It’s not about how many gays will vote Republican. It’s about how many gays feel like going to vote. Feeling betrayed may encourage them to sit this one out.
It’s from the Huff Post but this seems pretty even handed in explaning why The Obama Admin is doing what it is doing.
If we’re to believe Scylla, the entirety of the Log Cabin Republicans who should be held up and enamored as that which is right and good and shinny and representative of the modern conservative movement.
I’m sure their vote will sway the elections in the same way as their viewpoint sways the Republican party.
It is interesting that at the State level, Arnold and Jerry both refused to defend Proposition 8, and the Appeals court sided with them.
Openly gay, or self-denying closeted gays? My answer varies wildly.
How long ago was it that there was no opinions expressed about the “gay vote”, because such a thing did not really exist, so far as anyone knew?
If you’re going to be progressive, you are going to lose, and lose hard, and lose often. You are seeking to change the nature of power in our country, and if theres one thing in the world that is hardest of all to get someone to relinquish, it is power. It is a given that the Forces of Darkness have inordinate, undeserved power, that’s what we are trying to change. Did you think they were just going to hand it to us?
So, you lose. You get the living snot kicked out of you, you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and hit them again! And again! And yet again! You fight like the devil to get the smallest concession, and it all seems hopeless until you reflect: if you had not already changed the nature of power in our country, you wouldn’t have won even that.
Hell, I’ve given up in despair a hundred times! But I’ve given up giving up a hundred and one. And so it goes.
Self denying closeted gays don’t vote Republican, silly. They run as Republicans.
This.
I don’t know what Scylla is reading, but in more lefty circles of the internet, the fact that the DoJ not only is appealing the ruling, but also appealing the judge’s decision not to grant a stay, is engendering a LOT of grumbling from both GLBT and their non-GLBT supporters. Take a look at the Daily Kos diaries (not necessarily the front page, but the sidebar diaries from site-members) for the last few days.
I think that Scylla is seeing the best in the Republicans and the worst in the Democrats. Which is totally understandable, but, man, if you really took a critical eye to the Republicans about this issue, you’d be horrified.
What’s interesting about it?
At the State level the Chief Exec and his Attorney General both declined to defend a voter approved law. This is the first bit, and I consider it a great action by both men. The fact that the Appeals court said that they had that RIGHT is interesting to me, given how people state the Obama and Holder HAVE to defend DADT.
Now, it may be that the State laws and the Federal laws regarding the Executive branch are different on this subject. I simply find it interesting that Arnold and Jerry could find both the backbone and the legal coverage to be able to state, “nah, I ain’t gonna bother defending this piece of crap.”
Correct. You can do this for any issue where Obama acts just like Bush, or indeed goes even further. Obama being elected destroyed anti-war movements within the United States, for example.
Well, if you were under the assumption that Obama is a liberal that is a bit of a problem. He’s right of center even taking the current environment’s assumptions to heart. But if you wanted to say something like Dems use gays as an ornament without really caring then yeah, I think that’s accurate. It’s not to say gay rights matter or not as an ideological concern. It doesn’t really matter either way. Maybe you can find a planner somewhere arguing we need gays because, apparently, a lot of them know how to speak the languages of the places we’re trying to subjugate nowadays. But fighting for it on general terms is a serious risk for no real gain. So it’s easier to throw it out as red meat when it doesn’t matter.
This sort of social evolution rarely comes from actually voting people in, though. Attitudes towards gays in the general population have dramatically shifted from what they were even 10, 20 years ago and it’s had zero to do with voting. Similar things happened with blacks and women.
And yet, as i and others have pointed out, it’s disingenuous to make that assertion without taking into account the totality of the two men’s positions on the issue of DADT.
Bush’s overall position was clearly and unequivocally to oppose the repeal of DADT. Obama has made it equally clear that he wants DADT to be repealed, and that it’s something that Congress should do. At Obama’s urging, one house of Congress has, in fact, done it, while in the other chamber the bill was filibustered by Republicans.
Given those two very different, indeed diametrically opposed, stances, can you not see why the reaction would be different to Bush? Even if the President does have an obligation to defend the law, can you grasp the fact that there is a difference between defending the law while supporting the principles behind that law, on the one hand, and defending the law while opposing the principles behind it, on the other?
I’d also be interested to know if Scylla’s ever going to explain why Obama is apparently responsible what what the Justice Department does under his Administration, but Bush is apparently not responsible for what the Justice Department did under his.
Sure he has a duty to defend the law. He did that already. The attempt was a good one but in the end they lost.
If the argument is he must defend all laws by appealing unfavorable decision to them, sure I can understand that principled defense too.
The problem with the argument is the DOJ is appealing to provide the most rigorous defense of the existing law falls short when anyone point out decisions the Obama justice department has chosen not to appeal.
Just this week his administration chose not to appeal a court decision finding Federal parks had to admit small religious gatherings without forcing them to obtain permits.
It is very clear the DOJ can choose to appeal a case or not. I think it’s very fair to question why they have chosen to appeal the DADT case.
Barry Goldwater had strong libertarian tendencies. I’d suspect most real libertarians (and just about all around here) would be in favor of repealing DADT. However, these same libertarian tendencies made him oppose civil rights legislation, which is not exactly fighting for blacks. Now, given that you think conservatives are on the side of the angels on this one, what do you think would happen if Republicans in Congress introduced a bill to repeal DADT? (No doubt pressured by the very powerful LCRs). How long do you think it would take to pass? Do you think Obama would veto it?
Exactly. Problem is, it seems that some people like the OP are apparently under the impression that American conservatism is dominated by its libertarian wing, rather than its traditionalist, fundamentalist wing. That hasn’t been true for quite a long time. If ever, actually.
Not QUITE. Goldwater supported many earlier civil rights legislation, and he helped in integrating the army. However, his opposition was when it came to legislating what private businesses and such could do. He was not a racist.
As far as gays in the military, isn’t he the one who said, “You don’t have to be straight, you just have to shoot straight?”
Another interesting fact about Goldwater: he was adamently pro-choice, and his wife, Peggy, was one of the founders of the Arizona chapter of Planned Parenthood. When their older daughter became pregnant in the 1950s, they helped her obtain an abortion. He also LOATHED the religious right.
It’s funny that many conservatives nowadays lionize him, but if he were still around, they’d crucify the guy.
Okay, hijack over.
This lays it out pretty clearly.
Has Scylla dropped all the way down to a Starving Artist level of intelligence?
Sure does. He made a political decision to break his promise to his constituents in order to make a promise to the pentagon. Yep sucks to be a politician some time. The gay vote is something Democrats will readily sacrifice for political advantage. Yet they always so upset when in turn gays cut their funding and vow not to vote for them.
I think they’ve been running on the Republicans are even more abusive concept for a bit too long. Sure the Republicans will throw gays under the bus for political advantage as well but at least they are honest about it.
Another reason for the DoJ to appeal court decisions such as this one is to make sure that the issue goes all the way to the Supreme Court. If I understand correctly, decisions of lower level courts are not binding on courts in other districts or as legally effective as a SCOTUS decision.