Liberals hate gays

The BBQ Pit
1

So, don’t ask don’t tell was overturned by a judge and Obama is fighting for an emergency stay to keep it in place.

I’m thinking if Bush were the prez, or if some Republican was doing this, there’d be about 40 outraged threads about the bigotry and prejudice of Republican hate mongers and intolerant conservatives.

But… Let Obama do it, and… Nothing.

So let’s give a great big cheer for our stalwart liberals fighting for civil rights.

If Obama had half the courage Barry Goldwater did 20 years ago (when the world was a lot less progressive,) this reprehensible discrimination would now be over.

Liberal or conservative, this is a bad day for progressives who believe in equality for all.

But, I’d like to give a special shout-out to that subset of liberals, the self-righteous holier than thou assholes who think the shit on their side of the aisle doesn’t stick. Fuck you, you hypocrites. No, not because I’m conservative, but because you care more about painting your opposition as evil, and protecting your own party than you do about an injustice, and therefore keep your condemnations silent. Worse, I’m sure a lot of you will excuse this, or seek to explain why it’s really ok. Take your double standard, bend it in half and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

To all the gay posters out there, friend or enemy:

I’m sorry for this, sorry nobody’s had the guts to stand up to this and give you the equal rights to the protections of marriage or to serve your country.

2

I’m pretty sure the motivation behind going about it this way is that the administration would rather DADT be legislated out by Congress, rather than allowing the precedent to stand the way it’s going now. Considering that’s what they’ve actually said, if you’d care to google the issue.

3

There’s a YouTube video of Hillary Clinton telling gays in school being bullied to “hang in there.”. Yeah, I’m sure this don’t ask don’t tell policy instituted by her husband and being protected by Obama is really helping them hang in there. It’ not like there own government isn’t bullying them or anything.

Obama of couse is against don’t ask don’t tell, but not for repealing it now, before elections. He’s for it being repealled only after “careful review” and an “act of congress.”

God forbid he be presidential and actually stand up support his constiuents against discrimination. So much for the audacity of hope. The platitudes are somewhat less than audacious.

Oh, and correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it log cabin republicans behind the suit in va, that almost got this thing overturned?

4

You’ve missed the point entirely. The executive branch is required to defend congressional statute in court, whether the current administration agrees with it or not. This is a tragic and unfortunate circumstance from which Obama has no recourse.

But when Bush did it, he was totally being a dick.

5

It was.

6

Obama may see it as his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States. Since DADT was passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time, Obama may feel that it is his duty to defend that law, even if he personally disagrees with it. Now, maybe you are fine with the President deciding for himself not to defend the laws of the United States, me I’m not sure its so cut and dried.

That’s the great thing about you guys. If Obama doesn’t appeal, you get to attack him for not defending the laws of the US. If he does, you get to attack him for hating gays. What a wonderful world you must live in.

7

What liberal are you talking about?

8

I was not aware of any such automatic legal obligation. Can you point me in the right direction for understanding it with a cite?

Again, I was not aware that he is so compelled

That’s kinda funny.

9

Not me. Again, though isn’t obama’s obligation to the constitution first, and the to the laws of the land provided they do not conflict?

Isn’t now, when a judge defines it as unconstitutional the time when our president can legally support his constituents?

I thought he swore to uphold the Constitution?

10

What would you call someone who was liberal some of the time and not-so-liberal the rest of the time? A liberal?

11

“ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. ”

12

What he calls himself is what I’d call him.

If he thought this was a betrayal of his core values by his leaders, then I’d call him “correct.”

13

Don’t ask, don’t tell sounds conservative now, but when it was instituted, it represented a step forward towards personal freedom. Before that, anyone seriously thought to be gay was tossed out of the military, and the new policy was much more tolerant.

Mind you, I’m not defending it in 2010, just asking you to put it in historical context.

14

Actually, if Bush had openly and explicitly asked Congress to repeal DADT, and if a Republican-led House had passed the repeal measure, only to be blocked by a Democrat-led filibuster in the Senate, then i’d probably be willing to cut Bush a little slack, no matter how much of a douchebag i thought he was on other issues. I’ve said on this board, for example, that i thought some of his positions on the illegal immigrant issue were pretty good.

My willingness to cut him some slack would increase even further if his plan for repealing DADT was specifically waiting for a Defense department study about how the repeal of DADT would affect the armed forces. And if that report were due in, say, less than about 6 weeks, it would further reduce my concern about the fact that the Justice Department was seeking to overturn the judge’s ruling in this case. Given a choice, i actually prefer that measures i support be given the force of congressional approval rather than just judicial authority. For example, i would prefer that the right to abortion be legislated by congress rather than resting on the somewhat shaky legal ground of Roe v. Wade.

Personally, while i understand the Justice Department’s general obligation to defend the law, i would personally have preferred that they didn’t fight this ruling. That’s not a legal opinion; it’s simply a reflection of my general personal opinion about DADT. I’ve always been of the opinion that, studies be damned, DADT should be simply repealed immediately, and the military should be just told to fucking deal with it. I don’t really care what this December 1 Defense Department report says; i literally can’t imagine anything it might say that would change my position on DADT. Just about every other civilized country in the world has managed it.

15

I think he’s making a mistake too. Again. I am disappointed with many of his decisions in handling the DOJ.

But what bugs me, though, is that no matter what Obama does, you and yours are going to attack him. Don’t appeal, and he’s making himself the nigh but sole arbiterer of the constitutionality of laws. Do appeal, and he’s a hypocrite who dislikes gays. And, with you, of course it will be with a stupid trolling title and in the Pit rather than actually debating it. But, again, that’s par for the course.

16

I don’t have a cite handy, but this is at least a customary interpretation of the “take care” clause at Article II § 3 of the Constitution, which states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Presidents have traditionally asserted that the only time they are not obligated to defend the statutes are when the administration believes them to be unconstitutional. (And in many cases the DOJ has argued against a statute on constitutional grounds.)

As far as I know, Obama has never made a constitutional argument against DADT. Unless he wants to do so, it would be highly unusual for him to order the DOJ to argue against it.

That is, of course, the weaselese justification. There’s a lot he could accomplish through executive order, if he had the balls to do so. But he’s lost vast amounts of political capital and it’s almost midterm time.

17

I’m not seeing a liberal hating gays, much less any evidence for the statement “liberals hate gays”. I would however be interested in any in-context quotes where Obama calls himself a liberal. Keeping in mind that people can lie or be mistaken.

After all, if you called a tail a leg, a three-legged dog would still be Scylla.

18

Goldwater supported gays in the military openly long before then.

I think don’t ask don’t tell was a mealy mouth compromise that actually reinforced an injustice, just as separate but equal did for black.

The difference here is that DADT has no “but equal.”

So no, I really don’t excuse it as a product of it’s times.

19

I’ve been beating on Obama on gay rights issues for some time on this board. While not every liberal has come out to support me, very few have come out to say I’m wrong. Even then it wasn’t voices of Obama support on gay issues it was more a meek leave the poor guy alone he’s working on other things.

I think your accusation of liberal hypocrisy fails here. When Bush was actively bashing gays conservatives rallied in support of his actions. With Obama not even bashing just trying for neutrality(and failing IMO) no liberals are showing up in favor of him doing so, it’s more people saying I wish he would try.

Obama has failed the gay rights movement in many ways, he has failed to fulfill his campaign promises and their is little evidence that he even tried to fulfill them.

Comparing Obama and Bush or conservatives and liberals on gays rights issues is laughable.

20

First, you really can’t yell at me or Other conservatives for what you think we would have said if he supported the decision. He fucking didn’t.

Second, I think that this is the first major attack or criticism i’ve leveled against Obama so you can hardly bitch that I’m attacking him “no matter what he does.” that just hasn’t been the case.

Third, I am debating it

Fourth, yeah you got a point about the the title, it is unreasonably salacious. I call on all the reederesque bush bashing threads as an excuse by precedent.