For those of you that know people being harassed in the military, how long ago was that? Because the military has a young population and it turns over roughly ever 5 years or so. And as we all know, young people are more likely to support gay rights than their parents or grandparents. So every 5 years or so, the attitude toward gays shifts in their favor.
I’ve said it before on these boards, but I’ll repeat it here. The Democrats aren’t the friends of the LGBT. Neither are the Republicans. It’s the young people that give the support. They just happen to be mostly Dems. That’s the reason for the surprising 60% figure of support in the military, despite them being heavily Republican- it’s full of youth.
The UCMJ doesn’t trump a SCOTUS ruling, but thus far I don’t think the courts have explicitly applied Lawrence to the military, and the courts are traditionally very deferential to claims of military need made by the military brass. And as pointed out above, people in the military are legitimately subject to restrictions on their conduct which would be intolerable if the state tried to subject civilians to like treatment. I just don’t think private off-duty consensual sexual conduct is one of those things the military legitimately needs to restrict; and I certainly don’t think the military needs to claim it bans certain acts under the UCMJ, and has the legitimate power to do so, but then turn around and not actually bother to enforce those regulations. I can’t see how that upholds good order and discipline.
All these so-called “Independents” they “court”? Most are Republicans who have switched parties so as to unsully themselves from the recent carnage wrought by their golden boy Bush…and serve more effectively as mouthpieces for the Right-Wing/Tea-Bagger, “Grass-Roots” backlash :rolleyes:
OHHHH, they are just SOOOO concerned about government spending and the expansion of federal powers and loss of civil rights and…um, where WERE these people for the last 8 fucking years??? They were REPUBLICANS supporting Bush. They are a false demographic. They do not need courting; they were in bed with the Republicans from day one and always will be, regardless of their actions.
As a registered (left-leaning, progressive) Independent myself lo these many years, I know a wolf in lambs’ clothing when I see one, and I’ve been seeing a hell of a lot of them lately. I’ve known many right leaning, Libertarian Independents in my time, some of them good friends, and these new “independents” who are flooding the stage lately don’t fool them either. :dubious:
They are, for the most part, the very same homophobes who backed “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. Thing is, it is simply insane to assume that because someone is gay they are going to be hitting on people or engaging in affairs while in the service (as if the heteros don’t do that enough!)
The ONLY potential problem is the heteros/homophobes who can’t deal with the idea of a gay person in their midst, and THAT is an issue which should NOT be addressed by ignoring it. Get over it…he/she is SOOO not into you…relax! :rolleyes:
All the gays want is the SAME right the heteros enjoy to be honest about their sexual orientation and their loved ones; to be able to look at pictures of their partner and/or kids/family w/o someone noticing both adults are of the same gender and reporting it. To be allowed to say their lover’s name w/o fear of dishonorable discharge. To not have to guard their every word.
It is not about “keeping sexual orientation out of the military”…good lord, it is already IN the military, for heterosexuals.
But no, the Repubs will be dickheads about it. Mark my words. They are still pandering to that demographic. It will eventually be the death of them. And good riddance.
Exactly, and he realizes this…the right will NEVER support him…he could cure cancer, shit gold, and prove himself to be Jesus Christ and they would still hate him and criticize his every action.
the “lefties” who have lost confidence in him are idiots, imo (and I am a leftie who voted for him and STILL support him). They did not pay attention and assumed he was a socialist (LOL!) and that he would change everything overnight. Um, no, he is a moderate pragmatist…stay the course people…slow and steady wins the race.
But this issue is not, imo, just some “low hanging fruit” to be plucked for political gain…it is an outdated, BAD policy in need of change, so why NOT just pluck it as an aside (which is pretty much what it was in his SOTU speech) while it is ripe???
It IS one of his campaign talking points, and something he claimed to want to change. He has the power to now, so he is going for it. SOOO many other things on his plate…he is multi-tasking for sure…this one is so relatively small but so important to so many and in principle.
And I gotta add, I watched his speech, and I rate it very high on the scale of all such speeches I have seen in my lifetime (age 44…been voting and otherwise politically active and engaged since age 18…I watch political speeches like I watch the Oscars have witnessed live some of the best and worst)
Yes, I voted for him and I like him and his general approach (I am an Independent because there is no one political party which represents me perfectly, and while I lean to the left, the Dems piss me off ALMOST as much as the Republicans, whom I would rather wade through my own vomit than vote for, to steal a phrase from John Henry Faulk:p)
But I am no “fan girl”. I have a lifelong habit of listening critically, and I did this time as well. I liked what I heard.
Wow, his speech was BRILLIANT…it is such a relief to finally have an intelligent, articulate leader with a SENSE OF HUMOR to boot! Bush’s constant smirk doesn’t count as such. :mad: Better someone who can be serious when speaking of serious matters then crack a sophisticated joke (and simultaneously make an important point) and a wide smile
He laid out many excellent proposals and threw down some vital gauntlets. I can honestly say I am proud to call him my President (even though he is a bit too far right for me…:D)
I attended a show the other night, Steve Earle (GOD, it rocked!!! One man on stage with a series of guitars and a mandoline and a harmonica and the most awesome sounds…!) and he said, at one point, that HE was a socialist and he could assure everyone that Obama was NOT a socialist, but he’d voted for him and liked him anyway…what he said.
It does not have to be high on priorities, when it is morally the right thing to do. Once he made the decision, most people would think “it is about time”.
There are 25 countries that allow gays in the military. They are not having big troubles. The American military has been doing studies for over 25 years. The evidence is, that it should have been allowed a long time ago.
McCain, in 2006 said if the brass thought it was a good idea, he would go along with it. The brass thinks it is a good idea. he came out against it. Politicians are such liars.
The lift of the DADT ban seems to be moving forward. So far our military leaders have spoken out against the ban, Defense secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Adm. Mike Mullen. Collen Powell and former Joint Chiefs chair John Shalikashvili have also planted their flag on the side of repeal.
What isn’t being seen is military leaders voicing for a continuation of the ban. Though the ‘party of no’ has decided to oppose lifting it despite the hypocrisy involved. Unfortunately for them as Senator Levin pointed out 40 votes doesn’t cover it. It would require 60 votes to continue the policy is the senate lifts the ban.
What is being proposed now is a 1 year period examining the policy. I think that is ridiculous we’ve had years and over 20 studies on the subject already. We can pick up a phone and ask our allies how allowing gays in their military’s have effected them. A few months sure, a year screw that.
Which would be yet another example of the DNC failing to stand on the side of gay rights on principle. They only seem to be willing to claim they support gay rights when it is politically convenient.
The only real advantage the Democrats have on the issue of gay rights is that they’re at least willing to pay lip service to it. When the other party has what amounts to an official determination to maintain your second-class citizenship and a base who basically wants you either castrated or dead, it’s hard not to cleave to lip service. (So to speak)
I don’t buy it. Sure the democrats aren’t as full-throated in their support of gay rights as perhaps you or I would like, but you can’t really claim they have delivered nothing. Just in the last year they passed and Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Act. Guess how many Republican Senators voted for it? 5. Hell, Senator Sessions tried to poison the bill by mandated the death penalty…
Anybody want to make predictions on how many will vote for the bill that comes out of the DADT review process? Even John McCain, in the past at least willing to consider a repeal, has now staked a position strongly opposed.
Absolutely. Here’s a relevent quote on why even with their half-hearted and passive approach to the issues the Democrats are the only option for supports of equal civil rights for gay and lesbian citizens.
OK that would show members of both parties are willing to support gay rights then wouldn’t it? What did the DNC have to say to the 14 democratic members of the house who voted against it or to Russell Fiengold who also voted against it?
A point of note however the Mathew Sheperd Act was not voted on as bill in the senate. It was attached to a defense appropriations bill.
They were REPUBLICANS supporting Bush. They are a false demographic. They do not need courting; they were in bed with the Republicans from day one and always will be, regardless of their actions. 
have witnessed live some of the best and worst)