Homosexuality had been grounds for discharge for over 200 years, it was already enshrined in law–unless you feel the UCMJ isn’t “law” (if it isn’t, I wonder what is.)
I’d probably dispute the claim about the discharges. If your source is the wikipedia article (as I suspect it is), it should note that being discharged for violating DADT is actually a different violation of DOD Directive 1304.26 isn’t necessarily the same as violating the old UCMJ provisions against homosexual conduct, so you’re not necessarily comparing like to like.
You’d actually need DD figures for everyone discharged for anything relating to the old prohibitions on sodomy or other homosexual activity versus total discharges related to such during the DADT period. Further, prior to DADT a lot of homosexuals were discharged under a different classification than the UCMJ prohibitions on homosexual conduct, due to a desire by some commanders to keep the real reason swept under the rug. I’ve not seen numbers for discharges historically, other than selected statistics on things like people given “blue discharges” (a type of discharge phased out in 46 that was used frequently for homosexuals, but also for a lot of other stuff as well) and reports that “thousands” of people were discharged every year for homosexual behavior from the Vietnam era up through the late 80s, which would be on par or in excess of the typical # discharged under DADT each year.
If only it was that simple. It would be more accurate to say DADT was seen as a victory by LGBT groups as such at the time, because we knew it was the best we were likely to get.
And lance strongarm, there were plenty of people around then who were pissed off about it for not going far enough. I know because I was one of them. In the end it may have been better to implement things incrementally but there were a lot of people whose military careers were ruined while this law was in effect.
No. Which gay rights, specifically, is she supposed to run on?
Same-sex marriage is the law of the land. Done, finished. GOP pols will bemoan the SC and say how it was a terrible decision because that’s what much of their base thinks … but even in the primary, none of them are making any noises about how they’re going to go around it. That conversation is over, and when they are being honest with their political people behind closed doors, they’re happy about it because they know how it polled among moderates. They’ll still use it to fundraise, of course, and they’ll say how their SC nominees would never do such a thing … but they’ve been doing that about abortion for the last 40 years.
Hillary will do the same thing … She’ll use gay rights to fundraise, and she’ll make scary noises about how SSM is an eyelash away from being overturned; just like the Dems have been doing with abortion for 40 years. But she’s not going to advocate coercing bakers/florists/etc who don’t want to be involved in SSM, because she knows how THAT polls with moderates.
I’m sure there are some other peripheral gay rights issues out there, but none of them are going to have the swing-voter impact that SSM did.
Such is the nature of politics: voters care about next year, not last year.
While we have gay marriage, there is no federal protection against discrimination against gays in housing, employment, etc. Which I’d say is even more important than marriage.
No, it isn’t, for the simple fact that whether or not there is a specific federal law, 1) most states do, 2) the feds have used existing non-discrimination laws to fight anti-gay discrimination and 3) there is not widespread anti-gay discrimination in housing or employment. Yes, there are anecdotal incidents here and there, but there’s no common employment signs saying “no gays need apply,” and we all know it. There’s no bloc of voters out there torn between the parties, or between voting and not voting, who are going to rush to the polls on the basis of getting a federal law that will duplicate state laws in order to solve something that rarely happens. There are lots of straight people that knew unmarried gay couples. There are not a lot of people with unemployed homeless gay friends.
Moreover, a huge part of the success of the SSM movement was because they succeeded in persuading people that had – and still have – moral objections to homosexuality that allowing gay people to marry would not affect them personally. Americans have a very strong “live and let live” streak and the SSM supporters were able to appeal to that. When you start getting into forcing employers – including religious schools and hospitals and the like – to hire employees engaged in said behavior, you’re now moving toward the other side of that “live and let live.”
This is an issue much like abortion. There are strong feelings for a relative handful of people on each side of the issue. The swing voters don’t care all that much. They would be just as happy with legal abortion and legal same sex marriage as they would with abortions being illegal and marriage only between a man and a woman (and both situations where one is legal and the other not).
They may have a preference, but simply do not vote with regards to those issues. Since 1980, Americans have elected 3 pro-life Presidents and 2 pro-choice ones. Thirty states passed constitutional amendments banning SSM and several others legalized it. Of course, the Supreme Court has taken both issues out of the voters’ hands making them both less relevant as to which candidate to vote for.
Those issues are simply fundraising bait to the rank and file. They are very important to many people, just not most people. Hillary can tell hardcore liberals that if you elect a Republican that on January 21, 2017, Anthony Kennedy might die and be replaced by Antonin Scalia, Jr. and reverse last year’s ruling legalizing SSM! Send money!
Rubio can tell hardcore conservatives that on January 21, 2017, Anthony Kennedy might die and be replaced by Antonin Scalia, Jr. and reverse Roe v. Wade! Send money!
Most people just hope that they will be able to wake up, have a cup of coffee, go to work, have enough money to pay the bills, go home, watch reality television, and go to sleep. Whichever party puts together a message that will assure them that they can continue to do that will get elected.
18 states do, and another 6 have limited protections. That’s 24 including DC. Not even half, let alone “most”.
Which only works in cases that fall within federal jurisdiction, which is a limited number.
Of course not - because in the Internet era such things have a massive blowback effect and most bigots prefer to conduct their discrimination more quietly. For every cake baker and pizza place in the news, I guarantee there’s thousands quietly screwing over gay people.
You seem very certain that this “rarely happens”. Got any cites?
I mean, to pick a different example, housing discrimination on racial grounds was made illegal in 1968 and yet it still goes on; a HUD study from 2000 (32 years after the Fair Housing Act) showed that 17% of African American applicants and 20% of Hispanic applicants for housing were subject to adverse treatment - and remember, this is illegal.
Perhaps you should tell those people that it’s okay because you don’t personally know anyone affected by this.
To be fair, there has been some improvement:
…but note that I’ve already highlighted how prevalent racial discrimination is despite also being illegal.
Let’s say (hypothetically speaking) I like punching you in the face, which is legal. You lobby to make punching you in the face illegal. Are you infringing my rights, or just stopping me from oppressing you?
Only in a patchwork of minimal protections. Most only apply to federal workers.
That’s debatable. But there should be none.
More important, if the problem is small, why oppose a law banning it? That just means such a law wouldn’t affect as many people who don’t want to comply, and that’s good.
That’s hardly the only way to discriminate though, and we all know it.
Now that may be true.
Doesn’t matter to me. I don’t have to personally know someone whose rights were violated to want to stand up for them.
Americans are happy with non-discrimination laws for race, religion and even sex.
I mean DADT was passed at least in part because of a campaign pledge by Clinton to protect the status of gays in the military. I was in the Army at the time I don’t know anyone who thought it was a restriction versus the status quo. It wasn’t a great protection but it did for the first time create a legal scenario in which you could be gay and legally be in the military.
I agree the lack of discrimination protections for gays is actually a more significant issue than gay marriage. It may effect less people, in theory, but the consequences are a lot worse when it does. It’s definitely made the news here several times when local Catholic schools fire gay teachers, and there was a non-profit that withdrew an employment offer from a woman after they discovered she was a lesbian (by looking at her facebook profile.) All of this is legal here.
But that being said–to the thread title, Hillary can make gay rights a big component of her campaign. Her historical support of DOMA is irrelevant, because she’ll be running against Republicans who will have far worse positions on gay rights anyway. I mean Obama ran as pro gay marriage the in 2012 after running as anti in 2008. But can and “will” are different things, there’s no reason to make championing non-discrimination laws a centerpiece of her campaign because it will generate few net votes for her, will possibly cost net votes among moderates or right-leaning independents who might otherwise vote for her and frankly awareness of these discriminatory practices just isn’t a “hot button issue.” Gay marriage was, and people came to expect politicians to take a stand on it, and by 2012 a majority of Americans supported it. Gay rights just isn’t ripe politically for a Democrat in 2016, it serves little electoral purpose.
Nope, nor no you have any proving definitively that it is.
But even if either of us did, it would be irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is not “is there still anti-gay discrimination that we should care about?” (There is), but “is Hillary Clinton going to make gay rights a major campaign focus?”
Yes, there will always be residual prejudice, but the main fight is won. You don’t get the base fired with calls to close loopholes. And come the general, most moderates have a list of concerns that directly affect them and their loved ones. Blue collar workers - a key demo - are hurting in this economy, with continued low workforce participation and rising cost of living. A Dem campaign focused on how tough gays have it in the job market is going to sound more than a little out of touch.
Well, apart from the citation provided. And the stories Martin references. And quite a lot of other stories. But apart from all the evidence, there’s no evidence.
And you said that she wouldn’t because it wasn’t an issue anymore. And I pointed out that it’s still very much a live issue. And here we are.
You sound like those people who claim racism is over because Obama got elected. A major battle has been won. The war is not over.
“Loopholes”. <snort> Jim Crow laws were “loopholes” too.
The fact that you’re handwaving away people getting fired simply for being gay as “having it tough in the job market” is further evidence that the fight goes on. You are working very hard indeed to handwave away actual overt bigotry.
Sure, for most people this is a non-issue. By that argument, since I’m not a soldier I shouldn’t care whether VA hospitals are third-world shitholes, and since I’m not a woman I shouldn’t care whether the government wants to jam ultrasound wands up their hoohahs on a mandatory basis, and since I’m not in school I shouldn’t care if our children isn’t learning [sic]. That doesn’t mean that those issues aren’t important, not just for the people they affect directly, but for society as a whole.
Well pretty much by definition, you can only have one focus at a time. It refers to a central point… But put it this way: it’s not going to be one of her top 10 issues, let alone top 5. If you want to say she’s “focused” on 20 things, I’m gonna say that’s an incoherent campaign.