'Today, Obama Lost the Hearts and Minds of LGBTs For a Generation'

[Newsjock]

Source: Daily Kos
by jpmassar

Today was a day of celebration, with important provisions of the PPACA taking effect beneficially affecting millions of people.

And today was a day of relief, as millions of small business owners and self-employed persons got significant tax relief.

And today might have been a day that would have gone down in history. Today could have been the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a repugnant policy that has been disowned by the American people and left to rot in the halls of Congress. Regardless of the Senate's failure to clean up the rot Tuesday, today could have been that day.

Today, had the Obama Administration agreed with a Federal judge's ruling that the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was unconstitutional, and had they agreed with the proposed injunction halting enforcement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell nationwide, the policy would have ceased once Judge Philips entered her decree.

... All the President had to say was "I agree. We can no longer in good conscience enforce an unconstitutional law." and Don't Ask, Don't Tell would have been history.

But the President chose not to do so.

... And a demographic which Democrats could have counted on as a solid, unwavering base for a generation has been squandered, impaled on a President who cannot find it in himself to say 'yes'.

Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/23/904816/-Today,-Obama-Lost-the-Hearts-and-Minds-of-LGBTs-For-a-Generation

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Log Cabin Republicans are looking for recruits... n/t

[Sapphocrat]

4. Can you maybe...

...not use some variation of "Then I guess you'd rather have President Palin" for a while?

It's been a pretty shitty week for us. Can you just not remind us we have "nowhere else to go"?

Can you manage to refrain from pouring even more salt in our wounds -- just for a while? How about until after the election, when there'll be a huge chorus of "Blame the Gays" to join?

Do you need me to add, "Please"?

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Well, if you are going to surrender just surrender....

Log Cabin republicans surrendered. Hell, they gave an award to anti-gay Republican.

King and the other heroes of the civil rights movement did not surrender. They continued to fight. One bonehead move by a President should not lose a groups of people for a generation if their civil rights are worth winning. King died for for civil rights. Other people picked up the bloody torch and carried it on.

Johnson's passage of the Civil Rights Act lost the South. He thought for a generation. He was wrong, it is still lost. But civil rights were worth it. Fuck those Southern Racist.

We should have herd your next move, not a statement to take your cookies and go home. We are not gong to elect Democrats willing to take a stand on civil rights for the LGBT community if they are not there.

Civil Rights happened because four generations of black people, former slaves, fought for it. Civil rights will not happen without a struggle.

[Zhade]

10. Wow.

Do you really have the gall to say we haven't been fighting for generations? Are you seriously blaming the victim?

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Didn't say you haven't fought for generations...

I said you should not quit because of one small defeat. Civil Rights happened under Democrats because, in spite of most of the Southern Democrats being unrepentant racists, the movement found allies, supported them, and pushed them to do the right thing. Since the 1964 Civil Rights act, they have continued to grow because people fought and pushed the Democratic Party to do the right thing.

And, by the way, I actually insulted the Log Cabin Republicans in one way; they brought this suit and are, while giving awards to anti-gay Republicans, fighting for their and your rights. I suspect the Roberts Court will squash this case like a bug, but they may surprise me.

If civil rights are worth having, they are worth fighting for. Who are you allies? Who should you support? What is your next step?

[Zhade]

18. Fair enough. But where did anyone say they were quitting?

I'll retract my comment, giving you the benefit of the doubt that I misread you.

[Ozymanithrax]

20. I went back and read the whole OP at Kos before I posted...

That idea that this move by the Obama Administration (this is second time they've done something like this. There was the Prop 8 case from California as I recall) is something that will lose the LGBT community for a generation is just wrong to me. Perhaps I read it wrong also, but I would rather see people talk about what they will do next.

[Sapphocrat]

14. Well, at least you answered my question.

You can't manage to restrain yourself.

I find your reply hostile and cruel. Wrong in more ways than I care to count, and simply hostile and cruel.

I'll be putting you on ignore in just a moment, so go ahead and say whatever you want -- I won't hear it.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. Fine...

[Bluebear]

99. What a tone-deaf pile of manure. /ignore at long last.

[HughMoran]

104. lol

:rofl:

Oh, my gawd.

[treestar]

73. Do you want to face reality?

Your post seems to indicate you want us to promote a fantasyland where there are no right wingers.

[ClarkUSA]

6. He probably already is a member. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a GOP troll.

After all, DKos recently nailed a Republican aide/staffer -- who was pretending to be a liberal Democrat -- who was continually attacking Pres. Obama and Democrats from the left, all in an effort to sow seeds of party discontent among DKos members and readership.

I have no illusions that that troll was the only GOP operative on a mission at DKos. It may even be the same perp.

Whenever I see overblown rhetoric like this, I'm suspicious.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Personal attacks are against the rules here.

When I see unfounded personal attacks I see someone without anything to say.

[ClarkUSA]

12. DU Rules only apply to members. Note that I was not referring to a DUer, but the OP's source.

<< When I see unfounded personal attacks I see someone without anything to say. >>

Hmm.. interesting. Your POV doesn't leave any room for intuition or educated guesses.

BTW, I thought Bush II was evil before he even won the nomination in 2000 and told many of my friends so at the time. Needless to say, I disagree with your perspective.

[Ozymanithrax]

17. Then I appologize. I thought you were answering my comment. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

19. No problem. nt

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nikki Stone1]

57. The Green party is ALSO looking for recruits

And I think they might have some folks.

It's not just a binary choice.

[Maat]

60. +1000 (n/t)

[Usrename]

66. Yep, and so is the John Birch Society.

I hope you get my drift. :)

[Nikki Stone1]

67. The John Birch society is not a political party

The mistake is thinking that there are only two parties.

[Usrename]

70. That's true, I hadn't thought of that.

This place is starting to make them sound like a bunch of bleeding hearts.

[Ignis]

82. !

:spray:

Well, the "love it or leave it" and "better dead than red" messages do smell a bit stale, don't they? I'm all for recycling, but this is ridiculous.

[boppers]

87. "Hearts and Minds"....

Yeah, gotta love recycled propaganda.

[Ignis]

103. Ugh, I'd been trying to forget that one.

It still leaves a bad taste after Fallujah. :(

[boppers]

105. It's in the OP.

Hence, my commentary.

[leeroysphitz]

80. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. It's amazing when a person or persons think they speak for an entire "demographic".

Sounds like Velma Hart all over again.:eyes:

[RandomThoughts]

3. On the topic of the word yes, not really on that topic.

Sometimes comments that can set you free are the hardest to make for a reason.

The 'yes' comment, can shatter cognitive delusions. Note the freeing is the saying of the yes, not the actions it creates, it is being able to do what a person thinks is best, not what they are pinned into doing. And reorder a persons entire perspective on existence.

I think people should do against what I think, if they think it is wrong, but they have to be able to defend it. And they should do what I think, if it makes sense to them.


I actually think that decision has to be pushed back a bit. It is complicated but the logic of how it was explained makes sense to me. Has to do with generals and champions, and concepts of having doors open to get help.

I think it will happen, because even if you think being gay is a sin, asking someone to lie about it is silly, and a contradiction of the very region that asks for that.

I think post election is probably better for a few reasons, but people get to choose for themselves what is best. It could be an imperfect result in an imperfect system.

[ClarkUSA]

5. Did Pres. Clinton lose "the Hearts and Minds of LGBTs For a Generation" after he signed DADT & DOMA?

Did Pres. Clinton lose "the Hearts and Minds of LGBTs For a Generation" when he approved of anti-gay ads in 1996?
Did Pres. Clinton lose "the Hearts and Minds of LGBTs For a Generation" when he didn't approve of gay marriage throughout his presidency and most of his post-presidency?

From all the evidence I've seen, the answer is no.

Thus, I doubt this one DKos diarist's claim will turn out to be true.

Of course, "jpmassar" is welcome to join the Log Cabin Republicans. He's probably already a member, given the highly overblown rhetoric. After all, DKos recently nailed a Republican staffer --- pretending to be a liberal Democrat -- who continually attacked President Obama and Democrats from the left, in order to sow seeds of party discontent.

[Zhade]

11. He sure lost mine.

NT!

[GodlessBiker]

21. Shouldn't he have? I mean, what would it have taken if not that?

And, yes, to me, he could have gone to hell after signing those laws.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Agreed. (nt)

:thumbsup:

[jobycom]

24. Whether he did or not, it was a different situation.

He promoted DADT and DOMA to head off worse fates. DADT was a compromise after he tried to waive the ban with an executive order and the great traitor for all ages, Sam Nunn, threatened to make the ban absolute, and a federal law. DADT sucks, but it was better than what came before, and better than what was going to be passed if Clinton didn't approve it.

And DOMA was a law to head off an amendment. They had the votes for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If DOMA hadn't been passed as a compromise, the California ruling against Prop 8 wouldn't have happened. For that matter, the original ruling that made marriage equal in California wouldn't have happened. Unconstitutional, period, end of all hope. That's what DOMA blocked.

You can still disagree with them, you can still hate Clinton for them, but it was a different situation.

[Ignis]

83. Yes. This was the (missed) opportunity to win it back.

But don't worry, most will still hold their noses and pull the lever.

[EFerrari]

9. At least the Grope had the decency not to defend Prop H8.

I'm sorry, my friends.

[struggle4progress]

28. Barack Obama Opposes Prop 8, the anti-marriage amendment (29 June 2008)

http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6307

Obama opposed Prop 8

[EFerrari]

29. So he said. He also opposes marriage equality. Quite a balancing act. n/t

[struggle4progress]

31. Clausewitz famously called war politics-by-other-means, but it can be useful to turn the expression

and regard politics as war-by-other-means

We are trying to take territory where the enemy has been entrenched for some time. And listen! there are the taunts for Barack Obama to put on his Lone Ranger mask and ride alone for battle with a hearty heigh-oh Silver! and a handful of silver bullets. Better to ask: do we have a well-trained and well-supplied army in the field, ready to terrify our enemies into retreat?

Sun Tzu said: ... The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy ... The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him ... Do not swallow bait offered by the enemy ... There are roads which must not be followed ... Do not linger in dangerously isolated positions ... http://suntzusaid.com/

[EFerrari]

102. Obama would look like a pretty silly Lone Ranger

if he rode up on this horse to join the majority of Americans. :)

[JuniperLea]

85. You can personally be against something while socially supporting it...

I hate abortion, for example. I find it a horrific way to end something that was so easily avoided. I really, really hate abortion.

I will defend every woman's right to choice, however, and will stand firm against any government that tries to take that right away.

It really isn't that hard to do... and it's not all that surprising either.

[ruggerson]

97. He doesn't "socially support" marriage equality

He's been clear on this: he supports civil unions, he does not support marriage equality. The administration recently reiterated this position after Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional.

[meow mix]

98. Obama was for civil rights, before he was against them.

*gag on this prez

[EFerrari]

101. When the president of the United States publicly says he believes marriage

is between a man and a woman, that's not personal any more. Sorry.

[Occulus]

30. Barack Obama Still Opposes Gay Marriage, the Civil Fucking Right

August Fucking Fifth, Two Thousand FUCKING TEN!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012842-503544.html

Obama still opposes gay marriage

From what Axelrod said:

""The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples..."

:rofl:

This is known as "talking out of both sides of one's face".

[struggle4progress]

32. Here's the political reality:

Same-sex marriage in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Really change that map, and it will change the terms of debate in DC. As long as that's the map, DC will continue sound the way it does today

[MadHound]

37. And if we had forced African Americans to wait while the electoral demographic became more favorable

We wouldn't have integrated the military until the seventies, and not gotten full civil rights until the nineties.

Many, many times presidents and leaders have to do what is right, not what is popular. This is one of those times.

[CBR]

39. I am pretty sure African-Americans waited a hell of a long time for

their fucking rights. FDR anyone????

[struggle4progress]

56. Nothing the President does will change the map I posted. It can only be changed

by hard grassroots work: wearing out shoe leather and callousing fingers dialing phones to build community organizations that hold educational events for change and pressure state legislatures. Until the local conditions (that produced that map) change in enough places, Congress will remain weak and mushy on these issues

"When the people lead, the leaders will follow." Change that map

[Bluenorthwest]

59. No one waited to 'change the map' when Loving v Virginia

was decided. The vast majority of the nation was hugely opposed to it. And yet the change came anyway. Had we waited for the 'map to change' Obama's parents could not have married, and he'd not exist. Facts being facts and all. Hard for the 'faith based' I know, hearing facts.

[struggle4progress]

63. The Warren Court was a national treasure, a bright beacon that shined real light across the country

If you want another like it, work towards having more liberal Presidents and more liberal Senates for decades and decades to come: we are separated from Warren's day by seven Republican terms in the White House

Since you believe in "Facts being facts and all," let me note: there might be several problems with your apparent view that Loving v Virginia somehow enabled the marriage of Obama's parents -- Obama's parents married in Hawaii in 1961; at the time, about one in every three marriages in Hawaii was interracial; and Loving was decided in 1967

[MadHound]

76. Umm, excuse me, but that is simply more delaying bullshit tactics.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of American voters favor repealing DADT. The only pressure we have to bring is on Congress and the President. Why should we work on community organizations, educational events and pressure state legislatures when the majority of American people are already on our side and the fate of DADT rests with Congress and the President? What you are proposing simply makes no sense, in fact it would do nothing but stall the march towards repeal.

<http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/dadt_poll.html>

[struggle4progress]

89. DADT is one bolt in the scaffold. If you want to win the big fight, look at the whole picture

and take a good look at that map

[MadHound]

93. That map doesn't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to repealing DADT

The majority of people nationwide favor DADT. The president can issue an EO suspending it. Then it is simply a matter of a Democratic Congress exerting its will.

Yes, DADT is one bolt, but it is one that can be undone rather easily. It is past time it was done away with.

[bvar22]

81. I disagree.

President Obama DOES have an ARMY and a HUGE Popular Mandate for "CHANGE" that he has declined to use.
A mandate unused is a mandate wasted.

"Let me be blunt. Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Dark]

13. Sorry, but GLBT folk won't accept that as a defeat. We're used to having to go thru the courts.

Also, a quarter of us vote "independent" aka republican. Don't see how that's going to change.

In fact, could someone point out where the Dems have actually helped the GLBT crowd on a national basis?

Oh, and as far as Obama's concerned, when I see him stick up for us, I'll stick up for him.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. This just fries my ass.

All of it. The fact that this administration is openly hostile to equal rights breaks my heart. I am bitterly disappointed. The fact that there are people here who are telling our GLBT members to suck it up -- one more time -- enrages me.

Stop. Just fucking stop.

[saracat]

27. +1000 Totally agree. Telling GBLT to "suck it up" again infuriates me.

People will continue to fight and continue, in many cases to vote Dem ,but this Admin doesn't deserve respect for this action. And the GLBT folks have earned the right to mourn this latest betrayal before rising up to fight again.

[SocialLiberal]

25. Why don't people understand....

This is just like abortion to the right wingers. If legislation were brought about on its own it would have passed the filibuster. This is a fact. Susan Collins is on record as saying that she would vote for it. This makes me believe that the dems don't truly want it overturned. Why won't Reid put it up on its own (knowing it would pass)? It is a wedge issue. It is abusive.

[Echotrail]

69. Yes, politicians love wedge issues

It's a sick and damaging aspect of our country's political system.

Add to DADT, abortion, stem cell research, immigration, guns for all, mosques, medical marijuana, to name a few.

All a politician has to do is say these trigger words and he/she can send people into a tizzy and get campaign contributions and political leverage.

The crew in Washington will never work to solve these issues with sound policies. They are too useful as campaign tools.

[Morning Dew]

26. That was today?

I thought it was a while ago, but the hits just keep on coming.

[BzaDem]

33. Your proposal would mean that a Republican administration could similarly refuse to defend laws they

don't like.

Imagine a constitutional challenge to (say) all of our financial regulation (such as the recent suit against the PCAOB). If the Palin administration simply refused to defend the law, it would fall.

That means that the President could just unilaterally wipe out any law it desired by not defending it. That's a lot of power to give to the executive.

"And a demographic which Democrats could have counted on as a solid, unwavering base for a generation has been squandered, impaled on a President who cannot find it in himself to say 'yes'."

You may wish this to be true, but I really doubt it. There are other much more legal ways for the Obama administration to slow, suspend, or repeal DADT than refusing to defend the law in court, and I have little doubt they are working on it and will eventually succeed.

[dsc]

34. no they did defend it

and lost that is completely different. Refusing to appeal is not the same as refusing to defend. In the second case, a branch of government whose job it is to determine if the law is Constitutional, says it isn't. In the first you would be relying on your defintion.

[quaker bill]

35. Because of course

the other party that wants to make same gender orientation illegal, and by some of its members, a capital offense, would be far more worthy of GLBT support.

[VMI Dem]

36. I would like to hear what other straight people think before I form an opinion on this.

[dgibby]

38. I'm straight,

and retired Military, and I find DADT appalling. This is a Civil Rights issue, nothing more or less. Whenever a segment of the population is denied it's Civil Rights, it threatens all of us. Same goes for same sex marriage.

In the 22yrs I served on active duty, I never once had a problem with anyone in the GLBT community. The problems were with the homophobes who made their lives a living hell. The witch hunts were so bad at some duty stations that any woman who participated in sports was investigated. Since I was on one of the softball teams, I was the subject of one of these "investigations". The stress associated with this is unimaginable. Definitly NOT my idea of a good time!

Because of the subversive nature of DADT, it's quite possible for anyone, straight or GLBT to become a victim of this policy. Piss off somebody who's vindictive? You could become a target for an NIS investigation. That means your sex life is now an open book, and findings can be shared with anyone and everyone in your chain of command. Your friends (and enemies) will be called in and questioned. You'll be followed off duty. I know of situations where trash cans were searched (off base, no less) for "evidence".

As long as this policy is in effect, no one, straight or gay, is safe, and the potential for blackmail is, IMO, can, in some cases, be a matter of National Security. At the very least, it is not conducive to "good order and discipline", something highly valued by the Military.

[bullwinkle428]

42. GREAT points - they just ran a segment on NPR this morning about

a Marine who was busted after another Marine got hold of his cell phone and went through his text messages, which indicated correspondence between him and another guy of an intimate nature.

He was confronted by his superiors, and was discharged under the conditions that he could not be a part of the military for the rest of his life.

[dgibby]

51. Thanks.

This is so wrong on so many levels that it boggles the mind. Civil Rights notwithstanding, it's a waste of personnel, talent, and money. It's costing the taxpayers a fortune to cater to these homophobic assholes.

[truedelphi]

77. Great post, dgibby. One of the really good points that needs to be made is

The one that you bring up - that as long as it is okay to be Homophobic, then people who are slightly off the norm are tortured - whether they are gay or straight.

The short and slim young man, the tomboy on the sports teams - these people suffer too.

It extends beyond the ranks of the gay community and anyone who cares about people learns to have zero tolerance for homophobia.

I hate homophobic behavior - for the sake of everyone.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[displacedvermoter]

43. There should be a shift change shortly!

n/t

[racaulk]

44. !!!

:rofl:

[RainDog]

46. I'm straight and this issue is no different than segregation of blacks in terms of civil rights

or, maybe I should say it's worse. at least African-Americans had segregated units and had the ability to prove the baselessness of racist hysteria.

The hysterical heteros who are so afraid of "the gays" share the same ignorance that made it possible to pretend this nation was not shaming itself by its refusal to acknowledge that African Americans loved and served this country and deserved the same level of respect and inclusion that white Americans did.

Now that inclusion is a fact, no one in his or her right mind would dare to claim that African-Americans are not as deserving as white Americans to be included in every aspect of military life.

[mkultra]

48. DADT had its place but its time for it to go.

Enough of society has come to understand that sexuality is not a component of military service that this law could be repealed. I have absolutely no interest in it being done through a signing statement. The use of signing statements to change laws was one of the very unconstitutional acts that Bush committed that made him unethical.

While i would rather a president wipe his but with the constitution for a good reason rather than a bad on, my preference would be not at all. If the time has come, then legislation is the answer.

[Dawgs]

40. "I agree. We can no longer in good conscience enforce an unconstitutional law."

Does the President have the power to NOT enforce laws?

[Johonny]

45. possibly because he is head of the military

One can argue he could suspend enforcement of this law. That Congress has very limited ability to tell the President how to run the military. Hence the president integrated the military long before the South as a whole integrated. Or like OBama made a signing statement to say the military must track CO2 as an emission pollutant, while congress still drags their * on this for the rest of America.

Since Obama promised this would be gone by the end of the year and Congress has failed to act... I wonder if a signing statement will eventually arrive in late December. It won't protect military men and women from the next Republican president lifting the order, but it would create an atmosphere where people see Obama at least fighting for the right thing. I think what frustrates people the most is if Democrats in Congress are going to lose a few seats anyway, why not go out fighting for things they believe in rather than nothing. I mean they can even fight for the defense authorization bill? Unfreakinbelievable.

[msanthrope]

52. He can't suspend enforcement....

With Truman, an EO integrated the military under his power as CIC.

Why can't Obama just do that? Because in this case, DADT is an actual statute passed by Congress that finds 'harm' in 'homosexuality.'

So an EO would not override that....

Now, Gates has leeway on investigations, and thus, in the Spring of this year, he gave new guidelines and new standards of proof in an effort to slow the inquiries....

But when you have a finding of 'harm' the military if forced to act if a member is outed...

Thus, you repeal the 'finding'--the substance of DADT itself.

[Usrename]

74. But they are NOT enforcing DADT.

They're actively participating in witch hunts.

on edit> Besides, I was under the impression that an EO would be suficient to waive DADT under the "stop loss" rules.

[msanthrope]

92. 1) stop loss specifically excludes "homosexuality"

and pregnancy, and 8 other states of being, so it can't be used.

2) There's two parts to DADT--

Don't Ask--which gives Gates leeway into HOW inquiry happens. This Spring, he changed the rules, raising the standard of proof required and generally, making it more difficult to initiate inquiry.

Don't Tell--there's no wiggle room here. The services MUST act, per the DADT statute if a person is outed, or, otherwise, it becomes apparent the person is gay. This is because DADT found a specific finding of harm in 'homosexuality.' It is legally considered so pernicious, that action is required.... by law.

That's how disgusting DADT is.

[mkultra]

49. He has the power to abridge the constitution without recourse

Which is how signing statements where used by Bush and how Obama is being asked to do here.

[dgibby]

50. DADT was found to be unconstitutional.

All this Administration had to do was agree with the Judge's findings, thus negating the need for a signing statement/EX Order.

[msanthrope]

53. By single district court judge--and only for the membership of the LCR.

In the same circuit, you also have Witt.

The CA 1st amendment case isn't precedent yet.

[mkultra]

54. If only that where really true

A finding by a 9th circuit court judge does not make it so. It would still require that he file a signing statement indicating that he intends to follow the decision. While still my favorite court, the 9th is not the supreme court.

This part of the DK post: "All this Administration had to do was agree with the Judge's findings" is the part that makes the entire story incorrect.

We are a country of laws. The desire to shed those laws when its convenient for us or them is folly.

[Maat]

62. The president is required to follow the law ... including court-made law.

There is no legal requirement for a signing statement.

The judge's ruling, if it stands, would have precluded enforcement of the DADT policy.

President Obama could have instructed the Justice Department to abandon its appeal of the ruling and the injunction, ending the policy.

He did not; his department is appealing with gusto. Take a hard look at that.

Pres. Obama is showing he is not a friend of GLBTQ rights.

[Techn0Girl]

90. Actually he is the commander in Chief - and could literally order....

The various commanders of the services to abolish don't ask don't tell and abolish any discrimination against gay/lesbian people.

He has that power. He can do it any time.
He chooses not to use it.

[mkultra]

94. Yeah, that would be illegal and yes he could get away with it.

[Techn0Girl]

100. Care to explain to exeryone how it would be "illegal"?

I'm guessing here you're no Clarance Darrow type.... but it would be amusing to hear your legal theory on this..

[Maat]

96. Oh, yes, I wasn't arguing he couldn't do that.

In fact, I believe the opposite - he could have put an end to this a long time ago in a couple of different ways. He chose not to do so. That's telling.

The law he has to follow is the law established in the court case. Of course he can appeal the decision and the injunction, and that's what he is doing. That's what also telling, and it's disgusting.

[mkultra]

95. You know, i want that to be true, but its just not

As was mentioned in a another thread, this was an "as applied" challenge, not a facial challenge

Like i said before, this is a country of laws and circumventing those laws for evil OR good is wrong. jr was real bad about ignoring the law and its part of what i don't like about him. The only answer is repeal.

[jberryhill]

86. No it wasn't. Read the actual court decision

This was an "as applied" challenge, not a facial challenge

"The application of “Don't Ask Don’t Tell” to Major Margaret Witt does not significantly further the government’s interest in promoting military readiness, unit morale and cohesion. Her discharge from the Air Force Reserves violated her substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She should be restored to her position as a Flight Nurse with the 446th AES as soon as is practicable, subject to meeting applicable regulations touching upon qualifications necessary for continued service."

The court, having authority over all of western Washington found it was unconstitutionally applied to Major Witt.

It is a good decision, but did not strike down the law, did not generalize the violation to anyone BUT Major Witt, and has no force of law outside of western Washington state.

It is a decision that can be used persuasively in cases yet to come, and that is good.

It is a won battle. It is not the war.

[AlabamaLibrul]

91. Yes, by executive order. However the law would still be on the books. n/t

[lunatica]

47. It's crushingly disappointing to see the Constitution ignored so blatantly

Forget about their private opinions. Not interested. I want Constitutionality upheld dammit!

It's unbelievable how some of our government's thinking is positively medieval. If they were going to lose something personal over upholding civil rights for everyone it would be detestable but yet understandable. But what the fuck difference will it make in their lives? How will they be affected in any way?

[TBF]

61. That's how I see it as well. Very disappointing from a Con-Law professor. nt

[Ignis]

84. +1 "All* men are created equal."

* = Void in states where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted. Certain restrictions may apply. Terms are subject to change without notice. Do not remove this disclaimer under penalty of law. No substitutions allowed. Offer good for a limited time only. Keep away from pets and small children.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueIris]

65. True, I fear. Depressing. nt

[laughingliberal]

68. K & R nt

[katandmoon]

71. K&R. Fierce advocate, my ass.

[treestar]

72. Fighting in court ends in a court ruling

I don't agree that abandoning that case by "agreeing" is necessary. If they get a court ruling on it, future legislation that violates that ruling won't be passable. Faulting them for letting the DOJ pursue the case is advocating for just leaving it up in the air. Unless you are sure that the government will win the case.

The President cannot just say he is not going to enforce a law. His job is to enforce the laws. He can't pick and choose which ones. That would be tyranny.

And it's up to the individual - the individual gay person will decide, and I'm sure do not walk in lockstep.

[BrklynLiberal]

75. I am disappointed that our President is not the man of courage I thought I saw in the Candidate

[Nikki Stone1]

79. Dubya's third term when it comes to GLBT....

Sigh.

[Bluebear]

88. Not by a long shot. nt

[NMMNG]

78. That assumes he had them all to begin with

Some of us saw through the facade from the beginning. It's good others are seeing the light, albeit a bit late.