A SCOTUS decision would be binding on all federal courts (and probably state courts, but it would depend on the cause of action), but you don’t appeal a decision you already have in your pocket to get a higher court to render the same decision.
If Obama ran with it and opened up the military to gays, there would have been another court case making another decision that might have halted it. It has to be done definitively, once and for all. We can not tolerate bigotry in the armed services.
#1 and #2 I share with you.
#3 is laughable. “Generally” it is a conservative viewpoint to hate gays, not liberal. The fact that you are drawing from one legal action by Obama’s DOJ that all or even most liberals are against gays is laughable. Conservatives have been beating that horse, and gay people, for years over their supposed immorality.
#4 I agree, with caveats. Few politicians would come out can just say they are for gay marriage when the issue is still so divisive, when small groups of bigots can shout louder than the majority. Obama wants to repeal DADT, the fact that he’s not doing it in the fastest and seemingly easiest way is infuriating, but understandable given his position. I don’t like it, but then again, I wouldn’t have the smarts to run a political campaign that nets me 50+ million votes. You’re essentially chastising a man for wanting a drink of water but not wanting to jump in a pool with a shark
Because we know Bush hates gays
SOME liberals don’t like teh gay:
Percent saying that “Homosexual sexual relations always wrong” in 2002:
Liberal 38%
Moderate 54%
Conservative 68%
PDF Source: http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080603-Homosexuality.pdf
Which promise did he break?
Well, sorta kinda. He promised to end DADT, what they heard was him promise to end DADT right now!!. And I’ve seen a couple of quotes very suggestive of that, though a skilled practitioner could find some wiggle room. (“Calling Dr. Bricker, Dr. Bricker to Semantic Surgery…”)
But he appears to have most (all?) of the major military hats on board here, and that’s huge, that makes it all but inevitable. And the coin he offered in return was respectful attention to their concerns. If they say they are concerned about disruption if this moves too fast, he gets them on board by buying the “too fast” part and selling the “gonna happen, anyway” part.
We can have this thing. If all it takes to move from “maybe” to “probably” to “dead cert” is a bit of deference to the brass hats, I say “yeah, do it”.
Wait, so who hates gays then? The OP lied to me!
He should have ended it. The fact that he did not does not mean he does not want to. It is that political juggling makes it difficult to do now.
Screw the service brass. They will do studies for decades to avoid it. But I am sure Obama is getting some concessions for letting the brass keep bigotry in place .
He had told gay rights leaders he would work to end DADT in his first year of office. Yes he has plenty of wiggle room with that. But if someone says they are working on this I expect them to be seen working on it. Obama didn’t mention he was even going to work on the issue until his first state of the union. At that point gay rights advocates were already marching on Washington and he had nothing to say. He say’s He’ll end DADT in his first year, then he goes and makes a promise to the military he’s wait a year for their study.
He said he would use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat gay couples to full equality. Hell ya the president making public statements urging states to vote in favor of gay rights that would have done wonders when issues like gay adoption and gay marriage come up in a few states. Except when those issues came up he had nothing to say. Didn’t even send a press secretary to voice his opinion, he remained silent as rights were stripped away.
He claimed he was going to advocate for gay rights, then has had nothing to publicly say about them, it doesn’t do much for his credibility.
He’s been a big disappointment for gay rights advocates. He has shown unwillingness to speak out when in many cases all we need is public figures stating on the record that gays deserve to be equal.
Much of the disappointment ends up coming from his character in general. He isn’t what most people would describe as a ‘fierce advocate’ for anything, he’s cool and calculating. He may eventually get to his goal. If that was his plan all along promising to be a ‘fierce advocate’ is misleading and in my opinion lying.
If people want to add the the activities of his justice dept, they have also been appealing the Defense of Marriage Act. Yeah I know defending the laws of the nation whether they support them or not, seems laws against gay people are more worthy of defense then others.
On the bright side Obama took the time this week to be caught publicly advocating against gay teen suicides joining ‘it gets better’ campaign. The kind of activity I actually expected based on he campaigning to gay voters, you know being willing to publicly advocate for gay, something he’s actively avoided.
So for this, this week he gets some slack
Gay USA is on dish right now. The hosts Ann and Andy are going over the races to see where the Dems can pull it out. They know their freedoms are far safer with the Dems . They know who hates them , and it is not the Dems.
Kind of disingenuous to make that video without supporting gay marriage rights.
Yea it’ll get better, but you’ll never have the same rights as everyone else.
I never said he was a racist. However, the effect of his ideas, non-racist though they were, supported the position of those who actually were racists. The problem was not in his ethics, it was that he felt the “rightness” of his cause outweighed its inevitable impact on people.
And indeed, he was a flaming Commie compared to conservatives today.
Exactly. Obama talked a good game on LGBT support, but has either done little on our issues, or worked against us.
So what if we can’t sponsor our partners/husbands/wives for immigration.
So what if we have to count our health care benefits for our partners as taxable income, and end up paying even higher taxes than straight people to a Government that refuses to acknowledge our relationships.
So what if we have to fill out our state taxes as married in the states that let us marry, and then have to recalculate them again before filing as single federally.
So what if those of us that are legally married are forced to enter the country as single when we fly together - after all, only “families” can be interviewed by Customs and Immigration at one time.
So what if Obama’s DOJ compared our relationships to incest and pedophilia.
We need to stop being so uppity, and keep giving money to the DNC and just shut up and vote for Obama and the Democrats - they’ve done so much for us, after all.
I expect, hope and trust that you will vote for the candidate and the party that is best for the country, as in all of us.
I expect, hope and trust that in the unlikely event a reactionary, fascistic, Beck-Palin candidate ran on an agenda that was destructive for the progressive movement as a whole, but pandered exclusively to your community, you would reject that candidate, because you recognize yourself as a member of a larger community of like minded people.
Suppose a candidate comes forward who will, in fact, move heaven and earth to bring about total equality for all gay persons, but intends with equal sincerity to make life a lot tougher for Latinos, or Muslims, or some other minority group? I trust, hope, and expect that you would reject such a candidate without a moment’s hesitation.
If your commitment to progress is confined to and defined by its effect upon your own, you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. We progressives want progress for the American people. And we could use your help, if you’ve nothing better to do.
I’m not gay, but our mututal enemy doesn’t like me one little bit more than he likes you. To oversimplify, its you and me for us, not you and me for you.
Funny, it’s always “all of us” when it comes to Gay people voting to support progressive causes. But when it comes to civil rights for Gay people a large number of progressives have no problem throwing us under the bus.
Why should the DNC and Obama do anything for us if they know they just have to say a few kind words, have a cocktail party with the Human Rights Committee and we’ll thank them for deigning to talk to us.
As disgusting as the Republicans are, what are they going to do, support Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Do nothing on the Employment Non Discrimination Act? Fight to support the Defense of Marriage Act? Ted Olson, the right wing lawyer who fought against Prop 8 in California is more supportive of Gay people than Obama. Hell, at this point, Cheney is more supportive of Gay people than Obama.
I’m a liberal so I’m an evil hypocrite. And I hate gays.
Then, here’s what you do: form a 100% pure GLBT party, refuse to have anything to do with “coalitions” and “progressives”, only those candidates who put GLBT priorities at the very top of the list, and everybody else can go pound sand.
You will, of course, lose those gay people who have the good sense that God gave a goose, but you will finally achieve ideological purity. You will then be able to throw the massive weight of your numbers behind your candidate.
Then, at the convention, a lesbian separatist will rise to speak and point out that gay men are still, nonetheless, men and as such do not have sufficient sympathy and commitment to the lesbian experience. Whereupon you will have to explain the rudiments and principles of coalition politics to someone who will glare at you and suggest you are some sort of backsliding traitor to The Cause.
And that distant, ghostly chuckle you hear? That will be me.
What should someone holding a gun in his mouth because of discrimination be more concerned about?
To a gay person who can’t be around his partner in public, what should concern him more than that?
So, let me get this straight: A candidate who is not supportive of racial or religious minorities is not to be tolerated. Even if he’s the rock-solid in support of sexual minorities, we have a moral obligation to reject his candidacy, for the good of “us.” But, if a candidate supports racial and religious minorities, but will actively work against sexual minorities, well, that’s just the sort of sacrifice we have to make for the good of the cause.
Thank you for this pitch-perfect description of the Democratic hypocrisy on this subject. I would prefer, however, if you did not embody it quite so precisely.
Don’t flatter yourself.