If you had to guess, how many dollars donated from gay people will be redirected to the GOP based on this?
How many gay voters will switch?
My guess would be next to none.
The Republicans still have their religious extremists, that chase away any substantive amount of gay votes. A few well placed rebukes of bigots from Republican leadership could easily pull a good number of gay voters who are conservative and would otherwise vote Republican except the whole anti-gay issue.
I seldom type sentences beginning with, “If I were gay…” (Exception: If I were gay, I would totally do Wilson Jermaine Heredia.)
But… if I were gay, I feel like I’d still be a conservative. Maybe that’s madness, a foolish notion that would never survive reality. But the basic principles that inform my conservatism are not remotely affected by who I’d like to hump.
And the very existence of the Log Cabin folks suggests I’m not crazy.
Or that they are. 
I know gay conservatives and it is a difficult balance of sanity. Much like the children of abusive parents. Those Republicans are great parents for them when they aren’t throwing them down the stairs.
As a matter of fact, the military does not have to comply with the First Amendment. You have no freedom of expression (uniform rules), you have no freedom of speech (statements prejudicial to good order and discipline), you have no freedom of the press (see above, in addition to classification issues), nor do you have freedom of assembly (you go where you’re told and with whom upon receiving orders). You do have the right to petition for redress of grievances, but even that is limited to your chain of command or the military justice system unless it’s a rare capital case.
All of these things are explained to you when you volunteer.
As for DADT, the Supreme Court has long carved out exceptions to Constitutional provisions on the basis that they would be prejudicial to good order and discipline. Go through the Bill of Rights and try to find one that the military does not violate on its face and then ask yourself why that is. It’s because the courts have allowed those exceptions. I wouldn’t expect anything different in this case if it makes it to the Supreme Court. The only way it will be properly, finally overturned is if Congress repeals it.
That’s overstating things a bit. You still have freedom of speech and assembly in the military, they are just subordinate to the military needs you mentioned, such as good order and discipline. You can still express political views, so long as they are not contemptuous of the president, vice-president, secretary of defense, secretary of transportation, Dear Abby, etc. You can still place one or two political bumper stickers on your personal vehicle if you take it on a military installation, you can still join and participate in political parties and activities so long as you are out of uniform and do not claim to participate in an official status.
One of the interesting things about this case, though, is that this federal district judge’s ruling could stand as a nation-wide and final ruling if Obama directs the Justice Department not to appeal at all.
You might feel, think and act conservative, but I have a sincere doubt you’d be attracted to the republican party. And it’s certainly fine to be conservative without being republican.
To wit, I respect the notion of bringing - Norwegian - immigration to a halt while we actually build up the infrastructure to deal with it, but that sure as hell don’t mean I’m attracted to the FRP*. (Who are the fringe right in Norway.)
ETA: To pre-empt complaints of misrepresentation, by discribing the FRP as fringe right, I meant in terms of policy, not of popularity.
It is overstating it, but just barely. You mentioned a few of the exceptions, but note that such restrictions as I mentioned would have long ago been deemed unconstitutional in any court in the United States were they to be applied to private citizen Joe Average, whereas they are perfectly acceptable for Airman Snuffy. And on a deployment you don’t even get those rights.
Hey, Bricker? Here’s the question. Okay. DADT is now unconstitutional. But… It’s just a district court. How much space does this ruling cover? How does this court have jurisdiction over the military?
And money. Money is key. We’re the GayTM, after all.
Or it supports that they are crazy. There’s a difference between supporting a group that disagrees with you on some principles but that does agree with your most important ones, and between supporting a group that agrees with your basic principles while harboring a deep hatred of you. I just can’t look at the position of the Log Cabin people as being anything other than self destructive, like a bunch of black guys supporting the KKK.
Just a side note: when our military tosses out a highly trained military person because he or she is discovered to be gay, they are in fact throwing away a government investment.
If they’re a fighter pilot, a BIG investment.
Just saying.
The court has jurisdiction because the LCR sued the military, on behalf of their members.
It’s possible that the court can only order the military to stop enforcing their policy as to members of the Log Cabin Republicans (which should see a spike in membership if that happens!) but the court has entered an order enjoining the military from enforcing the policy completely. Courts have somewhat broad discretion to act to enforce the effects of their rulings.
So we have the somewhat counter-intuitive effect that a district court can change the policy for the whole country.
But, in light of Witt, it’s the right decision.
I am Hispanic, though, and it seems to me that I’ve heard you suggest elsewhere that this means Republicans must also harbor a hatred of me.
Yet this has not been my experience.
The 2008 Republican platform didn’t include a plank supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban Hispanic marriages, though, or one asserting that being Hispanic is incompatible with military service, and the current vice chairman of the platform committee never called being Hispanic “a transgression against God’s law” or “a compulsion that can be contained”.
Perhaps they think of you as the good kind? :dubious: You do speak English, and you didn’t climb a fence to get here.
You’re engaging in caricaturization for the purpose of avoidance. You are certainly aware of your party’s indulgence in nativism and racism.
Go watch the 2008 video of the Republican National Convention.
Count the number of minorities you see in the crowd (not kidding…give it a try).
I have no doubt you might find a few Hispanic faces in there and a handful of black people or Asians. On the whole though it is a sea of white people.
When I watched this that realization dawned on me and I started paying close attention and the lopsidedness is profound. Watch the 2008 Democratic National Convention and it is a veritable melting pot in comparison.
The odd thing is Hispanics, overall, are a decidedly conservative bunch. The majority oppose things like gay marriage and abortion. As such it is amazing at how poorly the Republican party treats them. There is a huge voting block there.
So, while you personally may not experience hatred the lean of the republican party is decidedly not towards being friendly to Hispanics (or any minority really…witness the poor schlub who was accosted at the New York Coat Factory Mosque because the crowd thought he looked Muslim [which he wasn’t]).
…and was coming to protest the Mosque :smack:
Sure. Now look at the governments in Central and South America. Generally to the left of U.S. center.
So I infer that the explanation is simple: many Hispanics may be more conservative socially, but expect a more interventionist government role in economic areas, and thus find themselves more at home in the Democratic party.