Liberals hate gays

[Hamlet]

@Bryan_Ekers

Republicans are like baby-eating lions, now?

In Scylland.

[elucidator]

@Bryan_Ekers

Republicans are like baby-eating lions, now?

There’s the question of making a state lion cross for immoral papooses.

[jayjay]

@elucidator

There’s the question of making a state lion cross for immoral papooses.

Do you feel better after that stretch?

[elucidator]

“The blues isn’t about making yourself feel better, the blues is about making other people feel bad!”

• The late, lamented “Bleeding Gums” Murphy.

[Miller]

@elucidator

I think what he wants is for this to be brought to Congress and decided there. Just as I said, an executive order can be overturned, so can a court order. But the law is the law, and that’s what he wants. I think he’s right.

Sorry to break your restraining order against me, but I feel compelled to point out that the solution you’re hitching your wagon to is that Congress will over turn an existing law. So I’m not greatly comforted by your insistence that this is some bulletproof way to prevent any future reversals on this issue.

As well, there is the additional political benefit of cramming this right down the Republicans throats. Dollars to doughnut holes, Pubbies will be scrambling to try to find a rationale that makes their previous opposition look like total support, because this one is a loser. The public is behind it, the brass is behind it, the troops are behind it (Our heroes!).

Public support for health care reform was also pretty strong. Didn’t stop the Republicans from doing their level best to sabotage it. Also, I’d like to think the primary concern on this should be making sure an injustice is ended, not scoring a political point against your enemies.

However, I do think your analysis on this has more merit than you’d like. If DADT is overturned in the courts, Obama can’t claim it as a victory in 2012. It works out better for him, personally, if he can get the bill passed and use it as evidence for all the good work he’s done in office when he’s up for re-election. If he can’t get the bill passed, he can still use that as evidence of Republican obstructionism in the face of expert and popular opinion. But he can’t do either if the law is overturned in the courts and the bill becomes moot. Hence, the appeal, hoping to buy time to get the bill through, even though the odds of him getting it passed just get longer after the elections next month. And let’s face it, by fighting the court decision, he’s not really hurting himself very much. He might lose a couple of gay votes, but there aren’t enough gay voters out there to make too much of a difference one way or the other. On the other hand, gay rights organizations are a good source of funding for him, and they’re not likely to shut down the pipeline over this one issue - again, it’s not like there’s anyone else they can back, so they’re pretty much stuck with him. And so DADT sticks around for another four or five years, because doing the right thing by gays doesn’t fit into the Democrat’s political calculus.

[Scylla]

Hamlet et al:
Well, I’ve been reading the law and precedent and some articles, and it looks like I’m right and you all, including Bricker are wrong.

As I said earlier, the President has a duty to uphold the Constitution, and, if, in his opinion a law is unconstitutional he can choose not to enforce it. In fact, that is his duty

From here:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

I have reflected further on the difficult questions surrounding a President’s decision to decline to execute statutory provisions that the President believes are unconstitutional, and I have a few thoughts to share with you. Let me start with a general proposition that I believe to be uncontroversial: there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional."

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President’s view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has “the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.” Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President’s authority to act contrary to a statutory command)."

The Supreme Court plays a special role in resolving disputes about the constitutionality of enactments. As a general matter, if the President believes that the Court would sustain a particular provision as constitutional, the President should execute the statute, notwithstanding his own beliefs about the constitutional issue. If, however, the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the President has the authority to decline to execute the statute."

This article deals directly with the issue:

Is Obama's Excuse for Not Repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Legitimate?

"There are two different arguments for why Obama could choose not to enforce the law. The first one: he could say it was unconstitutional. At the time that DADT was passed, it was constitutional because there was no Supreme Court precedent establishing that homosexual relationships are protected under the implied privacy rights of the Bill of Rights. Then, 10 years later, the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas overturned an anti-sodomy statute on the grounds that it violated the privacy rights of gay couples. Since then, laws that impinge upon the sexual-privacy rights of gay couples are presumed unconstitutional if they have no rational state interest to justify them. “Since Lawrence v. Texas, you can no longer discriminate against gays without reason,” says Mazur. “The constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ has changed since Congress enacted it.” Given that top military leaders have said that DADT is harmful to the military, Obama could have simply announced that, absent the state interest to justify DADT, it is now unconstitutional and will no longer be enforced.
Obama’s other option: simply using his executive power to decide how the laws will be, or won’t be, executed. So Obama could simply order the military to stop applying the law, or to use it much more narrowly and infrequently. “There are a lot of laws on the books he doesn’t rigorously enforce,” notes Geoffrey Corn, a military law expert who teaches at South Texas College of Law. “The courts have recognized that while Congress has full authority to pass laws, the president has authority over when to enforce laws,” says Turley. Many criminal statutes, for example, are often unenforced and prosecutors have a lot of discretion on when to bring charges and what sentence to seek.

The president would be on strong footing in this case because he has especially wide latitude in interpreting laws that govern the military. Congress clearly was acting within its authority under Article I of the Constitution to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”

snip

If Obama didn’t pursue one of those permanent solutions, he could temporarily let gays serve while waiting for the courts or Congress to act by using his stop-loss power, which was explicitly granted by Congress in 1984 to override military discharges if troops are needed. “Stop-loss authority is a statutory authority enacted by Congress,” Mazur explains. “It gives the president authority to suspend any law that involves the discharge of service members. In times of national emergency there might be lots of reasons.” Given all the accounts of valuable servicemen and servicewomen, such as Arabic translators, being discharged under DADT, it would seem a fairly straightforward case for Obama to make. That would buy a couple of years for Congress to act or the current legal challenge to reach the Supreme Court."

Snip

and REALLY IMPORTANTLY:

The Obama administration has consistently argued that it must vigorously defend laws that it opposes as part of its obligation to “faithfully execute” the president’s duties. But not all experts agree with that interpretation. “Why not just let the injunction stand?” Corn demands. “You don’t enforce laws overturned by the highest court in land, so why not accept the lower court ruling?” Many scholars say that there is no requirement for Obama to appeal. “The president has complete authority not to appeal the decision in these cases,” says Turley, who in 1989 successfully argued in federal appeals court for overturning a law and saw the George H.W. Bush administration choose not to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. “The appeal is completely discretionary. Whatever duty the president has to defend the existing statute was satisfied before the trial court.”

Snip

“The president has a duty to separate his administration from an unconstitutional statute. If a statute required racial discrimination, would the president seriously be arguing that he and his administration would have to defend the statute all the way to the Supreme Court?”

There’s some defense, but even those defending Obama seem to think he has the authority to not bother to appeal it if he feels it is clean cut.

“If there is an act of Congress, it seems reasonable to me to say that it binds the president and he must faithfully execute it,” Burt says. “It is within the president’s discretion to say that the ruling in Log Cabin Republicans is so clear that there’s no point in appealing,” Burt concedes. “But that’s not the case here: there have been conflicts among district courts and courts of appeal that have looked at this statute.” Most of those rulings preceded Lawrence v. Texas. Lawrence strengthens the argument that DADT is unconstitutional, but courts have shown a lot deference on questions of military necessity."

---

Soooooooo

As it seems to me:

1. The Duty of the President is to uphold the Constitution

2. He may choose to ignore or not enforce laws that he finds unconstitutional and in pending court cases he should as he thinks the supreme court would find.

3. There is no compelling reason that he must appeal or seek a stay. There is Precedent for Presidents not doing so in the past, and even Obama has, IIRC suggested that he wouldn’t enforce some laws if they were enacted.

4. The strongest argument for DADT is that the President has quite a bit of authority over how the military should be handled and courts and congress have historically shown him some latitude as commander-in-chief.

[elucidator]

Miller:

Unless, of course, he’s telling you the truth. Unless actually doing it means more to him than getting credit for it. I lack your capacity to peer into the souls of others and inventory the contents, but that possibility yet remains. If you can submt a Certificate of Telepathy, that would go a long way.

But, point of fact, all you (and your new pal, Scylla) have is interpretation, you insist his actions are a betrayal, I and my ilk point out that more than one interpretation is possible. Indeed, plausible.

As others have pointed out, the DoJ presentation to the court was more form than substance, they suited up but didn’t play. Kind of move you might expect from a constitutional law wonk. Which he is. Smart one, too, according to testimony here. Keeping in mind that these are self-confessed lawyers, but still.

Besides, your dastardly plot makes no sense. If he wanted to get your votes and then betray you, wouldn’t he have manuevered to get this postponed beyond the election? Keep your votes, but not piss of the troglodytes? Admittedly, he wasn’t going to get much of the trog vote, but he could keep your approval at least, and thus avoid many a sleepless night.

And no, there is no restraining order on you. After all. you managed three fairly civil paragraphs without calling me a hypocrite, a 'phobe, a Democrat, or a presidential cocksucker. This is progress.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Scylla

My pointid that the Republicans are better in the sense that they are open in their animosity towards Gays whereas the democrats are false in their friendship.

Look, what I really believe is that there is no difference at all between republicans and Democrats other than who they are trying to appeal to and prey upon. Serously, Obama is George bush.

They all suck.

If I may ask a question to clarify this; do you believe that the Democrats not only are false in their friendship - that, for example, they pretend to be highly motivated about helping gay people in order to get their vote - and intend to do nothing about the situation, but on top of that they secretly harbour the same level of animosity towards gays as do Republicans?

[Scylla]

@Revenant_Threshold

If I may ask a question to clarify this; do you believe that the Democrats not only are false in their friendship - that, for example, they pretend to be highly motivated about helping gay people in order to get their vote - and intend to do nothing about the situation, but on top of that they secretly harbour the same level of animosity towards gays as do Republicans?

I don’ know. I guess they run the gamut, just as Republicans do. I’m sure both parties have everything from very gay friendly folks to those who just make appropriate noises to those who openly despise gays. Probably the only difference is the distribution of those folks, with the friendly to gay side loaded with Democrats and the hostile loaded with Republicans.

[Hamlet]

@Scylla

Hamlet et al:
Well, I’ve been reading the law and precedent and some articles, and it looks like I’m right and you all, including Bricker are wrong.

I’m so glad to hear you did some research on the issue.

One thing I’ll point out, though:

@Scylla

As I said earlier, the President has a duty to uphold the Constitution, and, if, in his opinion a law is unconstitutional he can choose not to enforce it.

I bolded the parts that are the problem with asserting that Obama MUST not appeal this case. First, Obama has specificially and repeatedly NOT given his opinion on whether or not DADT is unconstitutional. He may, he may not. Or, most likely, he may have an opinion, but want the judiciary and the legislature to have their say also. Second, “can” does not mean MUST. It means he has discretion to appeal or not appeal.

In this case, as has been repeatedly pointed out earlier in the thread, Obama may actually think that it is best (and more fitting the concepts of balancing of powers in the Constitution) if the President doesn’t decide, all by himself, that a law is unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. Bricker, in fact, advocated for that very position, that the President shouldn’t put his own reading about the Constitution above others and should let the judicial system complete it’s determination first. Instead, he could seek a legislative solution, say, and I’m pulling this out of thin air, maybe seek the repeal of the statute in question by the legislature. Given that DADT has survived prior attacks and the arguments within the legal community over it, it’s unconstitutionality is by no means a sure thing. Maybe Obama thinks letting the judiciary and the legislature decide is certainly more respectful to those branches and more in tune with the Constituion.

Obama’s thinking wouldn’t be anything new. As this previously linked article states:

"On occasion, the Justice Department will even defend a law it knows is likely to be judged unconstitutional, said Seth Waxman, who served as President Bill Clinton’s solicitor general.

Six federal judges had ruled against the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that made it a crime to make available to minors on the Internet material that was “indecent” or “patently offensive.” Nevertheless, Waxman backed the law in an appeal to the Supreme Court. He lost there, but felt good about serving “our adversarial system of constitutional adjudication.”"

“William French Smith, President Ronald Reagan’s first attorney general, once said that defending congressional action that extended the ratification period for the proposed Equal Rights Amendment for women caused far and away his most uncomfortable moments in four years in office because of the irate calls he got from administration supporters — who staunchly opposed the ERA.”

Of course, all of this was kinda the point I made in my first post in this thread when I said: "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. " And when Bricker replied: “Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he’s acting correctly.”

9 pages later, and we’re back there.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Scylla

I don’ know. I guess they run the gamut, just as Republicans do. I’m sure both parties have everything from very gay friendly folks to those who just make appropriate noises to those who openly despise gays. Probably the only difference is the distribution of those folks, with the friendly to gay side loaded with Democrats and the hostile loaded with Republicans.

I guess the issue that keeps me from agreeing with you on your point about the Democrats, overall, being worse on this is that while i’m sure i’d be more pissed off about someone doing something bad to me than someone who claimed to be my friend doing that same bad thing, I don’t think i’d so easily draw the line like that when there’s a differing amount of actual animosity behind it. I mean, betrayal is always nasty, but if it’s a matter of betrayal due to overall indifference to the cause, i’m pretty sure as much as I might dislike one group for it i’m still going to dislike a group that actually has it out for me more. No-one likes being lied to, but if the thinking up at Democrat HQ (big generalisations here, but I hope you get what I mean) is “Eh, we can fuck over these people because there’s more important things to us, and it’s not like they have anywhere else to go”, then as much as I would be displeased then i’m going to be more upset if at Republican HQ it’s “We can fuck over these guys because they deserve to get fucked over”. If one side is disproportionately gay-friendly and they’re sharpening their back-stabbing knives, then they’re bastards, but i’ll take bastards who’re acting out of prudence over bastards who’re acting out of actual dislike.

[Miller]

@elucidator

Unless, of course, he’s telling you the truth. Unless actually doing it means more to him than getting credit for it.

If actually doing it meant more than getting the credit for it, he’d have let the court ruling stand.

I lack your capacity to peer into the souls of others and inventory the contents, but that possibility yet remains. If you can submt a Certificate of Telepathy, that would go a long way.

But, point of fact, all you (and your new pal, Scylla) have is interpretation, you insist his actions are a betrayal, I and my ilk point out that more than one interpretation is possible. Indeed, plausible.

You’re no more of a mind-reader than I am. You want to believe the best interpretation of Obama’s actions because you want to believe you backed a good guy for the office. I’ve had too much experience with otherwise “good guys” treating gays like crap to make that assumption any more. It’s much easier to believe the best in people when you don’t have much to lose by being proved wrong. Others of us need to be more suspicious.

As others have pointed out, the DoJ presentation to the court was more form than substance, they suited up but didn’t play.

Then why suit up at all? If Obama feels he has a duty to defend even laws he finds repugnant, then surely he has a duty to defend them as vigorously as possible. What is the ethical difference between not defending the law at all, and defending it in such a way that you are likely to lose? If anything, this is even more evidence for my theory: that the appeal is just a delaying tactic to prevent someone else from stealing his thunder on this issue.

Besides, your dastardly plot makes no sense. If he wanted to get your votes and then betray you, wouldn’t he have manuevered to get this postponed beyond the election? Keep your votes, but not piss of the troglodytes? Admittedly, he wasn’t going to get much of the trog vote, but he could keep your approval at least, and thus avoid many a sleepless night.

I didn’t say he wanted to get my vote. The crux of my theory is that he doesn’t really care about my vote. There aren’t enough individual gay voters out there to deter him from double-crossing us. Besides which, most of us will probably vote for him anyway, because we’re either too scared of the alternative candidate, or because we support him on other issues where he can’t afford to turn his coat. Which, incidentally, is precisely why he hasn’t lost my vote over this issue, as pissed off as I am with him.

Nor did I say he wants to betray me. What he wants is to be able to add this to his tally of successful actions in congress to his (almost entirely heterosexual) base in two years. Most voters aren’t going to be paying enough attention to this issue to take account of the individual political moves, or to remember them by 2012. They’re going to remember that Obama championed legislature that got DADT removed. They’re not going to remember that he was willing to risk the entire thing being sunk because it wasn’t going to get resolved in a way that he could take personal credit for. And if it does sink, they’re mostly going to remember it as another bit of successful Republican obstructionism, and not the fallout from a cynical glory-grab by the president.

And no, there is no restraining order on you. After all. you managed three fairly civil paragraphs without calling me a hypocrite, a 'phobe, a Democrat, or a presidential cocksucker. This is progress.

I don’t think I actually called you a homophobe, did I?

@Hamlet

In this case, as has been repeatedly pointed out earlier in the thread, Obama may actually think that it is best (and more fitting the concepts of balancing of powers in the Constitution) if the President doesn’t decide, all by himself, that a law is unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. Bricker, in fact, advocated for that very position, that the President shouldn’t put his own reading about the Constitution above others and should let the judicial system complete it’s determination first. Instead, he could seek a legislative solution, say, and I’m pulling this out of thin air, maybe seek the repeal of the statute in question by the legislature. Given that DADT has survived prior attacks and the arguments within the legal community over it, it’s unconstitutionality is by no means a sure thing. Maybe Obama thinks letting the judiciary and the legislature decide is certainly more respectful to those branches and more in tune with the Constituion.

In this case, though, it isn’t the President alone deciding not to enforce an unconstitutional law: it would be the President acting in concord with the judicial branch. An example of the President acting alone to avoid a law that he feels is unjust would be Obama’s decision not to enforce federal drug laws against California’s medical marijuana users. Which goes back to a question I originally asked Bricker, which I don’t think was ever addressed: if Obama is acting on this case out of a sense of duty to enforce laws he personally disagrees with, why is he not being consistent in that duty? And what (if anything) can be determined about his character by looking at the times he feels it necessary to do his duty, and the times he looks the other way?

And lastly, to Scylla: you’ve stated that, as far as gay rights go, Republicans have the dubious moral highground of being true to their beliefs in sabotaging attempts at gay equality, which at least makes them honest. My question is, why do you assume they are honest? If Democrats have discovered that they can profit by pretending to be friendly to gays, is it not equally likely that Republicans have discovered that they can profit by pretending to hate gays?

[Hamlet]

@Miller

In this case, though, it isn’t the President alone deciding not to enforce an unconstitutional law: it would be the President acting in concord with the judicial branch.

I think “in concord with the judicial branch” is a bit of an overstatement. One trial level court that has yet to survive even a single appeal and based in good part on a yet unappealed 9th circuit ruling. While I would certainly prefer he not appeal (and still hope he won’t), I can certainly see how one district level, unappealed case that disagrees with other cases out there is not the most compelling basis for determining that the judiciary has reached a solid determination.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=Miller]
If actually doing it meant more than getting the credit for it, he’d have let the court ruling stand.
[/QUOTE]

Well, we have some pretty good testimony here, from the esteemed firm of Hamlet, Paker, Hentor, and Bricker. Even though they have a strong aroma of law school, their thinking is remarkably clear and much aligned with mine own, hence right. To repeat them would be a pale reflection, please read their thoughts on that. Rather bright lads, really.

This might very well be a crafty political move from worthy aspirations. He intends not only to kill DADT, but bury it with a stake throughi its, ah, heart. I think that is the case.

…There aren’t enough individual gay voters out there to deter him from double-crossing us…

Then there aren’t enough votes for him to court you. If his support for gay rights is based solely on electoral advantage, why? Is such a position so universally popular in America that it is a guaranteed poltical advantage? How could that be, if the voting bloc is so minimal?

Unless, of course, he actually believes in it. Unless he’s telling you the truth. It happens, you know, not as often as we would like, but it does happen.

…I don’t think I actually called you a homophobe, did I?..

Wait, sorry. Is “gun to your head” still to faggy for you?

There’s another way to interpret that remark? Be pleased to hear it, then we have only Democrat, hypocrite and presidential cocksucker. Mom will be so proud.

[Miller]

@elucidator

This might very well be a crafty political move from worthy aspirations. He intends not only to kill DADT, but bury it with a stake throughi its, ah, heart. I think that is the case.

Now, now. That’s not at all what I said, is it?

Then there aren’t enough votes for him to court you. If his support for gay rights is based solely on electoral advantage, why? Is such a position so universally popular in America that it is a guaranteed poltical advantage? How could that be, if the voting bloc is so minimal?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re a white straight male, correct? Is your support for Obama wholly unaffected by the stances he takes on issues facing Hispanics, women, blacks, Jews, and, of course, gays? Because given your rhetoric earlier in this thread, I’d gathered that his position on issues important to those groups was very important to you, even though you are not, yourself, a member of any of those groups. Or are you, perhaps, unique in that capacity for empathy?

There’s another way to interpret that remark? Be pleased to hear it, then we have only Democrat, hypocrite and presidential cocksucker.

Well, I was trying to capture the general essence of this post. Was “faggy” too over the top? “Stereotypically gay” is kind of a mouthful.

Mom will be so proud.

I learned from the best.

[elucidator]

@Miller

Now, now. That’s not at all what I said, is it?..

No, its what I said. What you said was that Obama betrayed you. The eviidence you offer for this is that tactical, political manuevering about DADT. Which, as more knowledgeable people have tried to point out to you, is not nearly as cut and dried as you want to pretend.

But why? Why would he do that? A deep seated, festering hatred for gays that he managed to keep hidden until he could spring his trap, bwah ha ha ha ha? Sharks with friggin’ laser beams next? Its a conspiracy?

Even if we give your position every benefit of doubt, its certainly no better than my own. A position, I remind, held by several others, none of whom you feel moved to slander.

…Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re a white straight male, correct?..

Sure, now, after you guys stole the word “straight”! We were fine when you wanted tie-dye shirts and scented candles!

…Is your support for Obama wholly unaffected by the stances he takes on issues facing Hispanics, women, blacks, Jews, and, of course, gays? Because given your rhetoric earlier in this thread, I’d gathered that his position on issues important to those groups was very important to you, even though you are not, yourself, a member of any of those groups. Or are you, perhaps, unique in that capacity for empathy?..

Yeppers, been working that side of the street longer than you’ve been alive. But I don’t have any way of gauging that. How many of us are there, who have no particular oppressed identity, but simply work for what is right because its right? For starters, half the human species is female. I’m sure a lot of us are “white”, whatever that means, anymore.

But what of it? Is that some sort of accusation? My impersonal commitment to justice reveals some insincerity? You’re not making a lot of sense here.

Well, I was trying to capture the general essence of …Was “faggy” too over the top? “Stereotypically gay” is kind of a mouthful.

Horseshit. You were being insulting. Don’t pee on my shoes and tell lme its raiining. You didn’t have anything justifiable to throw at me, so you played the 'phobe card. Along with hypocrite, presidential cocksucker and Democrat.

Was I insulted? You better fucking believe it, I snarled around the house doing my best Yosemite Sam on meth impression, the dog won’t come out from under the porch, not even for beer.

This is about tactics, and realpolitik. Which is icky, but there it is. There exists a progressive coalition, and all such coalitions have weaknesses, our enemies will exploit those weaknesses at every opportunity. Today, you helped them. Tomorrow, I hope you don’t.

Unity wins, sniping, jealousy, and undermining our leaders (as flawed as they may be) only helps our enemies.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[elucidator]

Upon wise counsel, ‘nuff’ s nuff. We go our ways, I shrug it off, mindful of the comity and unity needed. So that one day, one day, we will all have equailty before the law, mutual respect and humane concern. So I set aside pettiness and pique, hopeful for the day when such restraint is no longer needed, when we bask in the sunshine of the American dream made whole.

Then I’ll run over your toe with my wheelchair.

[Condescending_Robot]

@Revenant_Threshold

If I may ask a question to clarify this; do you believe that the Democrats not only are false in their friendship - that, for example, they pretend to be highly motivated about helping gay people in order to get their vote - and intend to do nothing about the situation, but on top of that they secretly harbour the same level of animosity towards gays as do Republicans?

Nobody in either party believes anything except that he should be elected. Democratic “friendliness” to gays is no more real than Republican animosity. It’s all about getting votes. Does anyone other than small children believe differently?

[Miller]

@elucidator

No, its what I said. What you said was that Obama betrayed you. The eviidence you offer for this is that tactical, political manuevering about DADT. Which, as more knowledgeable people have tried to point out to you, is not nearly as cut and dried as you want to pretend.

But why? Why would he do that? A deep seated, festering hatred for gays that he managed to keep hidden until he could spring his trap, bwah ha ha ha ha? Sharks with friggin’ laser beams next? Its a conspiracy?

I explained why he would do that. Because it would directly benefit his re-election chances, at very little risk of harm to himself. I’ve been pretty clear that I think he’s acting out of callous self-interest, and not malicious bigotry. Repeatedly and deliberately conflating the two for the sake of cheap rhetoric doesn’t do your argument any good.

Even if we give your position every benefit of doubt, its certainly no better than my own. A position, I remind, held by several others, none of whom you feel moved to slander.

None of the other people who hold your position have accused me of being a Republican shill for criticizing Obama. None of the others have condescended at me, lectured at me, or insulted me based on my sexuality. In short, lots of people have disagreed with me. Only you have been an asshole about it. So, I’ve been an asshole right back to you. I am, above all, a great believer in equal treatment.

Yeppers, been working that side of the street longer than you’ve been alive. But I don’t have any way of gauging that. How many of us are there, who have no particular oppressed identity, but simply work for what is right because its right? For starters, half the human species is female. I’m sure a lot of us are “white”, whatever that means, anymore.

But what of it? Is that some sort of accusation? My impersonal commitment to justice reveals some insincerity? You’re not making a lot of sense here.

No, that one, at least, wasn’t an accusation at all. I was trying to point out that by giving the appearance of being in favor of gay rights, Obama can win the favor of people other than gays. However, most people who aren’t gay don’t follow gay rights issues as closely as people whom it directly effects. They’ll support Obama if he talks the talk, but they don’t pay enough attention to notice if he’s walking the walk.

Horseshit. You were being insulting. Don’t pee on my shoes and tell lme its raiining. You didn’t have anything justifiable to throw at me, so you played the 'phobe card.

Of course I was being insulting. So were you, when you called me a gay stereotype. If you’re going to attack people over their sexuality, you shouldn’t be terribly surprised when they bust out the “'phobe card.”

Along with hypocrite, presidential cocksucker and Democrat.

You forgot “hippie.”

This is about tactics, and realpolitik. Which is icky, but there it is. There exists a progressive coalition, and all such coalitions have weaknesses, our enemies will exploit those weaknesses at every opportunity. Today, you helped them. Tomorrow, I hope you don’t.

Unity wins, sniping, jealousy, and undermining our leaders (as flawed as they may be) only helps our enemies.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

And again with the lecturing. You really don’t have any idea how incredibly grating you are when you get up on your soapbox, do you? Seriously, you need to cut this shit out. If people start thinking you’re the voice of the progressive movement, they’re going to write us off as a bunch of sanctimonious wankers. And we’re trying to keep that fact on the down low.

[Scylla]

Hamlet:

I don’t understand why you are arguing with me. My stance has been that the President has the option to do things, not that he must do things. What I have been arguing all along is that it is choice.

As President, seeking a stay or otherwise fighting a court decision that overturns a law you have claimed you are against seems a little odd.

Some have argued that he needs to follow somebody to the mess hall or the whole system of checks and balances collapses or what have you, or that it is the President’s responsibility to seek to uphold laws when they are overturned, or to challenge them, or that such a challenge is basically automatic and not reflective of Obama’s beleifs, but somehow part of some clerical process.

But… that turns out to be bullshit. Presidents have accepted court decisions overturning laws in the past. And, as commander-in-chief he’s considered to some special latitude in terms of things military.

So, it was totally and completely his call, his choice. This is what I said 9 pages ago, and you and a whole bunch of others have been arguing with me about it. I cited the President’s oath of office on the first page, and his duty is to uphold the constitution… not laws that are declared unconstitutional.

So… He decided to challenge it. His stated reason is that he thinks its better for it to be overturned legislatively and that that will happen by the end of the year.

This does not seem to hold water.

It does not appear that it will be pulled back legislatively in the immediate future, and a reasonable guess at the outcome of Tuesday’s election would lead one to think that the chances of it getting repealed during the President’s current term are really really bad.

The likely outcome of Obama’s choice is that DADT will remain for the forseeable future.

We are left with a couple of possible conclusions:

1. Obama thinks Democrats are going to win big Tuesday or that otherwise the bill will pass in the near future, and he is so confident of this that he is willing to risk allowing a pretty terrible social injustice that he claims to despise perpetuate itself on this gamble.

My take to this possibility: I would be surprised if he was dumb enough to think that it actually will pass legislatively.

2. He really doesn’t care very much about DADT. Other things are more important to him, and he didn’t need this bullshit before an election.

3. He’s a pussy, and he’s afraid to make decisions and exercise presidential power.

4. DADT keeps the military happy, and it keeps his religious constituents happy. He can keep up appearances as gay friendly by appearing to fight it (but in innefectual way that doesn’t piss off the millitary or religious democrats.) He is more than happy to lobby a slow pitch over the plate so that the Republicans can smash it out of the park and take the credit and the blame for blocking the repeal of DADT. Not only does it keep everybody happy (except gays who wish to serve,) but it further ties gay people to the Democratic party.

It was inconvenient that the LCR’s won this injunction, and it’s a little thin to try to overturn it by claiming the import of legislative process, but a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, and it doesn’t matter because in the end this will make Republicans look even worse to gays so it’s not like they’re not going to vote Democratic.

I go with #4.
I voted for Obama. Fiscally and politically I’m a conservative. I beleive in equality, a strong foreign policy, and MINIMAL government interference with public life. I am against most entitlements and social programs.

The Republicans weren’t being very conservative in my view. And, I strongly disagreed with the social conservative movement within the Republican party.

So, while I disagreed with Obama on a lot of things, I’m socially progressive and believe in freedom and equality for all people. I thought Obama would at least represent this beleif of mine well. It was such a big part of his campaign. I voted for him in spite of all my other misgivings.

A lot of those misgivings proved false. He’s Bush in every way except for this whole healthcare thing. That was the only misgiving that came true.

But socially he seems to be Bush as well. He’s not doing what he said he’d do, and the excuses are fucking weak.

I’ve chosen 4. If you have another alternative please let me see it, I’d be interested. If you disagree with my premises, let me know why they are flawed.

Thanks,