# Liberals hate gays **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 21, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849 "2010-10-21T01:46:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/321 "2010-10-28T01:41:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Not that simple. A state governor may be deeply opposed to the death penalty, but his office requires that he perform the duty of signing the warrant. Well no. Somebody tried that exact argument to defend Bush over all those death warrants he signed. It was pointed out that other governors had simply refused to sign them and then the people couldn’t be executed. Anyway, the analogy doesn’t hold up. Obama wasn’t being asked to go along with an existing law. The law had been declared unconstitutional. It’s as if somebody’s death sentence had been overturned and you were saying the Governor is obligated to execute him anyway. Uh-uh. > [@](#): > > I think what it is is that Obama doesn’t want to win this in the court, he wants to win it in Congress. Just like he doesn’t want to to do it by executive order, because the next guy can reverse it. President Huckabee, for instance. And a different activist court might reverse the previous. Maybe. I think it would be very hard to de-integrate the military once you had gays openly in there for several years, and again, executive worked quite well in a very similar instance when Truman did it, so I don’t buy it. Political expediancy before an election passes the shit test. > [@](#): > > So, one his position as the executive branch demands it, As people simply assert. And when I argue back that it’s not true… nobody responds with a cite saying that the President is obligated to try and put back laws declared unconstitutional. I’m no longer, but I bet a time or two when a law was declared unconstitutional and the president accepted it. Why does he have to do this? Why do you guys keep saying he does without saying why or providing a cite? Bricker? Somebody? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/322 "2010-10-28T01:44:04Z")
Well, ok, if the Republicans deserve credit for this, how come they ain’t bragging about it? Unless, of course, they _don’t_ want credit for it. Wonder why. Does it rhyme with “probe”? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/323 "2010-10-28T01:46:24Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > **Scylla** , if you want reasonable people to debate you, you need to stop pretending that every time they address your argument they’ve mischaracterized it, and you need to stop doing exactly what you pretend they’re doing to you. If you want to start over and try to respond to my post reasonably, like you’ve occasionally done for others in this thread, I’m all ears. Well, if you want me to reply that way you need to not mischaracterize my arguments. Next, if you want reasonable arguments back, you need to offer them yourself. I replied as I thought appropriate to your post based on its content, and upon rereading it, I’m comfortable. Sorry you feel you’ve been given short shrift. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/324 "2010-10-28T02:05:45Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Bricker, Richard Parker both seem to think Obama was compelled. A few others have also made the same argument. I truly am sorry if I falsely attributed that argument to you. I hate it when people falsely attribute shit to me, so, sorry. Others have been making the argument, though. True. If you’re interested, here’s more: "Politics aside, there are at least two good legal reasons for the government to appeal. First, Judge Phillips’s decision, based heavily on trial testimony, reads very much like a ruling in an as-applied case rather than on a facial challenge. The government took the position in the case that on a facial challenge the only relevant evidence is the statute, legislative findings, and legislative history. (The government therefore called no witnesses.) Judge Phillips rejected this argument and issued a ruling based on a wide range of evidentiary materials. The government has an interest in pushing back on what defending a facial challenge requires. Second, the government has an interest in asserting deference to the military particularly in times of war. In rejecting the interests the government asserted in cohesion and readiness, Judge Phillips deemed President Obama’s public statements against DADT as an “admission” by the government that DADT serves no government interest. Judge Phillips also relied upon the military’s practices of discharge under DADT, in particular the smaller number of discharged gay and lesbian service members during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as evidence that DADT serves no purpose. It is odd for a court to accept as evidence a statement by the Commander in Chief that an existing military policy is unwise and through a carefully coordinated process should be altered and at the same time dismiss as serving no interest the actual policies of the military that is overseen by the Commander in Chief. It is also odd that in a time of war and when military resources are stretched thin, the military’s decision not to implement fully a policy becomes proof that the policy has no point." > [@Scylla](#): > > Um yeah. The fact they failed dozens of times while the LCR succeded is comforting to you. Can the liberals say something like: > > “How dare you give credit to the Republican group, LCR for this. We liberals have consistently failed to accomplish what they have more than a dozen times over the last decade. Therefore the credit for the success goes to us.” > > I don’t see even a politician trying to make that fly. Why do you feel to mischaracterize almost every argument people make? I’ve given credit to the LCR for this. Repeatedly. Yet you insist on making up something I never said. It’s incredibly frustrating. I never said LCR don’t deserve credit, just that giving credit to JUST LCR is inane. And expanding that credit to the entire Republican party is, likewise, inane. > [@Scylla](#): > > Yeah, like trying to win. Unlike the previous efforts. You seriously believe the ACLU (which by the way won the Witt case in the 9th circuit, which was a huge part of the reason the LCR won in their case), the Serviceman’s Legal Defense Fund, the Human Rights Council, and the myriad of other “liberal” organizations that have fought DADT since it’s inception all wanted to lose? Damn, after winning that Witt case, the case in Washington, the case involving DOMA, same sex marriage cases, and the Prop 8 case, they really, really suck at losing on purpose. The idea that the LCR won because they wanted to win, and the other groups lost because they wanted to lose takes a ocean of stupid to believe. While you’ve made some seriously flawed points in this thread, the sheer amount of stupid required to believe that dwarfs them all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/325 "2010-10-28T02:10:02Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I’m no longer, but I bet a time or two when a law was declared unconstitutional and the president accepted it. > > Why does he have to do this? Why do you guys keep saying he does without saying why or providing a cite? > > Bricker? Somebody? One of my favorite moments in the movie “A Few Good Men,” occurs during a re-direct examination of a Marine. As you might remember, in the story two Marines are being tried for administering a “Code Red,” an unofficial beating, to a fellow Marine who dies as a result. After another Marine testifies that Code Reds were authorized, the prosecutor hands the Marine a copy of the General Orders for the base and asks him where Code Reds are listed. When the witness says they’re not there, the prosecutor feigns surprise and hands him the Marine Guidebook and says, “Surely they’ll be listed here, then.” Again the witness admits that Code Reds aren’t documented in that book either. The prosecutor desists, confident he’s shown that Code Reds don’t exist. The defense lawyer stands and hands the witness the same books. “Please show me where in those books the mess hall is,” he asks. The witness replies that the mess hall’s location isn’t in them either. “How could you eat, then,” asks defense counsel, “without knowing where the mess hall was?” “I guess,” said the witness, “when chow time came I just followed everyone else.” The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws. (Art II Sec 3) An Act of Congress is presumed constitutional. When a law is challenged, it’s his job, through the Justice Department, to defend it, even through the appeals process. If this were not so, then the will of a unanimous Congress could be flouted by a single judge. There is no law requiring the President to defend laws, I grant you, but the general division of roles in our tripartite system of government demands it, and even though there’s no explicit law requiring him to act, his duty exists because of our system, just like the guy who finds the mess hall by the system, not the entry in the Marine Guidebook. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/326 "2010-10-28T02:11:26Z")
Ok, then let me translate your unreasonable post into a reasonable one, and then respond to it. > [@Scylla](#): > > Well, I suppose you could put that aside if that was what I said. Unfortunately for you, it’s not what I said you dishonest turd. The law was overturned. It was declared unconstitutional. It was no longer law. The President swears to uphold the Constitution. I could see why you would want to lie and put aside the actual argument seeing as responding to it would be a losing proposition. > [@Reasonable Version](#): > > While I recognize that the President must enforce laws generally, the President does not have an obligation to defend laws declared unconstitutional by a district court judge. If a chief executive decides to only defend the laws he likes from district court decisions, then he eviscerates our whole system of courts which rely on an appellate process up to the Supreme Court. In other words, laws he likes would get the full due process, but laws he doesn’t would not. That kind of political bias in the enforcement of constitutional law is a bad thing. That said, I think a good middle ground would have been to appeal but not seek a stay. Which is why I wasn’t really pressing the point. > [@Scylla](#): > > So you are saying the LCR lost there case? You are saying the ACLU and others had already gotten DADT overturned before the LCR brought their case? > Because if you are saying I don’t know what I’m talking about and I’m wrong, that’s what you’re arguing. You’re arguing that? You are that stupid? > [@Reasonable version](#): > > My point was that LCR won where the ACLU had not. On that point, I am correct. Well, you’re half-right. LCR got their injunction first, but the ACLU had actually won a district court case finding the application of DADT unconstitutional before that happened. Which is neither here nor there, since the larger point is that LCR didn’t do anything substantially different from any of the “liberal” advocacy groups. > [@Scylla](#): > > Really? You have a cite comparing the transcripts of arguments from both cases and finding them identical? Let’s see it. > [@Reasonable Version](#): > > …actually, this was pretty reasonable put the first time The constitutional argument isn’t complicated. If you really don’t believe me, I can download the pdf versions of the briefs from PACER and compare them side-by-side for you, but that would be a lot of work unless you seriously doubt the point that the ACLU was making substantially the same arguments in the WA case and others. > [@Scylla](#): > > Ohhhh, I understand now. **Obama** actually overturned the case. He did the Jedi mind trick on that conservative judge so she’d accept the arguments made by the LCRs (who according to you plagiarized them from the ACLU.) > Oh, and while other people have claimed figuratively that Obama walks on water this is the first time I’ve heard somebody argue seriously that he has the power of mind control which works from his ability to harness and change the political climate at will. > > That’s quite a superpower. [And on and on on this theme] > [@Reasonable Version](#): > > I don’t think Obama had anything to do with the Judge accepting LCR’s argument I wasn’t really saying he did. My point was that LCR didn’t do anything differently from what the liberal groups you so deride did. What changed is the country, for the most part. And it matters to district judges that the top brass was recognizing the injustice of DADT. Also, the Judge was a Clinton appointee and Berkeley law grad. > [@Scylla](#): > > Right, because Obama wanted them to win. Except when he did they overturned it? Makes perfect sense. > [@Reasonable Version](#): > > If the DOJ could have done more to win the case, why would they then move for a stay? Because they must meet their institutional obligations, and nothing more. Their obligation is to defend the statute on its terms, not to find additional evidence to support it, or do anything more than offer the arguments of its legislative supporters. > [@Scylla](#): > > I’ll just stop here. Your arguments are so bad, they’re not even amusing anymore. It’s pathetic the lengths you’ll go to to somehow pretend a Republican group didn’t do this and a Democratic President didn’t undo it. > [@Reasonable Version](#): > > I won’t address the other points you make because I think your larger theme, that Republicans shouldn’t get credit, is incorrect. That wasn’t my point. Obviously some individual Republicans won a great victory in CA, and Obama’s DOJ stayed the decision. I’m not arguing otherwise. What I was trying to correct was your misapprehension that ACLU, GLAD, etc. were just sitting on their thumbs and that LCR came along and got shit done. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/327 "2010-10-28T02:26:51Z")
Relevant [comments](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/obamas-interview-with-progressive-bloggers_n_775112.html) from the President today: > [@](#): > > QUESTION: And one of the things I’d like to ask you – and I think it’s a simple yes or no question too – is do you think that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional? > > ``` > THE PRESIDENT: It's not a simple yes or no question, because I'm not sitting on the Supreme Court. And I've got to be careful, as President of the United States, to make sure that when I'm making pronouncements about laws that Congress passed I don't do so just off the top of my head. > > I think that -- but here's what I can say. I think "don't ask, don't tell" is wrong. I think it doesn't serve our national security, which is why I want it overturned. I think that the best way to overturn it is for Congress to act. In theory, we should be able to get 60 votes out of the Senate. The House has already passed it. And I've gotten the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that they think this policy needs to be overturned -- something that's unprecedented. > > And so my hope and expectation is, is that we get this law passed. It is not just harmful to the brave men and women who are serving, and in some cases have been discharged unjustly, but it doesn't serve our interests -- and I speak as Commander-in-Chief on that issue. > > Let me go to the larger issue, though, Joe, about disillusionment and disappointment. I guess my attitude is that we have been as vocal, as supportive of the LGBT community as any President in history. I've appointed more openly gay people to more positions in this government than any President in history. We have moved forward on a whole range of issues that were directly under my control, including, for example, hospital visitation. > > ``` > > On “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I have been as systematic and methodical in trying to move that agenda forward as I could be given my legal constraints, given that Congress had explicitly passed a law designed to tie my hands on the issue. > > ``` > And so, I'll be honest with you, I don't think that the disillusionment is justified. > > Now, I say that as somebody who appreciates that the LGBT community very legitimately feels these issues in very personal terms. So it's not my place to counsel patience. One of my favorite pieces of literature is "Letter from Birmingham Jail," and Dr. King had to battle people counseling patience and time. And he rightly said that time is neutral. And things don't automatically get better unless people push to try to get things better. > > So I don't begrudge the LGBT community pushing, but the flip side of it is that this notion somehow that this administration has been a source of disappointment to the LGBT community, as opposed to a stalwart ally of the LGBT community, I think is wrong. > > ``` > > . . . > > THE PRESIDENT: I was very deliberate in working with the Pentagon so that I’ve got the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs being very clear about the need to end this policy. That is part of a strategy that I have been pursuing since I came into office. And my hope is that will culminate in getting this thing overturned before the end of the year. > > ``` > Now, as usual, I need 60 votes. So I think that, Joe, the folks that you need to be having a really good conversation with -- and I had that conversation with them directly yesterday, but you may have more influence than I do -- is making sure that all those Log Cabin Republicans who helped to finance this lawsuit and who feel about this issue so passionately are working the handful of Republicans that we need to get this thing done. > > ``` > > You’re financing a very successful, very effective legal strategy, and yet the only really thing you need to do is make sure that we get two to five Republican votes in the Senate. > > ``` > And I said directly to the Log Cabin Republican who was here yesterday, I said, that can't be that hard. Get me those votes. > > Because what I do anticipate is that John McCain and maybe some others will filibuster this issue, and we're going to have to have a cloture vote. If we can get through that cloture vote, this is done. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/328 "2010-10-28T02:33:08Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > What we’re saying is that the LCR is hardly the toast of the Republican party. They are. To me. This week. (Good job, guys.) > [@](#): > > You’re trying to do some kind of jujitsu thing where you take the Democrats’ missteps on gay rights issues and try to knock them down and replace them with the Republican party, but it won’t work because you’ve got a HUGE counterweight to overcome: the Republican Party’s very public and very extreme homophobia fueled by the religious fanaticism that the party has been cultivating and exploiting for votes for decades. Well. Maybe. You could be right. What I think though is something like this is going on: There’s been some study about racial bias based on political affiliation. It turns out that Republicans tend to identify or admit or claim racial bias a lot more than Democrats, who tend not to. In testing, this hold up… a little bit. When they actually test the biases of Republicans versus Democrats what they find is that the Republicans are every bit as biased as they say, and that the Democrats are nearly as biased as the Republicans. The claimed difference is great. The observed difference is small. People can and do lie about there racial bias: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642.html) [http://www.discriminations.us/2006/01/are\_republicans\_more\_racist\_th.html](http://www.discriminations.us/2006/01/are_republicans_more_racist_th.html) I find the interesting. I think it applies also to the issue of homosexuality. There is not a big difference in the observed bias of Republicans compared to their claimed bias. They, on average, are about as bad as they say they are. The Democrats seem to be almost as bad as the Republicans, though they claim they are much better. In fact, it seems that much of their political capitol with minorities is based on this claim that there is a vast difference in their behavior versus the Republicans. Observationally, it doesn’t seem to be true. Most of the really shitty things that have been done to homosexuals over the last two decades have enjoyed bipartisan support. There was not a Presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat who did not say they were against gay marriage in the last campaign. DOMA enjoyed bipartisan support. Clinton did DADT. Obama put it back after it was declared unconstitutional. The Democrats seem to let the Republicans take the lead when it comes to discriminating against gay. They seem to hemm and haw enough at first to show some deniability. But when push comes to shove they seem to jump right into the gay bashing party readily enough. It kind of reminds me of “In Cold Blood.” The one killer always needed to pretend he was being the reasonable one to assuage his conscience before he committed murder. I don’t find that particularly admirable. I don’t agree with discrimination or gay-bashing, but I do respect integrity. There’s a line in Shakespeare “Much ado about nothing” Don John says " “I cannot be said to be a flattering honest man, it must not be denied but I am a plain-dealing villain.” There’s something to that that rings true. Flattery makes others call you honest. I think a lot of the high reputation that the Democrats currently hold is based on their flattery of minorities. > [@](#): > > I have to thank you for one thing, **Scylla**. If this thread has done anything, it’s helped me to make a firm decision to go out and vote enthusiastically for Democrats, despite their foot-dragging on my issues. You’ve reminded me just how BAD the Republicans are for GLBT folk by trying to convince me that the Democrats are worse (which is, on its face, an absolutely absurd argument). Well, I’m glad I can take credit for energizing your desire to rock the vote. Your about the fifth person though who has used the “Democrats being worse is absurd” assertion against my argument. I find that interesting. Sincerely interesting. Dismissing an argument as absurd is a fallacy. In my job, I spend a lot of time searching for those things that everybody is absolutely sure are true, and then betting against them. I’ve made a lot of money over the years that way. You know why? The answer is different than you’d guess. It’s not that the things everybody believes in aren’t true. They usually are. The fact that everybody believes in something makes people rely on it, and not question it, and they push it to extremes, and because they have believed something is a certain way they ignore the signs that it is changing and that what they believe may soon no longer be so. For example, if I build you a deck and tell you to be careful with ho much weight you put on it, chances are you’ll be careful. You’ll check the deck and monitor it, and watch for signs of failure. Usually, this caution will prevent disaster. However, if I build you a deck and tell you that this is the strongest deck ever and can hold anything you care to put on it, and you believe it… than you might end up with a problem. You might never check it for signs of failure. You might not care if tons of people and equipment sit on it. You might not might maintain it properly because you think it is so strong. And that is how it usually happens. That’s the typical deck failure story. It happens all the time. Decks fail for those who are sure there deck is strong and do not question its integrity. I think the Democratic platform is not nearly as strong in this regard as you, or others in this thread seem to believe. Personally, I prefer a deck that I **know** is dangerous to one that I **think** is safe. YMMV. > [@](#): > > At this point, I can’t even believe that _you_ believe what you’re posting, if only because I know you’re not insane. Certified by Jayjay as “not insane.” I may use that as a sig. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/329 "2010-10-28T02:36:40Z")
> [@](#): > > THE PRESIDENT: I’m not going to tip my hand now. But there is a strategy. > > Q Okay. > > THE PRESIDENT: And, look, as I said – > > Q Can we call it a secret plan? (Laughter.) He didn’t deserve that, but it was funny. And who is “Joe”? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/330 "2010-10-28T02:40:29Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Personally, I prefer a deck that I **know** is dangerous to one that I **think** is safe. YMMV. I prefer to use a contractor who will actually build me that deck, even if it’s imperfect and comes in over budget and over time, instead of a contractor whose advertisements consistently call decks evil and dirty and against nature and absolutely refuse to build one. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/331 "2010-10-28T02:44:18Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I prefer to use a contractor who will actually build me that deck. It’s not the contractor or the deck that is usually the cause for the failure. It’s the confidence that the deck won’t fail that is usually to blame. I’m going to respond up to Richard Parker’s last post, and then stop for the evening. Might be a day or two before I can come back. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/332 "2010-10-28T02:48:55Z")
We wait wth bated breath. You know, I wonder how much of this approach is a result of him being a constitutional law nerd? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/333 "2010-10-28T02:55:39Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > True. If you’re interested, here’s more: "Politics aside, there are at least two good legal reasons for the government to appeal. First, Judge Phillips’s decision, based heavily on trial testimony, reads very much like a ruling in an as-applied case rather than on a facial challenge. The government took the position in the case that on a facial challenge the only relevant evidence is the statute, legislative findings, and legislative history. (The government therefore called no witnesses.) Judge Phillips rejected this argument and issued a ruling based on a wide range of evidentiary materials. The government has an interest in pushing back on what defending a facial challenge requires. I don’t want to make an argument from ignorance her, but I have no idea why an “as applied case” is inferior to a facial challenge and must therefore be appealed. I have no idea whether you have just made a really great argument or one that a knowledgeable person would laugh at. > [@](#): > > “Second, the government has an interest in asserting deference to the military particularly in times of war. In rejecting the interests the government asserted in cohesion and readiness, Judge Phillips deemed President Obama’s public statements against DADT as an “admission” by the government that DADT serves no government interest. Judge Phillips also relied upon the military’s practices of discharge under DADT, in particular the smaller number of discharged gay and lesbian service members during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as evidence that DADT serves no purpose. It is odd for a court to accept as evidence a statement by the Commander in Chief that an existing military policy is unwise and through a carefully coordinated process should be altered and at the same time dismiss as serving no interest the actual policies of the military that is overseen by the Commander in Chief. It is also odd that in a time of war and when military resources are stretched thin, the military’s decision not to implement fully a policy becomes proof that the policy has no point.” You are producing these two arguments as quotes. I genuinely assume you accidentally failed to show the cite you got them from. May I ask for it? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/334 "2010-10-28T03:01:08Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > IYou are producing these two arguments as quotes. I genuinely assume you accidentally failed to show the cite you got them from. May I ask for it? Thanks for catching that. They’re from Jason Mazzone, a law prof at Brooklyn Law School. [The article is here](http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/09/dadt-wait-it-out.html) on one of the law blogs I check out in my law geekness. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/335 "2010-10-28T03:01:43Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > So sure, he doesn’t say that he feels his horse should be put first, but he clearly says that if his horse is _not_ advanced, he assumes it means that gays are not important enough to have their concerns addressed. > > Simply, if they are kept on par with others, they are in fact not important enough. What else could that imply but that to be given the importance they are due, they have to be other than on par (e.g. put first)? I am honestly interested in learning how I am misunderstanding this. I think you missed the first half of my analogy, which specified that the three horses are _not_ being kept on par with each other: one horse is visibly mistreated by the driver. Does that clear things up at all? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/336 "2010-10-28T03:02:55Z")
Just to be clear, **Scylla** : if you could advise homosexual voters who are specifically concerned about maintaining and gaining rights as citizens, would you advise them to vote Republican? Why or why not? Are you arguing in this thread that having Republicans in national power is better for gay rights in general than having Democrats in the same positions? Either way, why? Also, what do you think the average Republican voter thinks about gay people? The average high-ranking Republican politico? The most well-respected pundits, professional or otherwise? How do you think their attitudes are reflected in their actions? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/337 "2010-10-28T03:03:19Z")
Bricker: That makes good sense, and I understand what you said. I do find though in the concept upon which your argument is built, namely that the President has roughly the same degree of autonomy and choice as a Marine Corps Private. My understanding of the military chain of command is that they higher you go, the more autonomy and responsibility you go. Or, to follow through on your analogy, Jack Nicholson’s character… The Col, he didn’t eat at the mess hall, did he. He had his own special tent where he wanted it “100 yards away from people who were trying to kill him.” He didn’t need to follow anybody to know where to eat. He decided where to eat. So, your example, does not hold even within its own context. If the Col. doesn’t need to follow everybody to the mess surely the Commander in chief does not. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/338 "2010-10-28T03:06:13Z")
Go ahead, don’t let me stop you from providing evidence of the massive homophobia amongst liberals, massively outweighing that of the admitted gay-haters amongst the conservatives. Except you won’t find any. Because acceptance is a defining characteristic of a liberal. It is almost mathematically certain that liberals are much more tolerant of homosexuality than conservatives. The only way liberals in general could tend to hate gays is if those that are liberal in other social ways, and financially, tend to be raving homophobes. Because the very fact of LBGT-friendliness is a point in the “liberal” column of a person. They’d have to be pretty liberal in other ways in order to counteract a homophobic tendency and still remain a liberal. Just like the Log Cabin Republicans would pretty much have to be Gold Bugs or shoot-the-aliens-on-sighters in order for me not to automatically consider them moderate Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/339 "2010-10-28T03:13:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws. (Art II Sec 3) An Act of Congress is presumed constitutional. When a law is challenged, it’s his job, through the Justice Department, to defend it, even through the appeals process. If this were not so, then the will of a unanimous Congress could be flouted by a single judge. There is no law requiring the President to defend laws, I grant you, but the general division of roles in our tripartite system of government demands it, and even though there’s no explicit law requiring him to act, his duty exists because of our system, just like the guy who finds the mess hall by the system, not the entry in the Marine Guidebook. This is a fine and just position to take, and I don’t have any quarrel with it on its own merits. But I have to ask, does Obama share it? If Obama has been vigilant in always challenging rulings that go against the state, if he has been steadfast in enforcing even laws he finds odious, then my criticism of him is misplaced. On the other hand, if he picks and chooses which laws to enforce, and which laws to let slide, if he sometimes looks the other way when a lower court strikes down a federal law, then I think we can deduce something of his character for his decision to act so swiftly when DADT was struck down. Now, I admit, I don’t have any idea of his history when it comes to challenging legal decisions that go against the state. But I do seem to recall that not too long ago, he stated that he would not be enforcing federal drug laws against medical marijuana users. If he can look the other way when it comes to laws that are currently on the books, I have to wonder what prevented him from doing the same with DADT. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/340 "2010-10-28T03:32:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Now, just imagine that you were somebody of importance, some political heavy-hitter for the gay rights cause, and you said that in public. How long do you think it would be before Turdblossom had that plastered over every Spanish language site he could find? > > “See? See? The gays will sell you out in a heartbeat to advance their agenda!” And he wouldn’t even have to twist your words to fit, he’d just be flat out quoting you! Christ Jesus, but you’re stupid! Look, I answered the question you posed. You gave me a false dilemma, and I was dumb enough to roll with your hypothetical. Given an either-or choice between advancing hispanic rights, and advancing gay rights, I picked gay rights. What I find interesting is that, if I had gone the other way, if I had said I would sell out the gays to help the Latinos, you would not be berating me as some sort of quisling to the Republicans. I find that discrepency endlessly fascinating. > [@](#): > > And again, what’s your plan? Are you going to overcome our enemies with the sheer weight of your numbers? Not likely. Now, I got a plan, and it bites. Its full of compromises, and deal making, and going along to get along, and I don’t much like it. I’d much rather sweep aside our enemies in a glorious electoral massacre! I’d also like a pony, and Rachel Maddow. I might get the pony. And you still continue to fundamentally not understand the crux of the complaints here. The problem is not that we object to compromise. The problem is not that we don’t want to make any deals. The problem is that the people we keep compromising and deal-making with consistently fail to honor their side of the bargain. > [@](#): > > Its a painful plan, a slow plan. You got a better one, lets see it. Bring it, tough guy, show us what you got. But so far when that question is posed you want to change the subject to what an asshole I am. OK, I’m an asshole, so are you, what’s your _fucking_ plan! I don’t have a plan. Gays are in a no-win situation, politically. Our options are to stick with mealy-mouthed, backstabbing, hypocritical sonsofbitches like yourself. Or switch to the Republicans. And as loathsome as you may be, you’re still a better bet than the GOP. So, my plan right now is to stick with the status quo. I’ll keep voting Democrat, on the offhand chance that sooner or later, I’ll end up pulling the lever for someone who really means what he says. And I’ll keep being utterly unsurprised when they double back on their word, just like all their predecessors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849.md?page=18)