to fight hard for your rights, but I think it is good to remember that such an adversarial climate is not a healthy state of affairs, nor is it the best way to move foreward.
In particular, I think it is important for would-be revolutionaries to remember. Cooperation and compromise may not be as sexy as marches and barricades, but it is a better way to accomplish our goals, if we can find that common ground with our opponents.
strumpetwindsock
@strumpetwindsock:
…and of course there is taking that fight out of the streets and into the courts, where the real decision for our rights should properly be made, IMO.
The Gay Numbers
@strumpetwindsock: I do not have much to add to your post. It is spot on for how the world works, and why gays need to get smarter. We can suceed if we are smarter than they are. But often, in part because large swaths of gays who are activists are white middle class types (I know this will offend a lot of people but I have seen this before with non profit work) there is a) this sense of entitlement that does not involve worki ng for it and b) really don’t see themselves on some level as truly a minority. They do not get that there are certain forces at play with being a minority that are not self evidence tot he majority . I am not saying all whites middle clas sare like this, but I really do sense that many people don’t know how to fight a sustain battle against entrenced forces.
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
Agreed…
Any real struggle means a lot of hard work, sacrifice and patience – and most difficult of all putting one’s self in the enemy’s shoes.
And as for not seeing one’s self as a minority, I can see why that might be an embarrassing realization, and that many would rather just say “I’m not one of those”.
On another front, for all we talk about international equality and social justice, most of us could not even begin to make the changes in our lives to start righting some of the wrongs our bloated society is responsible for.
Blaming it all on George Bush is sheer hypocrisy, IMO
The Gay Numbers
@strumpetwindsock: What do you mean by see ourselves in our enemies shoes?
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@The Gay Numbers:
“just a couple of years to see how other cases such as DOMA Claus 3 and DADT are decidec by the courts.”
Weighing in late, while thrilled with the poll results, based on my direct knowledge through my late friend Leonard Matlovich, the first to challenge the military ban on gays [in its original form pre-DADT, I must disagree.
I’m far less familiar with legal challenges to DOMA, but have lost count of the number of times lower courts have upheld it and the Supreme Court has always denied certiori.
Because the basic military gay ban is so much older, there are even more instances in which courts have upheld it and its deformed child DADT.
There have been a handful of instances in which courts [after roughly 3-7 years of litigation] have reinstated individuals WITHOUT overturning the policy/law [for only the Supremes could do that] but with, currently, on average just under 700 discharged a year that’s no strategy even if everyone of them were to sue and only a microscopic number ever do.
While the Supremes do change their minds, of course, or rather their makeup changes enough to leverage a reversal, at least re DADT I am regretfully confidant that the Supremes [until such time as enough conservative justices are replaced by liberals] will continue their record of denying Constitutional obviousness in favor of what the military wants particularly given the mindnumbing and shameful fact that the Obama administration has chosen to actively defend DADT before those all courts itself.
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
I mean that it sure helps to understand why they believe what they believe – especially if we have a strong disagreement with them.
It’s difficult, but I think it is important to realize that even though some of them do horrible things and have horrible beliefs they are human beings.
To simply dismiss their motivation as “doing God’s will” is to turn these people into caricatures. Most of them are a lot more complex than that, and have real concerns and fears, however unreasonable.
I’m not saying that we have to do their work for them, but I think if we remember that many of them are not just zombies there are a many of them who will meet us part way.
The Gay Numbers
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: The recent DADT case is the first to sucessfully have a finding by the appellate that DADT is unconstitution because of heightened scrutinty. It has been sent for re-trial back to the district court. It will work its way back up again to the S.Ct.
The DOMA clause three case is novel because it attacks under the 5th rather than 14th Amendment, which are similar in that they address equal protection, but the 5th addresses federal rather than state. It has the significance of allowing a trial case that will move the ball forward without having a test case that will destroy near future rulings in other regards under the 14th Amendment.
The Gay Numbers
@strumpetwindsock: On this point we disagree. I don’t need to understand thd bigot because it’s not my understanding of the bigot htat’s causing the harm. It’s their harm to me that’s real. In American law you can get into danger territory not understanding this because so often the right here claims that they are harmed by giving gays or any minority equal rights. They also claimed they are harmed in general by being questioned on how they think. Sarah Palin claimed her free speech was denied because people questioned her statements regarding Obama. Not that they did not let her speech go onto the public air waves. But that the fact she was questioned is per se denial of speech. Pretending like the oppressor has a point is dangerous because they don’t.
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
I’m not saying give that we should try to validate their point, nor that we should be polite and not get in their faces about it.
But if we see them as caricature then our response to them is going to be equally wooden, and less effective.
Also, when we are talking about public figures it is one thing, but when it is our neighbours and co-workers people are more complex than simply one prejudice.
It is harder to just demonize a person when you see him or her every day, and like it or not most of these issues don’t get resolved without someone people having to sit down and hash out difficult issues.
And there is also the fact that some, not all, people learn and change.
I don’t know about you, but I know people with whom I disagree severely on political and social issues, even racists and homophobes, whom I would consider in some things more trustworthy than some members of my own community who I have met in here.
Again, that doesn’t mean I haven’t confronted these people on their beliefs; it’s just that none of us can be reduced to one single belief.
But I do hear you, and I can certainly understand that your approach on this might be different than mine. We wouldn’t be that effective if we all did everything exactly the same, either.
The Gay Numbers
@strumpetwindsock: We demonize what needs to be demonized. I am sorry, but you are jsut wrong here on this point. There is no polite way to tell someone that they are being a bigot. The reality is that truth is the best thing we can do for accomplishing our goals.
Phoenix (Got Pride?)
So basically this study confirms that most Jeebus-freaks want to see us shot and killed, Amirite?
strumpetwindsock
@The Gay Numbers:
I agree with you there, and I’m not suggesting shying away from the truth or harsh criticism in any way. Quite the opposite.
I simply think it helps our cause to be aware of the truth, and understand why our opponents hold their beliefs.
And I believe that we can’t resolve this without sitting down and talking with at least some of them.
But I understand and accept that you see this differently.
strumpetwindsock
@Phoenix (Got Pride?):
No. Most “Jeebus-freaks” don’t want us killed; it means the opposite.
A clear majority of people in all those categories support us in wanting to repeal DADT. In the past five years the number of people wanting to repeal has grown by between 3 and 12 percent.
In fact, the change in the number of people now supporting us has been strongest among Jeebus-freaks and conservatives.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@The Gay Numbers:
With respect, you’re still imagining that a majority of the Supremes would objectively rule on the legal arguments and not on what they believe in DADT the military wants and in DOMA what “society” wants.
13 years of DOMA case failures and 34 years of military ban case failures, unfortunately, prove you wrong.
I have met Major Witt, the plaintiff in the most recent DADT suit, and she is a kind and courageous woman whose determination to advance as much case law as she can while subjecting herself to public scrutiny I applaud. She may well end up reinstated at some level below the Supreme Court and allowed to serve through retirement as Keith Meinhold, Grethe Cammermeyer, and Zoe Dunning were before her. Perry Watkins chose not to return to active duty even after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Army to permit his readmission and the Supreme Court chose not to hear their appeal. Because none of these cases ruled definitively on the ban itself, nothing beyond their individual lives changed.
Again, without a change in ideological balance on the Supreme Court, lower courts can rule a hundred different ways against the law but as long as the Obama administration is defending it the Court will rule the law Constitutional.
jim
@TANK: really? Are you trying to make a joke or being serious? That maybe how things once were in some long ago fairy tale day of yore. Now it is all backroom deals and corporate sponsorships.
The Gay Numbers
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: I am understanding the damage from the DADT case would be limitd. Its not “imagining.” It’s understanding what the law is and what can be ruled on. They can not rule on an issue not in front of the court.
TANK
@The Gay Numbers:
Well, that’s true. There’s no reasoning with zealots, either.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
No, it’s not important to understand why opponents hold their beliefs (sexism, religion) if you can’t change them. It’s a waste of time and resources to try to “empathize” in this manner. You can easily refute their claims without knowing why they’re bigots.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
If the numbers in this poll are true, then clearly some of these people are changing their minds.
I know there are some who will never change, but I think there is a larger contingent who will. In order to challenge their beliefs it is important to understand what they believe and why.
If we just dismiss them as evil brainwashed lunatics whom we must defeat, then our arguments against them will be about as relevant and effective as arguing abstinence for STD prevention.
As I said, it is difficult work to actually sit down and challenge someone whom you’d rather throttle, but some people have to do that work.
TANK
If the numbers in this poll are true, then clearly some of these people are changing their minds.
Right, and it has nothing to do with empathy on the part of lgbt people and allies. These people you’re referring to aren’t fred phelps and his clan.
I know there are some who will never change, but I think there is a larger contingent who will.
That’s your faith. THe only way that bigots change is by having their views stigmatized and isolated. And that, only outward expression. It is far more useful to work to have those views stigmatized than empathize.
In order to challenge their beliefs it is important to understand what they believe and why.
This is pablum. There’s no challenging the dogma of a fundamentalist. YOu’ve never met one, I assure you.
If we just dismiss them as evil brainwashed lunatics whom we must defeat, then our arguments against them will be about as relevant and effective as arguing abstinence for STD prevention.
No, actually our arguments will be pretty good even if we dismiss them as evil brainwashed lunatics. NOM doesn’t have a lot of traction, and it’s not like any lgbt leaders are taking the leadership to task in the public square. Now you can get bogged down in the word game of scripture and whatever. That’s your prerogative, not mine. I think it’s a tremendous waste of time. Empathizing with a bigot will lend the bigot’s opinion more credibility than they’re worth…Richard Dawkins told that to stephen jay gould when gould was confronted by the fendamentalists. I don’t think you really understand social trends or the real reason behind some of the religious’s change of heart–religion has evolved like every other social institution…and everything else…throughout history…it’s an organic process like anything else. It changes its tenets with social pressure.
As I said, it is difficult work to actually sit down and challenge someone whom you’d rather throttle, but some people have to do that work.
As I said, you’ve clearly never met a fundamentalist. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t reason with unreasonable people; it’s a waste of effort and actually supports, indirectly, their position. That’s what soul force does, in my view…they are complicit in promoting, though indirectly, the legitimacy of the views which are used to uphold oppression and discrimination while achieving absolutely no headway in advancing lgbt equality amongst the fundamentalists.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@The Gay Numbers:
In WHAT almost parallel universe in which Life is fair and Justice is truly “blind”? That sounds like an episode of “Fringe” in which the Obamas have moved into the “new” White House and, in New York, the Twin Towers still stand.
They are not SUPPOSED to rule on an issue not in front of the court but they can and some do.
If decisions were always made solely on the “merits” of the case and the Constitution, Dred Scott would have been set free, slavery outlawed years earlier, and, because Scriptural defenses of antigay laws would never have fallen from any judge’s lips declaring very similarly that “due process, equal treatment, privacy, free expession do not apply to homosexuals” because the government has a “compelling interest” that overrides such considerationsc no DADT would have been passed by Congress because the Supreme Court would have outlawed banning gays from the military as early as 1980 in “Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force.” [As it were, it never went that far.]
In dismissing “Beller,” then 9th Circuit Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “While it is clear tht one does not surrender his or her constitutional rights upon entering the military, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that constitutional rights must be viewed in light of the special circumstances and needs of the armed forces.”
Since becoming a Supreme, he wrote two major gay positive decisions: overturning Colorado’s antigay law and overturning sodomy laws nationwide. However, he voted with those justices who sided with the homohating Boy Scouts oligarchy.
The loathsome Bork fortunately was rejected as a Supreme but wrecked religiously driven ideological damage in the lower courts generally and military cases specifically. In dismissing “Dronenberg” along with his then Appelate co-fascist Scalia, he declared that “legislation may implement morality.”
Phoenix (Got Cookies With Your Pride?)
@ strumpetwindsock,
I was kidding, but I wouldn’t put it past them to view us as expendable cannon fodder. Which, if DADT is repealed and more gays join the military, they have a chance of becoming on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq.
strumpetwindsock
@Phoenix (Got Cookies With Your Pride?):
Hard to tell sometimes . I suppose we need some sort of ironic emoticon, but that would kind of take the fun out of it.
And regarding the cannon fodder argument, you may be right.
The Gay Numbers
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: @Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com: I am not referencing fairness. I was discussing the limits of what justices can do with cases before them.
J
This has went severely off topic. Discussing high school political concepts that everyone already knows about = boring. Arguing about the obvious = even more boring. Nothing that’s said in here really matters so just shake your fists, wank your egos and be done with it.
The Gay Numbers
@J: People like you fascinate me. You have nothing better to do that critique what you claim are pointless and boring statements? If we are sad, then I guess that would make you extra-sad with sour cream on top.
andy_d
@The Gay Numbers: Please. National office holders are not “DC politicians.” DC politicians are its Mayor, City Council and Neighborhood Advisory Commissioners.
In fact, the national office holders have, in the past, over-ridden initiatives passed by the electorate of Washington, DC.
andy_d
@Phoenix (Got Cookies With Your Pride?): The current military is a volunteer force (although is it truly voluntary to enter the armed forces when given a choice between that and jail is debatable). These brave men and women know what they are facing when they enlist. The “cannon fodder” argument would only be valid if there were a draft in place as was the case in the Vietnam war. This last statement in NO WAY is meant to denegrate the bravery and sense of duty displayed by those servicemembers.
schlukitz
@The Gay Numbers:
Another yeson8won type. Different name.