Pentagon surveys troops on DADT (again)
OK this is probably :dedhors2: but Sec Gates was just on TV talking about his new scientific
survey
I am astounded by Gates saying he insisted on doubling the number of troops to survey to 400,000, as if he believed this would improve the
statistical results of the survey.
For a military that supposedly can calculate the statistical outcomes of multi-faceted battles, taking into account numbers of troops, equipment, climate, geography, I am dismayed that the military leadership can not come to a legitimate recommendation on DADT. They have already done the
studies
It strikes me that this is just a cloy-ploy by the military leadership to convince the pubic that they have to keep DADT or some form of it.
Let see, during the Truman administration should we have surveyed the "white troops" to see if African Americans / Blacks / Negros / ... should be treated equally in the military ? Or should we survey the "male troops" to see if women should be treated equally ? Or the "Christian troops" to see is Muslims should be treated equally ?
Maybe a survey of the non-com's to see if the commissioned officers should be subjected to DADT ?
Gad, all this homophobia makes me sick... So I'm taking the liberty of quoting another Dweller (without permission) on another thread because I can't say it any better:
I just mean the general policy of "I could give a rats ass about your sexual preference", so I won't ask you and you don't need to tell me. Other than that, the process of discharging someone because of sexual preference needs to stop, we are wasting manpower and money. If you are caught in violation of general UCMJ you should be punished, regardless of sexual orientation, not because of it.
Again, I just heard on TV... that a Federal Court judge has ruled in favor of the State of Massachusetts with respect to the Federal law known as the "Defense of Marriage Act - DOMA" as being unconstitutional.
The talking-heads are saying this means that Massachusetts does NOT have to treat same-sex marriages differently than traditional marriages with respect to any/all federal benefits. For example, federal veterans benefits will be available in Massachusetts to all married vets. The judge ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional with respect to the 10th Amendment.
They also are saying that since this summary judgement was not "stayed", the decision is effective immediately.
Cheers Ll. You don't need permission on this forum to quote anything anyone says.... for any reason.
Gad, all this homophobia makes me sick.
On the bright side, there has been so many discussions about it pertaining to several aspects of their role in society, it's forced people to actually think about it, instead of just pushing out of their mind. I think this is a good thing.
Most of the public opinion polls show a definite increasing in the number of people accepting queers deserve equality. I think this is a direct result of all these debates going on. Sure there are still rabid opponents, but rational people that might not have examined their inherited prejudices/fears, until they had to debate the issue, have changed their minds.
Gay marriage has been a much talked about element of this election in Oz. Both sides are sticking with the line that marriage is between a man and a woman so therefore there will be no changes to the legislation at this point in time. Even one of the Cabinet Ministers who does not hide the fact that she is gay is going with the party line.
Here's what one of the comedy programs had to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGtemB28Vo&NR=1Not to thread-jack, but I would like to add that this issue also affects transgenders. Most gay issues do, including the right to marry.
Here in Texas, we have the case of
Nikki Arraguz, a transgender woman who married a firefighter who was killed in the line of duty on July 4. His family is contesting her right to inherit her husband's estate and is suing for as much as they can get to include custody of his two children from a previous marriage. Nikki had been barred from spending any money from the estate and even prevented from living in their home until the 16th, when she was given $58,000 that was specifically designated to her and thus was not subject to the probate proceeding.
This case promises to define marriage for all Texas transgendered people, whether male or female. Much as gay persons, transgendered people are not permitted to marry as they are still legally male (or female) even after a surgical sex change under Texas law and since Texas does not permit gay marriage, every transgendered person married to a member of the opposite sex is in a gay marriage and thus the union is void. The status of transgendered people who are married to a person of the same sex is still unclear.
To me, equal rights are just that...equal. Marriage has been defined as a basic right time and again by the SCOTUS, with no mention of gender at all. So, a person who has a sex change (who is no longer a member of their birth gender IMO) should be able to marry a person of their choosing. Gays should be able to do the same. Without state interference.
The same applies to serving in the military. Gays are qualified to serve. It has been shown that sexual orientation has little effect on unit morale or ability to perform their duty. Transgendered persons can do the same. As long as the soldier (or sailor or airman) is able to do their job, they ought to be allowed to do so.
Heck, sexual preference has NO bearing on that at all! I know a lot of guys that preferred their hands to living people, which seems like a preference to me. I happened to like a lot of leather to be involved in MY sex when I was younger and that didn't affect my ability to serve either. It was just a preference. I see no difference.
DADT needs to go, along with any regulations dealing with who is fucking whom.
Most of the public opinion polls show a definite increasing in the number of people accepting queers deserve equality. I think this is a direct result of all these debates going on. Sure there are still rabid opponents, but rational people that might not have examined their inherited prejudices/fears, until they had to debate the issue, have changed their minds.
Generational views are having an impact as well as the issue's exposure. While I would not view the current 18-25 year olds as
not homophobic, they are largely homophobic, but they are also accepting and largely pro-gay marriage.
I am guessing that in 25 to 30 years, the gay marriage debate will be looked at as we now view woman's and civil rights.
I am guessing that in 25 to 30 years, the gay marriage debate will be looked at as we now view [COLOR=Red]Roe Vs Wade.[/COLOR]
Fixed it for ya.
Nope. I really didn't mean Roe versus Wade. I believe abortion will be a very controversial topic for decades because there are sound logical arguments supporting both sides. Thanks for trying though.
Not to thread-jack
You obviously haven't seen what happened to the What is Love thread.
Do you mean a biscuit or a cookie?
A packet of Tim Tams to the person who guesses correctly first. Milk Arrowroots for second place.
Well, your thinking a biscuit, but your really mean a cookie, 'cause you're upside down. :p:
Oh, and I'm female, so I couldn't possibly be capable of saying what I actually think or want.:rolleyes:
Nay, nay, females are highly adept at [strike]saying[/strike] demanding what they want. :haha:
Nay, sir Bruce, yon fair ladies are highly adept at expecting us valiant fools to already know what they require.
Nay, sir Bruce, yon fair ladies are highly adept at expecting us valiant fools to already know what they require.
I've not met many valiant fools who are in favour of plain speaking.
That's 'cause you've been hanging out with ZenGum & company. :lol: :p:
Valient fools aside, the general approach to plain speaking seems to be: Plain speaking that comes from the person expressing the opinion is good/well deserved/clears the air etc... The person who is being "plain spoken to" usually feels that it was unnecessary/overly agressive/could have been dealt with differently etc...My theory is that if you're going to dish it out, then you have to be able to take it yourself.
However, this may be cultural (see Hall's theory of high context and low context culture-I can summarise in my next post if needed). Plain speaking seems to be a central cultural tenet for Germans-fine when a person is German and surrounded by Germans, but seen as rude by other cultures. Thoughts?
OMG, its almost always backfired on me. In fact its my biggest fault. Im too blunt.
Harry Truman was the ultimate "plain speaker."
His famous quote:
[INDENT]“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”[/INDENT]
He also was the president who integrated the military. A bold move at the time (1948).
N.B. Correct 'valient' to 'valiant'.
At last a judge and the ACLU get it and make it right !
Washington Post article
Judge orders military to reinstate gay nurse
By Robert Barnes
Saturday, September 25, 2010
A federal judge on Friday ordered the reinstatement of an Air Force nurse discharged from the military
under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forbids openly gay service members.
U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton told a packed Tacoma, Wash., courtroom
that evidence at a six-day trial showed that former Air Force Reserve Maj. Margaret Witt
was an "exemplary officer" who should be "reinstated at the earliest possible moment."
Witt was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union,
which said the ruling was the first time a judge had ordered a reinstatement
of a service member discharged under "don't ask, don't tell."
Democrats in the Senate this week moved to repeal the law
but were stopped by a Republican bloc that would not allow the measure to come to a vote.
A majority in the Senate supports the repeal.
The House has approved such a measure.
The thing that really sucks? The 1 republican is in FAVOR of the repeal, but thought it was "unfair" that repubs were told no more amendments to the bill. Yeah, thats soooo unfair, I'm sure the all the troops fired under this ridiculous unfair policy will agree that repubs getting their way with amendments is more important.
C'mon! Why do these fuckers have to be so polarized? What is so hard about it? Over 80% of troops want it repealed, over 60% of US citizens want it repealed...that's a majority. Why are the fringes getting their way on this?
Because the system has been bastardized so that we can be divided and controlled.
C'mon! Why do these fuckers have to be so polarized? What is so hard about it?
Because the guys at the top come from a generation that associated 'fags with niggers'. These guys are having trouble undoing their personal biases. And therefore do not realize there is no problem in the ranks.
Eventually it will work out. Either they will finally comprehend their illogical fear of gays is just another example of racism. Or they will be replaced in time by the next generation that ignored such widespread hatred.
This issue is not based in anything logical. It is completely about the mindset of a older generation that was told how to be biased - and remained so.
Rather amazing how much attitudes have changed in only fifteen years.
I think TW's pretty much spot on, but I'd add that it's more about politics, than content, with these bills.
I think TW's pretty much spot on, but I'd add that it's more about politics, than content, with these bills.
Politics more driven by personal biases rather than by hard facts.
Politics driven by party line, and fear on appearing to side with the guys across the aisle... on anything.
Politics driven by party line, ...
The generals who are a large part of the problem do not vote a party line.
During the State of the Union address, as both sides of the aisle got up to applaud a resolution of this, all the joint chiefs sat on their hands in stern silence. That is where leadership on this issue must come from – and is not. As many reporters suggest, the chiefs do not understand that the soldiers have no problem. The chiefs come from another generation where the bias was widespread. It is suggested that Adm Mullen is trying to get his peers to start accepting reality – apparently without success.
Politics driven by party line, and fear on appearing to side with the guys across the aisle... on anything.
I think you are pretty much spot on.
The generals who are a large part of the problem do not vote a party line.
During the State of the Union address, as both sides of the aisle got up to applaud a resolution of this, all the joint chiefs sat on their hands in stern silence. That is where leadership on this issue must come from – and is not. As many reporters suggest, the chiefs do not understand that the soldiers have no problem. The chiefs come from another generation where the bias was widespread. It is suggested that Adm Mullen is trying to get his peers to start accepting reality – apparently without success.
While you may be right about the attitudes of upper echelon military, morethanpretty's comment/example was about the way congress is working. More correctly, not working.
I wish more than anything that people in this country would just grow the fuck up, acknowledge that homosexuality is a normal human variant not worthy of hatred and that those who live it should have the same rights--all the same rights--as heteros. And then maybe we could focus on more important things.
Yeah, but if you hippies had your way, we wouldn't have anybody to look down on. :haha:
How's this?
I like that Bruce.
I heard a funny line last night on Bill Maher's Show.
Something to the effect of ...
Fine if you want to invade Iran next, go for it, but all the troops have to be gay. At least it'll be better choreographed than the last couple...
I wish more than anything that people in this country would just grow the fuck up, acknowledge that homosexuality is a normal human variant not worthy of hatred and that those who live it should have the same rights--all the same rights--as heteros. And then maybe we could focus on more important things.
I can't agree more. And stop trying to change the Constitution to address the issue.
I love that poster, Bruce.
Wow, there's a dangerous ambiguity!
I love that poster, Bruce.
Wow, there's a dangerous ambiguity!
Frightening, isn't it?
How's this?
I'm so used to signs using apostrophes incorrectly, that it almost looks wrong when they don't.
God never uses contractions. Signs from god do not look wrong (ie Moses saw a burning Bush).
Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling
The Obama administration filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, that barred gay marriages, even though Obama had previously opposed the law.
Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court.
Bold mine.
From here
Can someone clarify this for me?
Are they really "obligated" to appeal this. I understand that they normally do, but they aren't required to. On top of that it makes no sense when this administration has openly supported the repeal of it. What gives?
They're probably obligated to defend the initial case, but I doubt they're obligated to appeal.
When it comes down to it, Obama isn't particularly liberal, despite the conservative poutrage over everything he does. He says the same "I'm not prejudiced against gays, but they shouldn't get married" that your standard (ie non-mouth-frothing) anti-gay politician does. I doubt he'd oppose congressional action to remove DOMA, but I don't expect him to do anything that could be construed as HIM removing it.
It's the same with Don't Ask Don't Tell. He wants Congress to remove it. He could defang it pretty effectively through executive order, but he hasn't.
It's not an indefensible position; perhaps the impetus for congressional action would be removed if it happens through congressional or judicial action. There's also the people who don't consider judicial decisions to be as legitimate as congressional action. And anything done through executive order can be undone by the next president.
Of course, while we're waiting for this to be done "properly", the discrimination continues.
Point of order, HM.
The discrimination will continue long after this is done "properly". It will just be more fuel for someone's poutrage. Generations will have to pass for this to fade into the background noise.
nah - I think as the nest generation comes into control this will end very quickly.
I sincerely hope so anyway.
Indeed; I meant discrimination enshrined in law.
But, I'm optimistic about our youth. If we can get the discrimination out of our law, I think it will fade (not fade out, but fade) in society quickly.
Indeed; I meant discrimination enshrined in law.
But, I'm optimistic about our youth. If we can get the discrimination out of our law, I think it will fade (not fade out, but fade) in society quickly.
Yup. Homophobia will alway linger around like racism and sexism and could easily be brought back under the right social conditions. I still see it all the time with my peers. My generation will end the discrimination against gay people from the state, not from our society.
In my OP, I essentially said that Sec Gates is a closeted homophobe.
Now, even though I understand (and predicted) that the Obama Administration
would be required to appeal Judge Phillips' decision and subsequent directive to stop
enforcing DADT, it is apparent that Gates is having his homophobic way.
First he requires a new study by the military with yet another another report due Dec 1st 2010.
Oh by coincidence, that will to be after the midterm elections when hopes there will be more homophobes in congress.
Now, Gates is working his ways to stall time
to create a whole new form of segregated military... so we can have:
Male Officers' quarters (straight)
Female Officers' quarters (straight)
Male Officers' quarters (G/L/T)
Female Officers' quarters (G/L/T)
Male Enlisted' quarters (straight)
Female Enlisted' quarters (straight)
Male Enlisted' quarters (G/L/T)
Female Enlisted' quarters (G/L/T)
Legally married Officers' quarters (both partners straight)
Legally married Officers' quarters (both partners G/L/T)
Legally married Officers' quarters (one partner G/L/T)
Legally married Enlisted' quarters (both partners straight)
Legally married Enlisted' quarters (both partners G/L/T)
Legally married Enlisted' quarters (one partner G/L/T)
Not legally married Officers' quarters (both partners straight)
Not legally married Officers' quarters (both partners G/L/T)
Not legally married Officers' quarters (one partner G/L/T)
Not legally married Enlisted' quarters (both partners straight)
Not legally married Enlisted' quarters (both partners G/L/T)
Not legally married Enlisted' quarters (one partner G/L/T)
There will also have to be studied whether or not G/L/T's must be segregated from one another. :eek:
And of course every battle plan will have to have separate orders issued because
these groups can not possibly fight together as that would be upsetting to the morale of the troops.
Obama was naive and got himself screwed when he kept Gates on as Sec of Defense as a gesture of reconciliation with GWB.
Times Editorial
Don’t Stay the ‘Don’t Ask’ Ruling
Published: October 16, 2010
The Obama administration has conjured up some inflated fears to justify its decision to appeal an injunction that brought a screeching halt to investigations and discharges of gay men and women serving in the military.
Clifford Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said in a court filing that ending the antigay policy would require training, and reworking regulations on issues like housing, benefits and standards of conduct. He said the Army had to consider the “rights and obligations of the chaplain corps.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the military had to consider whether barracks should be segregated and whether partners of gay soldiers should have benefits.
Associated Press
Judge likely to deny gov't on gay troops order
By JULIE WATSON , 10.19.10, 09:14 AM EDT
RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- A federal judge is expected to rule Tuesday on a government request to delay her order
halting the military from enforcing its ban on openly gay troops, and has said she'll likely deny it.
Phillips said the government has not proven that her order would harm troops or
in any way impede efforts to implement new regulations for the military to deal with openly gay service members.
"The farther the decision gets from the presentation of evidence in the trial court,
the more likely it is that courts will assume the military must have some critically important interest at stake,"
said Diane Mazur, a law professor who opposes the policy.
Phillips said the government has not proven that her order would harm troops or in any way impede efforts to implement new regulations for the military to deal with openly gay service members.
New regulations? Hello... the only new regulation is to disregard previous regulations, and treat everyone the same. Duh! :rolleyes:
CNN
Military recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants
From Adam Levine, CNN
October 19, 2010 4:05 p.m. EDT
Washington (CNN) -- The Pentagon has advised recruiting commands that they can accept openly gay and lesbian recruit candidates, given the recent federal court decision that bars the military from expelling openly gay service members, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.
The guidance from the Personnel and Readiness office was sent to recruiting commands on Friday, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.
The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.
The notice also reminded recruiters that they have to "manage expectations" of applicants by informing them that a reversal of the court decision might occur, whereby the "don't ask, don't tell" policy could be reinstated, Smith said.
Groups representing gays and lesbians have warned against coming out to the military because the policy is still being appealed in courts.
In my OP, I essentially said that Sec Gates is a closeted homophobe.
And you base that assessment on what?
Oh by coincidence, that will to be after the midterm elections when hopes there will be more homophobes in congress.
And you base that on what?
Now, Gates is working his ways to stall time
to create a whole new form of segregated military...
And you base that on what?
What you don't understand is that it is a huge system and change comes slowly and needs to institutionalized. This is not simply an order that needs to be given, although it is that, it is more. Change needs to be introduced with a plan in a systematic fashion. I think most of the younger troops can accept it, most of the older folks will have to struggle with it. I support it and I am from the older group. But I am not foolish enough to think that you can foist it on the system with an order and think all will be well. It will not.
Hi Merc,
Let's assume you're serious in asking on what do I base my opinions of Sec Robert Gates.
If not, I leave it to you to Google "Robert Gates DADT" and sort it out from there.
Let's also assume that Gates is an intelligent man with sufficient experience and competence to understand and lead organizational change in the federal government.
If Gates
openly disagreed with the President-elect Obama about revoking DADT and could not affirmatively and honorably work towards it, he should have resigned in 2008.
If you don't buy that, it's yet another exhibit of GWB's shoddy performance by hiring an incompetent to lead the DOD.
Further, let's NOT assume I don't understand something of how management systems work, and I won't assume that you don't recognize when a manager is throwing up roadblocks to keep a change he/she opposes from occurring.
I refer you to my OP (post #1) about Gate's forcing an expansion of his study, and setting the date of the report after the midterm elections (12/1/10).
His doubling of the sample size was a bogus issue... ask a statistician the power of doubling the sample size in survey a large population... it smacks of political intrigue.
Should we really believe Gates was not aware of the balance of powers in the Senate, and the likely outcome of this November 2010 election.
Most everyone else was aware.
Here are some quotes regarding the Gates' DADT survey from the
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59972"]U.S. Department of Defense News[/URL]
American Forces Press Service
*News Article
Survey Will Permit Informed Decisions, Official Says
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
[QUOTE]WASHINGTON, July 9, 2010 – Survey responses on the possible repeal of the law that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military will allow leaders to make informed decisions, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said today.
<snip>
And here are the first 11 sequential responses from members of the military in the Comments Section:
Article is closed to new comments.
The opinions expressed in the following comments do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense.
7/26/2010 10:23:03 AM

Not one question about whether the servicemember would follow orders if orders to integrate were given. One wonders why? Not one question about whether existing rules prohibiting public displays of affection or unwarranted sexual advances would adequately cover the situation. Not one question about whether the most qualified member of a unit would help save the country, even if they were gay. HHHmm, wonder if there is a hidden agenda?
- Triathlete, california
7/14/2010 3:29:28 AM

I don't think that a straight guy wants to share a shower with a gay guy anymore than a straight woman wants to share a public shower with a straight guy! It is just a fact that something will have to be done to assure more privacy. 
- Denise, AL
7/12/2010 2:09:33 PM

I'm confused! Is the story really about what the Army is doing now to stay on mission with getting survey information from servicemembers? Or, is it shifting to shine a light on the Army is quick to catch when there has been a tremendousbreach of protocol?
- Anthony Lewis, DFAS
7/12/2010 9:46:29 AM

I have a powerfuld disdain for the fact that Congress appears to be ready to cram this down our throats prior to the end of the DoD assessment of the situation. I am, however, glad that we have venues for expressing our concerns. At least our senior leaders seem to care about us.
- MSgt Jack Padilla, Lackland AFB
7/11/2010 12:46:22 AM

I was very disappointed to read the survey sent to the members of the US military regarding DADT. Although you may have put a lot of time and thought into this survey, I suspect that you did not thoroughly vet it's content with LGBT individuals or organizations. There is a clear bias in the survey against the repeal of DADT. Using the word "if" instead of "when" undermines the entire process. I do hope you will revise the survey to more fairly represent the many LGBT members of the service who currently are serving and who have honorably served in the past. 
- Robert Mason, Los Angeles, CA
7/10/2010 11:05:52 PM

This survey is an obvious sham, with the questions written to achieve the desired, closed-minded answers of the homophobes. Still, there are many who can't wait to believe the official results. Just remember, the secret to success is sincerity. Once you learn to fake that, you've got it made.
- John Rochat MD, Fort Bragg, CA
7/10/2010 8:45:19 PM

I urge you to pull the survey on DADT and find a polling company that will phase the questions in an objective many and in a way that solicits responses from leading questions. 
- Michael , Yonkers NY
7/10/2010 7:49:45 PM

Mr. Secretary; as with General McChrystal, the job of the troops is to execute the law of the land and the orders and policies of the command structure. The idea of surveying the troops over a policy issue is akin to asking them if they should be deployed...they are in the service and are expected to follow the company line, agree or not. If they cannot live up to this standard, then they have no business wearing the U.S. uniform. Insert "person of color" of "female" or Muslim" and you would not even consider this procedure. I am embarrassed for the DoD, and only hope you heed the wants of more than 80% of our citizens. If our soldiers cannot get past this, I am sure there are those that can, and NO ONE is irreplaceable. Thank you- a concerned and proud Washington native.
- jeff milligan, las cruces, New Mexico
7/10/2010 6:06:32 PM

As noted in many of your own EEO policy documents, "What is offensive is in the “eyes of the beholder.”" Some of the questions asked, the words used, and the general tone of the DADT survey are offensive to many gays and lesbians, particularly those in uniform. It is repulsive for DoD to say that outside comments regarding this survey are inflammatory or misleading. Since DoD and the Services have said they will discharge those who out themselves in this review process, outside influences are not helpful, THEY ARE REQUIRED to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. The advocacy groups have spoken, many with the input of gay servicemembers, and this survey was written with little apparent regard for the gay military personnel and their families who have been forced to serve in silence for 17 years. 
- Richard L., Norfolk
7/10/2010 3:12:15 AM

None of the questions assumes that the participant might be gay or lesbian. Odd
- Ian Mac, London
[/QUOTE]
Merc, to continue...
Here are a few of Gates' comments and positions over the past 18 months:
St Petersburg Post
Obama's repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on the back burner
Updated: Monday, March 30th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in an interview that he's not actively pursuing a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," rule, which prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military. The admission came at the end of an interview on Fox News Sunday .
<snip>
"Where does that stand? And why is there currently money in the 2010 budget to keep enforcing that policy?"
"Well, it continues to be the law," Gates said. "And any change in the policy would require a change in the law. We will follow the law, whatever it is. That dialogue, though, has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration. I think the president and I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now, and let's push that one down the road a little bit."
Politico
May 25, 2010
Gates 'can accept' 'Don't Ask' repeal plan
Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued a grudging -- but crucial -- statement this morning through his spokesman Geoff Morrell, as the administration pushes forward with the repeal of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military -- but pointedly insists that Congress carry the political burden.
“Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the DOD review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law. With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the Secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment," Morrell said.
Washington Post
Gates says abrupt end to 'don't ask' would have 'enormous consequences'
By Craig Whitlock and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 13, 2010; 5:03 PM
Gates declined to answer directly when asked whether the administration should appeal a federal court injunction ordering the military to immediately end the policy. But he said he wants to proceed with his preferred approach: to allow the Defense Department to complete, by Dec. 1, a review of how to integrate openly gay men and lesbians in the armed forces, followed by an act of Congress that would overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" law.
"I feel very strongly that this is an action that needs to be taken by the Congress, and that it is an action that requires careful preparation and a lot of training," Gates told reporters aboard a military aircraft as he flew to Brussels for a NATO meeting.
Gates said the Pentagon needs until Dec. 1 to resolve questions such as whether heterosexual troops would be required to share housing with gays and whether the military would be required to provide benefits for same-sex partners of service members.
"This is a very complex business. It has enormous consequences for our troops," Gates said. "As I have said from the very beginning, there should be legislation, and that legislation should be informed by the review we have underway."
With respect to Gates' current issues of "separate housing"
Should we believe that the military and/or Gates was not already aware of the existence of G / L in the military.
If he/they knew this and truly believed it to be harmful to morale, then alternative housing would have been created long ago.
The "benefits" issue is also bogus because, as Gates says, the military could simply follow the law... when legally married, partners get equal benefits.
None of that makes him queer, just an obstructionist.
Wall Street Journal
OCTOBER 20, 2010, 12:30 P.M. ET
U.S. Files Appeal to Restore 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Government lawyers filed an emergency request with the federal appeals court in San Francisco Wednesday seeking to suspend a lower court order that bars the military from enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" law against gays.
The filing came after U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., said Tuesday that her week-old order barring the military from enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" law against gays will stand.
In its filing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department asked to suspend the ruling—a move that was expected after Judge Phillips rejected the Pentagon's request for a temporarily stay of her decision while an appeal is considered.
Never called him queer !
My bad, I misread your post. :blush:
But the more I think about it, that would explain a lot.
Well this didn't take long...
The Christian Science Monitor
'Don't ask, don't tell' back in force after appeals court issues stay
By Warren Richey,*Staff writer / October 20, 2010
An appeals court decides that 'don't ask, don't tell' can temporarily remain in effect as legal proceedings continue.
The Obama administration is appealing a ruling last week that 'don't ask, don't tell' must be abandoned immediately.
The action means the Pentagon’s ban on service members who are openly homosexual is, once again, in full force.
Yeh - We all knew it was coming, didn't we?
Too bad this administration "had" to appeal it.
At least it is headed in the right direction. It certainly wouldn't have gotten this far under the R's.
Why would Obama shoot themselves in the collective foot after all those promises Obama made about DADT?
The Obama Administration is not shooting themselves in the foot...
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
It's because the commander in chief has a responsibility to safeguard the authority of the office of the President IAW the separation of powers. As you have remarked, there needs to be an orderly transition. If some judge can bark orders at the military and force it to rearrange its priorities (to effect immediate implementation) on this issue, judges could do so on other issues for whatever reasons. It would set a precedent that undermines the power of the Executive branch.
The Obama Administration is not shooting themselves in the foot...
I don't need you to quote the oath. Obama promised to do away with DADT. The simple solution would have been for the CIC to issue an order the day after he took office. The military does not need some orderly transition. It is no different from the integration of blacks and women. There were plenty of top down orders that came from the leadership that people didn't like and don't like. But you take your marching orders and make the appropriate change. Screw the lower court rulings, they are not needed and I don't think carry much weight when it comes to establishing policy and procedure in the military.
Well, the oath Obama took
is the basis for what is happening now.
There is a pretty good editorial in the
NY Times today about this business,
and another possible route the CIC could possibly take.
But there does seem to be unanimity among the legal dogs
that since DADT is in a law passed by Congrees, it is not like the integration
of Blacks and women in the services to be voided by executive order.
At least that is how I understand and accept what is going on now.
What you don't understand is that it is a huge system and change comes slowly and needs to institutionalized. This is not simply an order that needs to be given, although it is that, it is more. Change needs to be introduced with a plan in a systematic fashion. I think most of the younger troops can accept it, most of the older folks will have to struggle with it. I support it and I am from the older group. But I am not foolish enough to think that you can foist it on the system with an order and think all will be well. It will not.
The simple solution would have been for the CIC to issue an order the day after he took office. The military does not need some orderly transition. You take your marching orders and make the appropriate change. Screw the lower court rulings, they are not needed and I don't think carry much weight when it comes to establishing policy and procedure in the military.
Wait which is it? The bold (mine) in the first or the second?
Systematic in the since that the order is given, the troops are prepped for what is coming, and the change is made.
NOT, systematic in the sense that the military needs to do some study or poll among staff weenies to see if they are ok with it as Gates stated recently. There has been a sea of change in the attitude since the 70's when I first joined. It will not go well at first in many units. Others will not care. But as I listened to the discussion in the immediate news I have modified my stance on it and they just need to get it done. They need to stop circling around the issue and just do it.
But there does seem to be unanimity among the legal dogs
that since DADT is in a law passed by Congrees, it is not like the integration
of Blacks and women in the services to be voided by executive order.
At least that is how I understand and accept what is going on now.
It couldn't be voided, but it could be rendered toothless. But only so long as the executive order remains in effect.
It's possible that if he had issued the executive order, there would be less impetus for Congress to act, so maybe it's better in the long run to not issue the order.
The same might be true for the judicial order. It's a lower level court, so it can be overruled. If the Justice Department had declined to appeal, Congress may have thought that there was no longer any hurry to repeal the law, only to have another case come through later and put it back in effect.
Appealing to the Supreme Court is tricky. While it would be best for them to get to the Supreme Court and lose, that puts them in the position of actively supporting a Constitutional right for the government to discriminate against gays, which is not a defensible position. And given the makeup of the court, they could win, which would be the worst outcome. Even if Congress repealed the law, there would be Supreme Court precedent that homophobia is a valid government position.
I would have thought that leaving the anti-DADT judicial order in place might have been the best option. Enter the Supreme Court battle with months of openly gay military service already in place.
The bottom line folks is that the CIC can issue an order and it will the lay of the land. Congress can back it up for him if they want.
This is exactly the type of situation where "change" is needed.
There shouldn't be all this time and money wasted on something so painfully
obvious to virtually everyone.
<insert frustrated smilie here>
Merc, to your point about CIC issuing a order, the problem is that another CIC (President) could resend that order and the whole issue would ping-pong.
Here is what is happening today...
Posted on Advocate.com
November 05, 2010
Log Cabin Petitions Supreme Court
By Kerry Eleveld
The Log Cabin Republicans filed papers Friday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate
a worldwide injunction on enforcement of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy
while the case is being litigated.
<snip>
Log Cabin's lead attorney in the case said the group was asking the Supreme Court
to get involved because officials believed the ninth circuit had overreached when it suspended the injunction.
"It's rare for any litigant to pursue an interim stay issue all the way to the Supreme Court.
It involves the court in the case at a very early stage of the appeals process and is often*considered*risky,"
he explained. "That said, I imagine the plaintiffs feel they don't have much to lose,
even though the*likelihood*of*success*on this interim request is low.
But if they do*prevail, they would gain a lot of strategic leverage."*
The appeal to Supreme Court justice Anthony M. Kennedy is seemingly a long shot.
Justice Elena Kagan may have to recuse herself from the case based on her former role as solicitor general
for the government while the case was in its initial stages.
That would leave four conservative-leaning justices (John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas)
and three liberal-leaning ones (Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer).
Justice Kennedy is considered the swing vote, as always, but Kagan's recusal leaves the left one justice short.
Look, in my 20+ years the CIC issued a number of orders, and his subordinates did the same, and they all became the law of the land for the immediate. Whether is changes in 4 or 8 years is insignificant, the point is that the process is started and people accept it as the norm, whether we agree with it or not. And I assure you there are a few issues that we did not agree with. But you take your orders and drive on. That is what we are paid to do. The CIC can do the same with DADT.
My understanding is that DADT is a law passed by Congress.
If any President/CIC were to issue such an order defying that law, it could be an impeachable offense.
Maybe my understanding is not correct, so enlighten me...
One of the issues Obama campaigned on was elimination of DADT.
Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn DADT.
Obama has had several opportunities to take the route of issuing an order as CIC,
but instead he has taken the route of formally appealing (via the Dept of Justice) the issue up thru the federal courts.
So, I ask you very specifically: why do you believe Obama is refraining from issuing an order as CIC to overturn DADT ?
My understanding is that DADT is a law passed by Congress.
If any President/CIC were to issue such an order defying that law, it could be an impeachable offense.
Maybe my understanding is not correct, so enlighten me...
Look up the definition of impeachable events for our president and enlighten yourself.
One of the issues Obama campaigned on was elimination of DADT.
Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn DADT.
Obama has had several opportunities to take the route of issuing an order as CIC,
but instead he has taken the route of formally appealing (via the Dept of Justice) the issue up thru the federal courts.
So, I ask you very specifically: why do you believe Obama is refraining from issuing an order as CIC to overturn DADT ?
Because in the shadow of the elections he was not about to do another thing that would jeopardize votes. He promised to get it repealed and he has not done so. Just like he promised to close Gitmo, which he has not. It could overturned in the short term with the stroke of a pen and then let the courts deal with it. In the mean time it would send a clear signal where he stands on the issue and then pass it off to a final arbitrator. In the mean time those in Congress can take the time to form a bill that would support his edict.
Obama presses for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the lame duck session
Updated: Thursday, November 4th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
On the day after the November elections of 2010, President Barack Obama outlined a few of his hopes for a final, lame duck session of the 112th Congress before the Republicans take control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
One of those hopes is to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.
Obama noted that a military review is expected to be released in December that discusses the implications of ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
"I will expect that Secretary of Defense (Robert) Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral (Michal) Mullen will have something to say about that review. I will look at it very carefully," Obama said. "But that will give us time to act, potentially during the lame duck session, to change this policy."
"We need to provide certainty and it's time for us to move this policy forward," Obama added. "And this should not be a partisan issue. This is an issue, as I said, where you've got a sizable portion of the American people squarely behind the notion that folks who are willing to serve on our behalf should be treated fairly and equally."
We should be clear that repealing the policy is hardly a certainty -- there remains plenty of room for legislative maneuvering, because the policy repeal is part of a larger defense authorization bill. And if the repeal isn't enacted during the lame duck session, its prospects do not improve when Republicans take control of the House next year
Here, we wanted to note in this update that the 2010 elections haven't stopped Obama's attempts to keep this particular promise. Its rating remains, for now, In the Works.
From
hereOn the day after the November elections of 2010....
As I stated...
From here
I'm wondering why Politifact quoted a source from a blog post quoting a letter from candidate Obama dated Feb 28, 2008. Shouldn't they be using something more, uh whats the word, concrete or current or something. That just seems pretty weak.
Come on Classic, at least quote MTP's link fairly:
St Petersburg Times
PolitiFact.com
Obama presses for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the lame duck session
Updated: Thursday, November 4th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
On the day after the November elections of 2010, President Barack Obama outlined
a few of his hopes for a final, lame duck session of the 112th Congress
before the Republicans take control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
<snip>
Go to the sources at the top of the page Lamp...
You'll see what is listed as sources. I wasn't taking a shot at MTP at all.
Oh, and on a side note - I think his letter is more political fodder than anything else.
Go to the sources at the top of the page Lamp...
You'll see what is listed as sources. I wasn't taking a shot at MTP at all.
At the top of that same web page there is an ad for Quiznos pizza.
Should we also "wonder" if Obama is selling pizzas from the White House ? :rolleyes:
MTP gave a quote and a valid link to that quote.
At the bottom of that article is it's list of sources,
none of which include the blog or letter you reference.
Sources:
The White House, Press conference by the president, Nov. 3, 2010
E-mail interview with Michael Cole, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign
E-mail interview with Inga Sarda-Sorensen, communications director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
As I stated...
convenient timing
While I wish he'd use more of the levers of power available to him, the timing of this is irrelevant, as it is not the first time he has said this. Why is it notable that he said on the day after the election the same thing he'd been saying repeatedly before the election?
[SIZE="3"]Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 293:[/SIZE]
In the Works
Share this:
Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy
Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military.
[COLOR="Red"]
Sources:
Obama letter to the LGBT [/COLOR](lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals) community
Subjects: Gays and Lesbians, Military
This is the part I am referring to. I tried to tell you where it was and went further to specifically state
I wasn't taking a shot at MTP at all.
Classic: that is the source for the Obama promise, not the article. The article sources are at the bottom of it like Lamp stated.
The website is saying they got the Obama promise from the blog, not any of the information for article.
Ok - gotcha - That makes more sense. My bad.
Thanks for that MTP and thanks for the screenshot. I couldn't make that happen after 20 tries.... Doh!
Sec Defense's 400K questionnaire is being "run up the flag pole".
Unfortunately, it seems conclusions are being leaked, but no data.
I, personally, am surprised that while the manly Marine General Amos
objects to repealing DADT, the Navy is reported to be OK with it.
"... it is not a matter of sleeping accomodations"
But I don't see why it has become a "Republican" issue, except for being Sen McCain's last hoorah.
I think the real issue is identified in this article... a matter of leadership.
NY Times
Little Harm Found if Gay Ban Is Lifted
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: November 11, 2010
WASHINGTON — The draft of a new Pentagon report comes to the conclusion that repealing
the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law will not cause overall harm to the military
but might cause temporary disruptions, people familiar with the report said on Thursday.
In the case of any temporary disruptions, the draft report says they can be mitigated with effective leadership.
<snip>also said the report did not recommend separate housing for gay service members.
But they said the report showed that a number of active-duty service members remained opposed to openly gay service,
with the largest proportion in the Marines and the Army.
Over all, however, they said the report showed that a majority of active-duty service members
and their families did not care if gay men and lesbians served openly.
Some gay rights groups have said the president should issue a “stop-loss” order,
like those used to keep troops past their commitments in the military,
to prevent further discharges of gay men and lesbians.
But lawyers familiar with the issue said that such a move would be viewed as a gimmick
and that there were questions about the president’s authority to act in this case.
Some gay rights groups have said the president should issue a “stop-loss” order,
like those used to keep troops past their commitments in the military,
to prevent further discharges of gay men and lesbians.
But lawyers familiar with the issue said that such a move would be viewed as a gimmick
and that there were questions about the president’s authority to act in this case.
He should just do it and let them sue him about it - I'd love to hear their arguments against. Fuckin' jerkholes!
In my OP, I essentially said that Sec Gates is a closeted homophobe.
Now, even though I understand (and predicted) that the Obama Administration
would be required to appeal Judge Phillips' decision and subsequent directive to stop
enforcing DADT, it is apparent that Gates is having his homophobic way.
First he requires a new study by the military with yet another another report due Dec 1st 2010.
Oh by coincidence, that will to be after the midterm elections when hopes there will be more homophobes in congress.
<snip>
I take back a tiny little bit of what I said last October about Sec Defense Gates.
Somewhere I heard it was Gates that ordered his Report one day earlier than Dec 1st, and that
could make a difference in allowing DADT to be voted on in the current legislative session.
NY Times Editorial
No Time to Wait for Justice
Published: November 23, 2010
It is only a day’s difference, but the Pentagon’s decision to release its report on gays in the military next Tuesday
instead of Wednesday lends a significant sense of urgency to a Congressional vote on the verge of collapse.
The incoming Republican leaders of the House have made it clear that allowing
gay men and lesbians the justice of serving openly in the military is not a priority for them,
meaning that the chances of repeal in the next Congress are very slim or none.
That vote, then, must take place in the current lame-duck session of Congress, where Democrats still predominate.
The House has already approved repeal as an amendment to the overall defense bill,
and Senate Democrats say they have lined up enough Republicans to get past the 60-vote threshold.
Getting the report on Tuesday means that the Senate Armed Services Committee
might be able to begin hearings on the issue next week.
It also sends a message from the military to Congress that justice is a matter that cannot wait.
Sounds like it should be more than a "tiny little bit" - seems like he did what he could to enact the change you agree with. Or am I missing something?
Well Classic, that goes back to my previous (OP) postings in this thread.
I know - I know. I think it would be more of a virtual 180 instead of the tiny bit.
I also think Obama should incessantly & repeatedly voice his opinion about this issue.
Leave no stone unturned. This is the most basic slam dunk there is. Stop it ASAP.
Yesterday the Joint Chiefs of Staff and today the Generals in Hearings,
all responded that they can and will implement repeal of DADT
when it is passed and (I think) all agreed it should be repealed.
But Army and Marine Generals want to wait "until the War is over".
Senator John McCain says "he and 42(?) other Republicans will not allow
repeal of DADT because the economy is in the tank"
We will check with Johnny after the weekend to get his "Monday-reason"
for opposing DADT will be,
and if he can remember what was his "Friday-reason"
Yesterday the Joint Chiefs of Staff and today the Generals in Hearings,
all responded that they can and will implement repeal of DADT
when it is passed and (I think) all agreed it should be repealed.
That was never the issue. The real issue is about bogging Congress down with irrelevant issues so that the lame duck Congress cannot pass other 'critical' legislation. This is a perfect issue to be obstructionist.
NY Times
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Falls Short in Senate
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR 3 minutes ago
A military spending bill that included a repeal of the policy banning gays from serving openly
was blocked by the failure of a procedural motion to get the needed 60 yes votes.
Added from another NY Times article:
Senate Republicans blocked the attempt to move ahead with the bill
that would have repealed the ban on gay troops serving openly in the military.
The vote was 57-40, almost entirely along party lines, and three short of the 60 needed.
The talking heads on TV are saying that the repeal of DADT will happen tomorrow (Sat, Dec 18).
So we'll either see the Republicans vote again for filibuster,
or a few from the New England states cross over that line.
Or maybe, the Republicans will do another of their flip-flops,
and all 40 vote for repeal.
Then they will claim they are the ones who repealed DADT.
Hopefully, we'll see the repeal of DADT, no matter what the tally.
Bravo. It is time for a change. I hope it passes, without demoncratic or republickin earmarks or riders.
Maybe this thread will be dead in the next 30 hours.
The Senate's procedural vote (against filibuster) passed 63 to 33.
Now for 30 hours of Senate debate, unless the Republicans wish to shorten that time.
And yes, McCain is still doing his thing of warning against dire consequences to come from repeal.
Just came across this list of Republicans voting Yea:
Voting with the majority of Democrats were Republicans Scott Brown (MA),
Mark Kirk (IL) George Voinovich (OH), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME),
and Olympia Snowe (ME).
Jim Bunning (R-KY), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT),
and Joe Manchin (D-WV) were absent.
The Senate moved the final vote on repeal of DADT to this afternoon, and it passed !
Here is a blog write-up of what happened during the day:
By a vote of 65 to 31 this afternoon, the Senate voted to repeal the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Republican Senators Scott Brown, Richard Burr, Susan Collins, John Ensign, Mark Kirk,
Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich joined Democrats
in the final vote to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Burr and Ensign did not vote with the Democrats earlier in the day
when the GOP filibuster was broken, but signed on for the final vote.
What happens next: Obama has promised to sign the bill next week, making repeal a true legal reality.
Then the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Obama must work out an implementation plan
and officially certify that the military is ready to allow its gay and lesbian
service members to come out of the closet.
Sixty days after that, DADT is "officially" repealed.
Such is the language of the bill the Senate passed today and the House passed earlier in the week.
But repeal could effectively be in place far earlier than that.
Following the cloture vote today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
called on the Pentagon to suspend all DADT discharges and investigations immediately,
something gay rights advocates say Defense Secretary Robert Gates can order whenever he wants.
Here are some post-vote remarks by Senators:
[YOUTUBE]1PRNovvOLX4[/YOUTUBE]
And to Merc...
Although we've disagreed on many issues over the past few months,
I'm very pleased that you and I have been in agreement on this issue.
It was originally your words that prompted me to start this thread
I'm very pleased, indeed.
Does this mean those that have been booted out, sadly legally, can be reinstated, or at least re-up?
Does this mean those that have been booted out, sadly legally, can be reinstated, or at least re-up?
I am pretty sure they will all be able to rejoin if that was the only reason they were booted and it was not for sexual misconduct or something else.
And to Merc...
Although we've disagreed on many issues over the past few months,
I'm very pleased that you and I have been in agreement on this issue.
It was originally your words that prompted me to start this thread
I'm very pleased, indeed.
Agreed.
Here's a nice story to go along with Obama's signing ceremony,
and to finish off this effort.
Walker Burttschell, a gay Miami Beach man discharged from the Marines in 2003,
shook Barack Obama's hand moments after the president signed repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell.'
"Great,'' Burttschell said of the moment. "That’s the least I can say. It was overwhelming.
It’s a part of history. To see the president sign it and say it’s done was amazing."
Burttschell, 28, said the White House invited him to the signing this weekend,
after the Senate voted Saturday to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell.' The House voted to repeal last week.
He arrived in Washington on Monday night and the next day attended a House ceremony at the Capitol,
in which Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave him a gold coin with the speaker's seal on one side, her signature on the other.
Tuesday morning, Burttschell attended the signing ceremony with a close friend
-- a gay active-duty Marine major still in the closet.
Burttschell said that immediately after Obama signed the repeal,
the Marine major "grabbed me and dragged me down the aisle."
The closeted Marine reached out to Obama.
"The first person to shake his hand was a Marine who was not out until today.
A powerful statement,'' Burttschell said.
"He introduced me to the president as a Marine and [Obama] said, 'Good fight, Marine!'
Read more:
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2010/12/gay-marine-from-miami-beach-walker-burttschell-among-first-to-shake-obamas-hand-after-signing.html#ixzz18sEeedenWow, I am surprised this guy got away with this. It was not that long ago. I see an early retirement for him in the next 30 days. The problem is they are going to have to find a new captain for the ship before it leaves.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/01/04/132646800/enterprise-captains-career-likely-sunk-due-to-videosWow, I am surprised this guy got away with this. It was not that long ago. I see an early retirement for him in the next 30 days. The problem is they are going to have to find a new captain for the ship before it leaves.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/01/04/132646800/enterprise-captains-career-likely-sunk-due-to-videos
Merc, your comments and link must not refer to the post above it,
but are starting a new drift, unrelated to DADT.
If it is DADT, I don't see the connection.
If not, the link shows the military has still some foolish officers in command.
Since I hope and believe the repeal of DADT will be lead
to changing hearts and minds in both the military and civilian life,
I'm starting to wonder which minority group will be the next
to become the targets of the bigots.
I'm sure the film industry can come up with new epithets
for the DI's to use in their "boot camp" training scenes.
Then we will have another way to age-date war movies.
It is related because here we have a major commander publicly making biased and derogatory remarks on a public ships tv channel against gay and women. It was out of line. But yet he got away with it for quite some time with no obvious repercussions. It is completely relevant to the thread.
When you have attitudes like that coming from the command it will breed violence and support those who have really bigoted attitudes towards the needed change. Further it may alienate those who would other wise step up and come forward when needed to support their fellow sailors, who they themselves may not be gay, but who might otherwise be afraid, because of peer and command pressure to not do the right thing. If the commander is publicly making derogatory remarks against gays the last thing a person is going to do is go against that commanders feelings by reporting or supporting those around them. Command Climate is everything in the military. It makes or breaks organizations.
I'm sure the film industry can come up with new epithets for the DI's to use in their "boot camp" training scenes.
It's maggots, not faggots.
I've not followed this story on Honors.
If the movie event was several years ago:
1) Why was he even promoted from 2nd to 1st command (May 2010) ?
2) Who is over-riding his promotion and forcing his "retirement" ?
3) Does it link directly to the repeal of DADT, or is that coincidental ?
I think it is politically motivated. I watched the videos & they are no worse than what you see on Comedy Central.
But a US warship is not comedy central, at least I hope not. Location, location, location.
I've not followed this story on Honors.
If the movie event was several years ago:
1) Why was he even promoted from 2nd to 1st command (May 2010) ?
2) Who is over-riding his promotion and forcing his "retirement" ?
3) Does it link directly to the repeal of DADT, or is that coincidental ?
1) The incident wasn't vigorously contested; so, the promotion went through based upon the remainder of his service record. At the time, gay sailors contesting it could have been construed as violating DADT, straight sailors contesting it as ombudsmen could have been construed as failing to report a violation (guilt by association), and straight sailors contesting it autonomously could have been construed as supporting what was then considered to be a detriment to military service. No one has a right to serve in the military and no one has a right to a security clearance (which may be required to hold federal job positions both military and civilian). Security clearances are very political.
2) His retirement will be brought about by all those in his chain of command and political oversight committees who are concerned with military personnel recruitment and retention. Captain Honor has become a PR nightmare.
3) Our all volunteer military is overextended. Prerequisites for military service changes under such circumstances: age requirements are broadened, education requirements are lowered, some criminal backgrounds are waivered, females work in close combat roles ... etc. The implementation of DADT and its eventual repeal come about because of neither kind heartedness nor fairness by the military hierarchy and politicos. It came about just as the other changes and waivers did, because they desperately needed skills that are possessed by some who would not otherwise be eligible for military service. Captain Honor's command style became an obstacle to that objective through the specific topics he made light of and the timing of the DADT repeal.
It's maggots, not faggots.
:lol:
I feel a bit sorry for Honors; he has done a lot of excellent service, and had he been no more than a junior officer these videos would get him a moderate smack on the wrist. But you just can't have a 2IC or a captain behaving like that. I'd like to see him resign "voluntarily" rather than be pushed.
Sexbon, thank you for such a well-composed reply.
Since I hope and believe the repeal of DADT will be lead
to changing hearts and minds in both the military and civilian life,
I'm starting to wonder which minority group will be the next
to become the targets of the bigots.
Short answer...transsexuals.
Yes Brian, I know what you mean.
But for the military, and military justice system in particular, the repeal of DADT should help there too because the repeal takes away the legs that the bigots stand on.
For civilian life, not so much... yet
NPR has a report on what the military is currently doing in regards to
training operations as required by the repeal of DADT.
Sec Gates wants the training completed by the end of the year,
and others in command feel it may even be completed by Spring.
Once training is complete, the President and the Sec of Defense must certify that the military can operate with gay/lesbian serving opening.
Here is a
4 min audio of the NPR report.
... must certify that the military can operate with gay/lesbian serving opening.
I think you meant "serving open
ly". :lol:
Or maybe you didn't...:eyebrow:
I think you meant "serving openly". :lol:
Or maybe you didn't...:eyebrow:
Yes, open
ly. :facepalm:
Thank you.
Tis amazing how my fingers type words my brain didn't think about.
The military may be playing this cool,
but I predict this will be a major turning point
for the entire country....on a par with other Civil Rights laws.
Thank you, OBAMA !
On eve of DADT repeal, it's business as usual for military
By LEO SHANE III
Stars and Stripes
Published: September 19, 2011
WASHINGTON — The military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” law ends Tuesday,
allowing openly gay troops to serve for the first time and marking
one of the most dramatic personnel changes in U.S. military history.
But despite the significance, defense officials have spent weeks downplaying
the actual impact of the change, insisting that for gay and straight troops
the repeal will still mean business as usual.
Pentagon leaders and the White House on Tuesday will acknowledge the end of the 18-year-old law
— the basis for the dismissal of roughly 14,000 gay service members
— and last year’s contentious debate repealing it.
But, other than a few news conferences, no formal military events or instructions are planned.
Troops have been attending training briefings on the rule changes since last spring,
and no new sessions or advisories are expected after repeal.
<snip>
but I predict this will be a major turning point
for the entire country....on a par with other Civil Rights laws.
I appreciate your passion, its the right thing and long overdue, but I think it pales when compared to Civil Rights Laws.
I appreciate your passion, its the right thing and long overdue, but I think it pales when compared to Civil Rights Laws.
... which came about from Truman's courage to change the military,
ultimately leading to the repeal of
de jure segregation.
As a landlord, as an employer, and as a citizen,
I'm aware of laws that are so unfair they will be repealed,
just as has happened today with DADT.
There will always be bigots among us, but they won't have the Law to shield them.
Society will gradually weed them out and the discriminatory laws will be repealed.
For example, I think it is no coincidence this is being published, today (9/19/11):
HUD PROPOSES NEW RULE TO ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO HOUSING
REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY)
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development today
proposed new regulations intended to ensure that its core housing programs are open
to all eligible persons, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
View the proposed rule announced today.
“This is a fundamental issue of fairness,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan.
“We have a responsibility to make certain that public programs are open to all Americans.
With this proposed rule, we will make clear that a person’s eligibility for federal housing programs is,
and should be, based on their need and not on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
It just takes time and a bit of leadership to take that "first step"...
We need to be witness to progress...
By Corinne Reilly
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 21, 2011
VIRGINIA BEACH
It’s a time-honored tradition at Navy homecomings – one lucky sailor is chosen
to be first off the ship for the long-awaited kiss with a loved one.
Today, for the first time, the happily reunited couple was gay.
The dock landing ship Oak Hill has been gone for nearly three months,
training with military allies in Central America.
As the homecoming drew near, the crew and ship’s family readiness group
sold $1 raffle tickets for the first kiss. Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta, 23,
bought 50 - which is actually fewer than many people buy,
she said, so she was surprised Monday to find out she'd won.
Her girlfriend of two years, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell, 22, was waiting when she crossed the brow
They kissed. The crowd cheered. And with that, another vestige of the policy
that forced gays to serve in secrecy vanished.
"It's something new, that's for sure," Gaeta told reporters after the kiss.
"It's nice to be able to be myself. It's been a long time coming.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta, 23... Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell, 22
Wouldn't this come under a different no-no heading of dating a superior officer? I mean, setting aside for a moment the grotesque offense of naming your daughter Citlalic...
Citlalic ... wtf? ... is an anagram of lic a clit. Just saying. :D
Women kissing and there's no picture? Do I have to do everything around here? ;)
Sec Leon Panetta followed up today with yet another step towards equal treatment in the military.
The full memo is available through the link to this article...
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
By Joseph Straw /
Monday, February 11, 2013, 7:42 PM
New benefits for soldiers' same sex partners: Pentagon
The order provides perks like subsidized base shopping and dining
but also includes key family benefits like child care and leave when
a partner is ill or dies.
WASHINGTON — Soldiers’ same-sex partners will gain benefits ranging
from use of the PX to emergency leave under a Pentagon order issued Monday.
The government is set to offer full coverage should the Supreme Court allow it.
The order provides perks like subsidized base shopping and dining
but also includes key family benefits like child care and leave when a partner is ill or dies.
In a memo, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said he went as far as he could
under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bars Uncle Sam from honoring gay marriage.
The high court is considering DOMA’s legality.
Here is just one paragraph from his memo today:
When Obama ended DADT in the military, it set off a flood of changes
in the
de jure and
de facto discriminations against sexual orientation.
But such discrimination in jobs continues to be legal in small and large US companies.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The time has come to legally prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation.[/COLOR]
NY Times
JAMES B. STEWART
5/25/13
Exxon Defies Calls to Add Gays to Anti-Bias Policy
For millions of gay and lesbian employees, much has changed since 1999,
when no states recognized gay marriage, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” effectively barred people
who were openly gay from serving in the military, Matthew Shepard’s murderer was convicted
— and Exxon Mobil shareholders were first asked to protect gay and lesbian employees from discrimination.
One thing hasn’t: Exxon Mobil’s implacable opposition to adding sexual orientation
to its official equal employment opportunity statement.
The proposal, backed this year, as it has been since 2010, by New York State Comptroller
Thomas P. DiNapoli on behalf of the New York State Employees Retirement System,
has never gained majority support.
That’s not unusual for so-called social, political and environmental shareholder initiatives,
since most institutional money managers usually decline as a matter of policy
to vote against management recommendations on such issues.
Still, the measure has gained as much as 38 percent of the vote,
considered resounding support by the feeble standards of shareholder democracy.
<snip>
Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia and more than 160 cities and counties
have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.
But Exxon Mobil maintains it isn’t bound by these because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act,
which pre-empts state law.
A constitutional challenge to DOMA is awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court,
and two federal appeals courts have ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
Today, the USSC handed down it's decision on DOMA and Prop 8.
California can/will re-start same-sex marriages on a technicality
of "standing"
and across the U.S. all federal laws and benefits will apply equally
to all legal marriages.
But in some states, laws that discriminate against same-sex marriages will still prevail.
Ironically, "separate but equal" is un-constitutional for race and education,
but this USSC says it is constitutional when it comes to same-sex marriages.
Go figure...
Looks like "separate but equal" has been replaced by "all [strike]animals[/strike] marriages are equal; but, some [strike]animals[/strike] marriages are more equal than others."
I really don't care how you have sex. If you can shoot and carry a ruck, you're good in my book.
Like the old adage: We don't care who they're humping as long as they can hump a ruck and shoot their load.
Sort of legal questions...
Can military personnel be married "on base" and not designate
their marriage to the particular State where they are based/living ?
If so, would this be a way to avoid DOMA ?
I have to say regarding SCOTUS's finding that DOMA was unconstitutional prompted many questions as to how various federal entities would handle the new decision. In all of the initial reports from the IRS, Social Security, etc, there were various explanations about how they'd have to review the relevant laws, examine the policies and how they could be changed, "we'll look into that and get back to you" kind of sounds. But not the Defense Department. Chuck Hagel said that morning that the DoD will immediately extend full benefits to spouses in same sex marriages. Period.
Bravo! In addition to being personally pleased with the decision itself, it gives me comfort to think that the armed services charged with defending me are far sighted enough to have a plan in place, ready to be enacted at the moment it needs to be enacted.
Certainly there have been problems associated with our military, but so many of them (channeling tw) can be traced to their political leaders' (top management) poor decisions (/tw). This is a political/legal decision too, but an unambiguous one easily understood. They understood what could have happened, learned what did happen, and took action accordingly.
Jesus H. Christ! If we can extend benefits to married men and women, why should there be any problems in extending them to men and women married to men and women?! This is why the military can extend benefits the next day. We are not inclined to play around with the bullshite. If you are married, you are married. Lets move on to the important matters.
Here is another consequence of D.O.M.A. that may eventually alleviated by the USSC decision...
NY Times
ERICA GOODE
July 2, 2013
Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage May Help Resolve Status of Divorce
Adam Cardinal’s wedded life began happily
in New Hampshire, where same-sex marriages are legal.
It went sour three years later in Florida, where they are not.
Mr. Cardinal, who lives in Fort Lauderdale, separated from his husband several months ago.
But the couple cannot get a divorce because, in the eyes of Florida officials, their marriage does not exist.
Returning to New Hampshire to sever the bond is not an option either.
Although marrying can be accomplished with a brief visit there,
a divorce requires residency in the state for at least a year.
Mr. Cardinal cannot remarry — to do so would make him a bigamist in states
like Massachusetts or New York that recognize his previous nuptials.
And although he and his husband did not combine their assets,
the lack of an official document certifying the end of their marriage carries financial risks.
“I didn’t realize this could potentially be an issue, that we couldn’t divorce
when we wanted to,” Mr. Cardinal said. “That was really upsetting.”
<snip>
The article goes on to point out other issues and problems caused
by differences in State laws, and which will be hard to resolve as
long as the USSC tries to proclaim their "separate but equal" ruling.
.
But in Florida it's easy for Mr. Cardinal to obtain a cheap handgun, or swarthy contractor. ;)
One of the next episodes in this USSC-foisted myth of "separate but equal" .
Washington Post
Juliet Eilperin
July 9, 2013
Gay couples to sue for the right to marry in Pennsylvania
The ACLU is representing 23 plaintiffs –10 gay couples, two children of one of the couples,
and the surviving widow of a same-sex couple that was together for 29 years
— in a lawsuit it will file Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa.
James Esseks, who directs the*ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project,
said the group hopes to secure the right for gay couples to marry in Pennsylvania,
force the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere
and ratchet up the legal pressure on the Supreme Court to ultimately rule
on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal across the nation.<snip>
“The issue is getting back to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Esseks said,
noting that there are more than half-a-dozen other legal challenges to
same-sex marriage bans already pending in federal court.
“Pennsylvania recognizes straight people’s marriages from Maine and New York,
but it doesn’t recognize gay people’s marriages from Maine and New York. The question is, why?”
But this flurry of lawsuits is also aimed at winning over the American public to the idea
of expanding gay marriage nationwide, by highlighting the stories of
committed same-sex couples who are not recognized by the state.
Helena Miller and Dara Raspberry met in Brooklyn in 2006 and got
legally married in Connecticut in 2010, because at the time New York
did not allow same-sex marriage. They moved to Philadelphia in the fall of 2011,
in part to be closer to Miller’s family as they prepared to have children of their own.
“We have a wonderful family and we get wonderful support
from our family and friends,” Miller said in an interview.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]“Unfortunately by moving to Pennsylvania, we effectively became unmarried.”[/COLOR]
<snip>
NY Times
JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: July 9, 2013
Effects of Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage Start Rippling Out Through Government
<snip>In recent days, officials from all three branches of government have notified
their workers of the expanded eligibility standards for spousal benefits.
<snip>
But with the Supreme Court having the final say in the matter,
the House had few options but to notify all 435 representatives
and their staff members in all 50 states that they have 60 days to enroll
their same-sex spouses in an array of benefits like vision, dental, long-term care and survivors’ annuities.
“I’m pleased that they’re proceeding, but I don’t think they had a choice,”
said Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island, who is one of the seven openly gay, lesbian or bisexual members of Congress.
“I think people expect that once the court has spoken,
even though they might disagree with the particular decision,
it is the law of the land. And it’s our responsibility,
especially those in government, to honor and follow the law.”
<snip>
The Senate and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
have also sent out advisories in recent days pointing to a directive issued
by the Office of Personnel Management, the executive branch’s human resources division,
affirming the rights of same-sex couples to receive federal benefits, regardless of their state of residency.
BUT... don't be complacent that all is well about employment...
The only movement will come from the Senate,
where on Wednesday the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
is expected to approve a bill that would extend to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people
the federal employment protections against discrimination that are currently available
to people based on characteristics like race and religion.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace
based on sexual orientation; 29 states also do not have such a law.[/COLOR]
There are still questions about which State government
would be issuing the sam-sex marriage license,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]the military may again be leading the way for
a final USSC decision to reach ttrue nation-wide equality.
[/COLOR]
KFOX14.com
Genevieve Curtis
7/8/2013
Same Sex marriages could be performed on Fort Bliss
FORT BLISS, Texas —
In the future, gay soldiers may be able to get married on post after
the Supreme Court's historic decision to repeal most of the
Defense of Marriage Act last month, Fort Bliss authorities said.
The decision would mean that a military Chaplin, employed by the federal government
and working on a federal installation would have no grounds to deny same sex couples a marriage.
<snip>
Fort Bliss Spokesperson Maj. Joe Buccino said it is something the
Department of Defense is working on, whether a federally funded entity
can offer marriages in a chapel, performed by a military Chaplin.
The answer might very well be, yes.
Buccino said they know one of the requirements would be that
at least one of the members of the couple be a solider.
No date has been set for when same-sex marriages could start on posts,
but it will likely take at least 90 days.
<snip>
"If Texas, doesn't allow it, I think Fort Bliss should," said Sargent Jason Garcia.
"I think it's important that all people are treated fairly and all soldiers are treated fairly.
I know that the army is working very hard to make sure that happens in a variety of way[s].
So its progress and were always happy to see progress 


Civilian clergy are licensed by the state to perform a civil ceremony along with the ceremony of their faith, and file the proper paperwork with the state.
Do military clergy have the same arrangement with civil authorities?
The Bill for Federal protection in the workplace for gays, lesbians,
bisexuals and transgender [COLOR="DarkRed"]passed out of Committee today[/COLOR] !
The vote was bipartisan 15 to 7, with 4 Republicans.
...Hatch (UT), Murkowski (AK), Kirk (IL) voting in favor
The Bill is co-sponsored by Susan Collins (R-ME)
See my
earlier post today, and a
more recent article in the NY Times.
This Bill was originally introduced in the Senate in 2007.
Who can say the Senate is not a deliberative body. :rolleyes:
Back to the PA lawsuit (
as posted above) ...
Philly.com
REGINA MEDINA
July 10, 2013
Kane won't defend Pa. in gay-marriage suit, sources say
Attorney General Kathleen Kane is expected to announce Thursday that
her office won't defend the state in a federal lawsuit
that challenges Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage,
the Daily News has learned.
<snip>
Pennsylvania is the sole state in the Northeast without same-sex marriage or a civil-union statute.
But as in California's Prop 8, a third party could step forward to defend the lawsuit;
however, the USSC effectively ruled against them, based on a technicality of "standing"
This is a major milestone... that started with the military.
National Public Radio
Eyder Peralta
8/19/13
3835
IRS Will Recognize All Legal Same-Sex Marriages
The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced
on Thursday that when it comes to federal tax purposes, same-sex couples
who have legally married will be treated the same as straight married couples,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]no matter what state they reside in now.[/COLOR]
The move is one in a series from the Obama administration to come in compliance
with a Supreme Court decision invalidating a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
"Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing
guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide,"
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a statement.
"It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections
under federal tax law that all Americans deserve. [COLOR="DarkRed"]This ruling also assures
legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country
knowing that their federal filing status will not change."[/COLOR]
The IRS says couples can begin filing taxes as married in 2013,
and generally, same-sex couples could file amended returns for 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Talking heads are now saying that for people in states that do not recognize same sex marriages,
"it pays for people to travel to a state that does recognize same sex marriages to be married".
Once again, changes within the military have been forefront in changes within civilian life.
When Jack Kennedy was running for President, he had to go to great lengths
to convince the public that as a Catholic, he would not let his personal, religious beliefs
interfere with his duties as President of the United States.
The public believed him and he was elected.
Now we have the Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christy, doing just the opposite.
Christy has publicly said he is Catholic and does not personally believe in same sex marriage,
but is doing all that he can as Governor to stall, stop, and prohibit such marriages in NJ.
The Jersey Journal
Christopher Baxter/The Star-Ledger The Star-Ledger
10/11/13
N.J. judge denies Christie administration request to delay same-sex marriage
TRENTON — A state Superior Court judge today denied the Christie administration's
request to delay same-sex marriages in New Jersey beyond Oct. 21
while it appeals the matter to the state Supreme Court, saying that such a move
would infringe on couples' rights.
But the administration quickly responded by requesting the same delay
from the state Appellate Division instead, according to the state Attorney General's Office.
It is unclear when the court will consider the motion.
The administration intends to appeal the ruling directly to the state Supreme Court
to prevent the marriages, bypassing the normal procedure through the appellate courts.
In the meantime, it had asked Jacobson to delay marriages until the appeal was decided.
Both houses of the NJ legislature previously approved a Bill to make NJ law conform with the USSC decision.
It only needed Christy's signature to take effect.
But he followed his religious beliefs and tried to make it a public referendum.
Now Christy is using the mechanisms of the State to enforce his own religious beliefs.
I don't give a fig what this Republican Governor believes personally,
but as a presumed candidate for President in 2016 he should be held
to the same "Kennedy" standard.
I think the concern with Kennedy was that as President he wouldn't be subservient to the Pope.
I have no problem with politicians fighting for what they believe in. Let the voters know what you believe in and then they can chose to vote for you and your beliefs or not.
Yes, I agree that was one of the facets in this issue ... the way it was stated in the press...
but there was a broader concern (Protestant prejudice) about what Kennedy would do as a Catholic President.
Here are some quotes from Wiki
At the 1956 Democratic National Convention, Kennedy was nominated
for Vice President on a ticket with presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson,
but finished second in the balloting to Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee.
Kennedy received national exposure from that episode;
his father thought it just as well that his son lost, due to the political debility
of his Catholicism and the strength of the Eisenhower ticket.
Kennedy visited a coal mine in West Virginia;
most miners and others in that predominantly conservative, Protestant state
were quite wary of Kennedy's Roman Catholicism.
His victory in West Virginia confirmed his broad popular appeal.
To address fears that his being Catholic would impact his decision-making,
he famously told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960,
"I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me."[48]
Kennedy questioned rhetorically whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated
to second-class citizenship just because they were Catholic, and once stated that,
"No one asked me my religion [serving the Navy] in the South Pacific."
Let's not forget what Christy recently said. He said a gay or lesbian couple is equivalent to incest. Equivalent to a brother and sister having sex. He stuck by that comment even when challenged multiple times by the press. He only back off that comment the next day when public opinion finally made it obvious he had just promoted hate.
Even the Pope does not have Christy's extremist Catholic beliefs.
Let's not forget what Christy recently said. He said a gay or lesbian couple is equivalent to incest. Equivalent to a brother and sister having sex. He stuck by that comment even when challenged multiple times by the press. He only back off that comment the next day when public opinion finally made it obvious he had just promoted hate.
Even the Pope does not have Christy's extremist Catholic beliefs.
I'd like a cite for this please. Everything I could find indicated that
Gov Corbett, not Gov Christie was the one that made that comparison, gay marriage==incest.
I'd like a cite for this please.
You are correct. My mistake. It was Corbett - Governor of PA.
Don't know why I confused the two. When Corbett said that, my first impression was that of another Santorum. The Senator who was roundly voted out of office after so many extremist religously inspired actions - including imposing himself on the family of Terry Schiavo.
I believe Corbett is also a Catholic with religious beliefs that even the Pope does not support.
I'd like a cite for this please
Christie does have his own views, and expresses them...
NY Times
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: August 14, 2013
New Jersey Court to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case
<snip>
Mr. Christie, a Roman Catholic who is considered a leading contender
for the Republican presidential nomination, has been a staunch opponent
of same-sex marriage. He vetoed the bill legalizing same-sex marriage passed
by the Legislature last year, and Democrats have been unable to win enough
Republican votes to override his veto.
In June, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Mr. Christie said that the Supreme Court made a “bad decision”
in extending federal benefits to couples in same-sex marriages,
saying it was “incredibly insulting” to overturn the 1996 law defining
marriage as between a man and a woman.[/COLOR]
Instead, Mr. Christie has argued that voters should decide the issue
of same-sex marriage in a ballot question, but Democratic legislators say that civil rights
should not be decided by referendum.
A Quinnipiac poll after the Supreme Court decision showed that
about 60 percent of New Jersey voters supported same-sex marriage.
The poll results don't matter. The issue has been decided by the USSC.
It really doesn't matter what Christie's personal opinions or beliefs may be.
He is the Governor of the State and should be giving priority to laws
of both the State of New Jersey and the U.S., as expressed by the USSC decision.
If I have to live with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,
Christie should have to live with the Court's decision on DOM.
I'm not in agreement with Glatt's idea that by declaring their religion before election,
that after their election the candidate can set about modifying the government
to conform with the belief's of that religion based on their personal views.
I didn't quite say that, but I suppose it's close enough. You don't agree that it should be that way, or you don't agree it is that way?
Because it's been that way forever, in virtually every election in history.
Both... and I apologize if I overstated or misinterpreted.
Officials in state governments are usually working their way up through elected offices.
They tend to think only about the "will of the people" and being "popular".
Some never get the point that it's their job to protect the minority.
Civil Rights are special areas of the law, and not the purview of a "majority".
Remember the US Army being called out so 9 kids in Arkansas could
go to a school blocked by a perfervid Governor.
Instead, Mr. Christie has argued that voters should decide the issue
of same-sex marriage in a ballot question,
This point is specifically cited as an example of Christie's (Governor NJ) political genius.
Corbett (Governor PA) has repeatedly demonstrated incompetence. It is not just his obvious gaffs with gay marriage. He even foolishly all but blamed Paterno for pedophilia in Penn State. Was PA District Attorney General when investigators had Sandusky on tape soliciting sex from kids. Knew of it and did nothing. To apparently enrich frackers (and resulting political contributions), he successfully set their payments to the state at 1/5th that of other states (while PA is so sort of cash as to close bridges all over the state that cannot be fixed - no money). His benchmark legislation was to eliminate state stores (liquor in PA is sold only by the state for great profit and lower taxes). Even both houses of the PA Congress are dominated by his party. And he cannot even get that legislation moved into law.
He does not even know how to oppose gay marriage without promoting hate. Why would anyone have voted this man in office? Apparently god knows. Another example of why politicians who promote their religion on all others is, well, incompetent.
Meanwhile, Christie successfully deflected criticism on this issue to elsewhere (see above quote). A wonderful political move praised by many NJ political observers. Does not matter what your opinions are or if you find this hate of gays acceptable. Christie has demonstrated he is a master of politics.
Paragraphs rearranged for readibility
The Oregonian
Harry Esteve
10/17/13
Same-sex couples gain rights in Oregon -- if they were legally wed out of state
<snip>Deputy Attorney General Mary Williams wrote that Oregon’s constitutional prohibition
on same-sex marriage [COLOR="DarkRed"]“would likely be construed as also prohibiting recognition
of out-of-state same-sex marriages.” However, she added,
“such a construction would likely violate the federal constitution.”[/COLOR]<snip>
As news traveled of Oregon’s new policy to recognize legal same-sex marriages from out of state,
local reaction among gays and lesbians was muted and mixed Thursday.
“It’s almost ridiculous,” said Ben West of North Portland, who recently had a “commitment ceremony”
with his partner, Paul Rummell, but can’t legally marry here.
“I’m from Oregon and Oregon’s my home. I want to marry my partner in my home.”
West was reacting to a new Oregon Department of Justice ruling that paves the way
for the state to recognize valid, out-of-state same-sex marriages, even
as the state constitution bans any marriage other than between a man and a woman.
<snip>
Over 100,000 signatures have been gathered to change the Oregon Constitution on same-sex marriages.
At least 160,000 valid signatures are needed to place it on the 2014 ballot.
This is important
...and although it may only be a procedural vote to begin debate, maybe...
NY Times
By JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: November 4, 2013
Bill Advances To Outlaw Discrimination Against Gays
WASHINGTON — A measure that would outlaw workplace discrimination
based on sexual orientation and gender identity overcame a significant obstacle
in the Senate on Monday [COLOR="DarkRed"]as seven Republicans crossed party lines[/COLOR]
and voted to begin debate on the bill.
[ Some amendments will probably be added to exempt various kinds of religious organizations, etc. ]
The [COLOR="DarkRed"]61-30 vote[/COLOR] marks the first time since 1996 that the full Senate
will consider a measure to extend federal nondiscrimination law
to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people — a stark reminder, supporters said,
that as the public has come around to accepting gay rights, Congress has been slow to keep pace.
It is also the first time that either house of Congress has voted on
a nondiscrimination bill that [COLOR="DarkRed"]includes transgender people[/COLOR].<snip>
Federal law already protects people from discrimination at work
because of race, religion and a number of other factors.
But it remains legal in most states to fire or refuse to hire people
because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
Just 21 states and the District of Columbia offer such protections.
Huffington Post
11/04/2013
[COLOR="DarkRed"]John Boehner Opposes ENDA, Dealing Blow To Bill's Chances[/COLOR]
E'nuf said about the GOP leadership.
I'm sort of proud of this thread.
It started back when President Obama was overcoming his personal feelings,
and over-riding Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and some others,
to result in the repeal of DADT.
Now look where it has achieved... in Utah, no less
... all based on the "Due Process" Section of the 14th Amendment
Utah’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, judge rules
[COLOR="Red"]A federal judge on Friday ruled[/COLOR] Utah’s [COLOR="Red"]same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional[/COLOR]
in a state dominated by the Mormon Church, one of the country’s staunchest opponents of gay marriage.
[QUOTE]
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
[COLOR="Red"]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]
The State will undoubtedly appeal to the US Supreme Court.
We have to wait, but I believe this is a monumental event set in motion...
.
The Supreme Court has finally(?) agreed to deal with these situations,
but the legal maneuvering continues at the State level.
Remember that judge, Roy Moore, who refused to remove the 10 Commandments
from the State's (courthouse) building ? He is still trying to be a player.
TimesDaily.com - February 3, 2015
Court denies state's request for stay on same-sex marriages; Strange appeals
Alabama’s request for a hold on a ruling that struck down the state’s two bans
on same-sex marriage has been denied by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Following that ruling, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange asked the U.S. Supreme Court
to stay the Jan. 23 U.S. District Court ruling striking down Alabama’s same-sex marriage bans.
<snip>
Alabama had asked the 11th Circuit appeals court to keep the decision on hold
since the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue of gay marriage later this year.
State lawyers urged the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta to stay
a judge’s decision overturning Alabama’s two bans on gay marriage.
They suggested there would be continued disputes over the legal status
of marriages even though a judge ruled the bans unconstitutional.
“Absent a stay, any same-sex marriages that are recognized by any official in Alabama
will be subject to dispute and challenge,” lawyers for the Alabama attorney general’s office wrote.
“A stay ensures that people in Alabama, including the plaintiffs, do not have to worry about
the undoing of same-sex marriages or adoptions after the U.S. Supreme Court rules this June,” state lawyers wrote.
State lawyers noted the conflicting statements handed down about issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
The Alabama Probate Judges Association initially said [federal Judge] Granade’s decision did not bind
judges to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. The group reversed course after
Granade issued a clarification order and said the decision applies to them.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said last week that Alabama courts are not bound by Granade’s order.
[COLOR="Red"]The Southern Poverty Law Center has filed a judicial ethics complaint over Moore’s remarks[/COLOR],
likening it to his refusal a decade ago to obey a court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument
from the state judicial building.
It's pretty clear to me.
Roy Stewart Moore (born February 11, 1947) is an American judge and Republican politician and the current Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Alabama is the highest court in the state of Alabama. The court consists of an elected Chief Justice and eight elected Associate Justices.
Politics trumps legal ethics every time. :(
And the dance goes go...
Many Ala. counties refuse to issue gay-marriage licenses
USA Today - 2/9/15
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — On a day where sadness, confusion and joy blended,
same-sex couples went to get marriage licenses Monday
after the [COLOR="Red"]U.S. Supreme Court denied Alabama's request to stop them.[/COLOR]
Some were successful. Others found themselves caught in a legal fight
[COLOR="Red"]between the federal courts and Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore[/COLOR],
who ordered probate judges Sunday not to issue licenses in defiance
of a federal judge's ruling that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriages.
Judge Alan King of Jefferson County Probate Court in Birmingham issued the first license to two women,
making Alabama the 37th state where gays legally can wed.
He then proceeded to issue several more licenses.
<snip>
[ATTACH]50335[/ATTACH]
Same day, same decisions as above, but a whole new dance !
This shows that there may be some / a few intelligent probate judges in Alabama.
On one hand they have their Supreme Court judge telling them to NOT issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages.
On the other, they have the US Supreme Court telling them they are required to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
Hmmm... Is a puzzlement !
So what are some Alabama judges doing ?
They are NOT ISSUING ANY marriage licenses at all.
...No "homo sex" ... No "hetero sex" ... Equal opportunities for all !
Sounds like something teachers or parents would do when there was a dispute among us kids.
36 out of 66 treating everyone equally (one way or the other) in just one day ain't bad...
Despite resistance, Alabama heads the right way on same-sex marriage
Washington Post - Editorial Board - 2/10/15
Reporters Mike Cason, Erin Edgemon and Debbie Lord contributed to this story.
ROY MOORE, Alabama’s top judge, threw a fit this week over a federal court decision
ordering the state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The result was unnecessary and counterproductive statewide confusion
as gay and lesbian couples attempted to wed and state officials weighed
whether they should listen to Alabama’s chief justice or the federal judiciary.
There can be no question about who wins. Neither state nor federal officials can
sustain Justice Moore’s lawless exhortations to ignore the federal bench.
We trust that Alabama’s leaders, starting with the probate judges responsible
for issuing marriage licenses, will bring the state into compliance with the court’s ruling.
The number of probate judges refusing to comply dropped Tuesday.
If that trend does not continue, state or federal authorities should step in more strongly.
[ATTACH]50361[/ATTACH]
Red = not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
green = issuing licenses to all couples
yellow = not issuing any marriage licenses
orange are only accepting applications, but issuing no licenses
As expected, the federal judge ruled against AL Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore's directive to probate judges.
The numbers are now to 49 out of 66 probate judges treating all couples equally
... but in 26 of the 49, there's going to be some unhappy straights
NY Times - CAMPBELL ROBERTSONFEB. 12, 2015
U.S. Orders Alabama to License Gay Unions
MOBILE, Ala. — A federal judge here ruled on Thursday that the local probate judge cannot refuse
to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, potentially adding some clarity to a judicial quarrel
that has roiled Alabama for most of a week.
The ruling on Thursday was the first in this case with a probate judge as a defendant
— Judge Don Davis of Mobile County —
and was seen by lawyers for the gay couples who brought the case as a clear signal
to probate judges around the state what their duties were.
In a relatively straightforward order, Judge Granade restated her finding that the state’s ban
on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and concluded that if the couples before her
“take all steps that are required in the normal course of business as a prerequisite to issuing
a marriage license to opposite-sex couples, Judge Davis may not deny them a license
on the ground that plaintiffs constitute same-sex couples.”
Judge Davis almost immediately began issuing licenses to same-sex couples,
but it was unclear whether other probate judges would follow suit.
As of noon on Thursday, judges in 23 Alabama counties were issuing licenses to all couples,
in 18 counties to straight couples only and in 26 to no couples at all,
according to a tally kept by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.
Judge tangled up over tying the knot
Washington Post - Monica Hesse - February 14
Finally, an article that's a joy to read.
It ends with:
...
You just tell me — are we on or off?” Chambers asked.
Would they still be issuing licenses the next day?
Or did this development mean they should stop again?
Martin stopped flipping pages.
He gathered them back in a pile and shook his head.
The world was changing. What was the right thing to do?
“We’ll figure it out in the morning,” he said.
I started reading this one expecting a rant from a rebellious Alabama judge.
But by the time I got to the end, I appreciated this man's character and faith.
It strengthened my belief we are coming to the end of this struggle in American life, and
despite a lot of remaining disagreements among people, things will eventually turn out right.
.
Wouldn't have all this confusion if George Wallace was still around to guide them through storm tossed waters.
On Thursday, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed into law a religious objections bill
that some business leaders have opposed amid concern it could allow discrimination against homosexuals.
Pence, a Republican, backed the bill as it moved through the Legislature
and spoke at a statehouse rally last month that drew hundreds of supporters of the proposal.
The governor signed the bill in a private ceremony.
There is a back-lash a-brewing….
Salesforce CEO Says Company Is ‘Canceling All Programs’ In Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Fears
CBS SF Bay Area - March 26, 2015
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff says he doesn’t want his employees subjected to discrimination
as part of their work for the San Francisco-based company, and he is cancelling all required travel
to the state of Indiana following the signing of a religious freedom law that some say
allows business to exclude gay customers.
Salesforce is a 16-year-old cloud computing company headquartered in San Francisco.
Benioff, the firm’s founder, has a history of local philanthropy including
spending $100 million of his personal fortune for a new UCSF Children’s Hospital
and another $100 million for Oakland Children’s Hospital.
This article goes on to discuss quite a few more implications of this bill, including:
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) warned that the legislation was causing
them to reconsider plans to hold their 6,000-person General Assembly in Indianapolis in 2017.
...
NCAA men’s Final Four games at Lucas Oil Stadium in downtown Indianapolis
...
The Indianapolis chamber of commerce and Columbus-based engine maker Cummins Inc.
are among business groups which have opposed the bill on the grounds that
it could make it more difficult to attract top companies and employees.
Although that last paragraph is damning by faint praise
... the issue is discrimination, nothing else.
Good on you, Marc Benioff !
[COLOR="Silver"]Salesforce CEO [/COLOR]Marc Benioff[COLOR="Silver"] says he doesn’t want his employees subjected to discrimination
as part of their work for the[/COLOR] San Francisco-based[COLOR="Silver"] company, and he is cancelling all required travel
to the state of Indiana following the signing of a religious freedom law that some say
allows business to exclude gay customers.
Salesforce is a 16-year-old cloud computing company headquartered in San Francisco.
Benioff, the firm’s founder, has [/COLOR]a history of[COLOR="silver"] local philanthropy including
spending [/COLOR]$100 million [COLOR="silver"]of his personal fortune [/COLOR]for a new UCSF Children’s Hospital
[COLOR="silver"]and another [/COLOR]$100 million for Oakland Children’s Hospital.
Hmm... must be a pedophile. :p:
Hmm... must be a pedophile. :p:
Hmm... maybe SF's CEO's are just more astute than elsewhere.
What's the sense of building shareholder value if you're just going to piss it away on kids. :p:
There is a back-lash a-brewing….
<snip>
Here are a few of the backlash comments of today 3/30/15:
Angie's List Cancels $40 Million 1000 Jobs Indiana Expansion Over Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Law
Emanuel goes on Indiana job raid over anti-gay law
Apple CEO Tim Cook pens op-ed blasting Indiana's 'anti-gay' law
NBA, Pacers speak out about Indiana's controversial religious freedom law
NCAA President Concerned With Indiana Law
PayPal co-founder urges tech CEOs to be wary of Indiana
Bay Area businesses strike out against Indiana law
So how did the Indiana GOP legislators react ?
Indiana GOP Leaders Shocked Their 'Religious Freedom' Law Is Seen As Anti-Gay
Huffington Post - 3/30/15
WASHINGTON -- Indiana's Republican leaders said they were shocked, confused
and completely caught off-guard by the backlash to their new "religious freedom" law,
telling reporters Monday that they had not expected criticism calling the measure anti-gay.
Sure, I believe that... NOT.
There were also people in Indiana warning of the consequences
before the legislation became law. Even Indianapolis' Republican mayor said
it would send the "wrong signal" for the state.
Gen Con, which has been called the largest gaming convention in the country,
also threatened to stop holding its event in Indiana if RFRA became law.
Indiana's GOP Gov Pense, whose political career confirms the validity of the Peter Principal,
says the RFRL does not discriminate against anyone.
It is just to protect "religious freedom for Hoosiers" ... against "government actions"
Thus,...
With a license to do business in Indiana AND religious freedom, if the owner
believes
gays do evil things, and is allowed to decide to not do business with them.
But...
When a gay couple brings a law suit in federal court... and wins,
the enforcement of that judgement now becomes a "government action"
Thus...
In passing "RFRL" laws states find a way to circumvent federal laws against discrimination.
And "Hobby Lobby" spreads to Les Schwabb Tires and ComCast and ...
There is a backlash a-brewing….
Salesforce CEO Says Company Is ‘Canceling All Programs’ In Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Fears
CBS SF Bay Area - March 26, 2015<snip>
With the apparent success of the backlash against the GOP's RFRL's in Indiana and Arkansas, I guess I'm never satisfied.
I'm glad to see the many big corporations investing their power and PR in opposing these laws,
but also I'm sadden to feel the GOP politicians only responded to the corporations.
I see nothing to suggest they responded to the individuals marching in protest.
These corporations deserve a thank-you for their participation,
but it's really each individual who deserves applause because
it is in their own future self interest to block the bigotry behind these laws.
.
A presidential campaign flash-in-the-pan, or Jindal is a Mike Pence wannabee, or the next "wedge issue" for GOP proselytizing ?
Bobby Jindal signs 'religious freedom' order protecting same-sex marriage opponents
Eric Bradner
CNN - May 20, 2015
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issued new protections for businesses that
refuse to serve same-sex marriages, embracing the "religious freedom" cause
dear to conservative Christians even though it's stung other Republican politicians.
Jindal, a prospect for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination,
issued an executive order on Tuesday after saying he was disappointed
that a Statehouse committee had earlier in the day voted down a bill that
would have accomplished the same goal.
That panel's concern: that Louisiana would look much like Indiana,
where concerns that a new "religious freedom" law would lead to discrimination
against gays and lesbians triggered such a massive business backlash that
it effectively ended the presidential prospects of another dark horse 2016 contender, GOP Gov. Mike Pence.
...
New Orleans business and tourism industry leaders had expressed many of the same concerns
that companies like Apple, Walmart, Salesforce, Angie's List and Yelp had about
the Indiana and Arkansas measures, saying it could alienate some visitors and cost convention business.
What good is it to have a Governor that lowers your business tax to nothing if he also kills your business income.
The GOP has gone berserk...
We are not going to allow you [ life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness ] because...
I sincerely believe you should not have a wedding cake
I sincerely believe you should not have a marriage license
I sincerely believe you should not be married
I sincerely believe you should not use birth control
I sincerely believe you should not have an abortion
I sincerely believe you should not adopt a child
I sincerely believe you should not have a job
I sincerely believe you should not live next to me
I sincerely believe you should not...
North Carolina Allows Officials to Refuse to Perform Gay Marriages
NY Times - JONATHAN M. KATZJUNE - 11, 2015
DURHAM, N.C. — Defying the governor, lawmakers on Thursday enacted a law
that allows state court officials to refuse to perform a marriage if they have
a “sincerely held religious objection,” a measure aimed at curtailing same-sex unions.
…
In another move criticized by supporters of same-sex marriage,
Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, a Republican, on Thursday signed a law
allowing private agencies with state contracts to refuse
to make adoption referrals that violate their religious beliefs.
Supporters said the law codified existing practice in Michigan, but critics said
it would allow discrimination against not just same-sex couples,
but also religious minorities, single parents and others.
I sincerely believe you should not post that tripe.
Cake in this case, not tripe. 19 May 2015.
Even when laws are in place, they are still contested.
From the BBC, link for the full article and relevant credits.
A judge has ruled that a Christian-run bakery discriminated against a gay customer by refusing to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan.
Ashers Baking Company, based in County Antrim, was taken to court by gay rights activist Gareth Lee.
A Belfast judge said, as a business, Ashers was not exempt from discrimination law.
The firm's general manager said they were "extremely disappointed" by the ruling and are considering an appeal.
Damages of £500 were agreed in advance by legal teams on both sides of the dispute.
A lawyer for Mr Lee said the money would be donated to charity.
I sincerely believe you should not post that tripe.
A little too much honesty is hurtful?
Oh Tommy, please don't start with me. It never ends well ... for you.
So honesty does hurt .... extremists.
[SIZE="6"]WOW ! JUNE 26th 2015
IT IS NOW THE LAW OF THE LAND - ALL 50 STATES[/SIZE]
.
The next (legal) battle field may involve a smaller number of individuals,
but numbers cannot the issue when it comes to Civil Rights discrimination.
Today is an important day at the federal level for transgender children...
For Transgender Americans, Legal Battles Over Restrooms
NY Times - THE EDITORIAL BOARD - JULY 27, 2015
On Monday, Judge Robert Doumar of Federal District Court in Virginia is scheduled to consider
whether the school board’s decision to prohibit Gavin from using the male restroom is unlawful discrimination.
The case addresses one of the main unresolved battles in the fight for transgender equality.
A favorable decision for the student would be the first time a federal court
has ruled that refusing transgender students access to proper restrooms is discriminatory.
Any other outcome would reinforce cruel policies that deny dignity to some
of the most vulnerable students and subject them to more bullying and stigmatization.
Here is some text from the legal Complaint of a 6th grader, which I've edited for easier reading...
Plaintiff is a transgender student who started the sixth grade at Wilson Middle School
in Wyandotte on or about December 4, 2012 ...
Plaintiff alleges that Wyandotte denied him the treatment and benefits afforded to
other male students and that he was subjected to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment
in violation of Title IX, Title IV, and the Equal Protection Clause.
In particular, Plaintiff alleges that although his mother asked the school
to allow him to use the boys’ restroom, school personnel refused,
requiring him instead to use “the staff ladies’ room” or a unisex restroom,
which was frequently closed and not accessible.
As a result, a male classmate who spotted Plaintiff leaving the women’s restroom
laughed at him, called him a “fag,” and asked, “Do you need a tampon sweetie?”
When Plaintiff’s mother complained to a school employee about this event,
the employee dismissed it as Plaintiff “being overly sensitive.”
Later, this same classmate approached Plaintiff off school grounds and threatened,
“You better run fag. Are you scared? I’ll rape you straight,” causing Plaintiff to run away
so fast he fell, fracturing his elbow and hitting his ear and face.
Plaintiff further alleges that school personnel addressed him as “Olivia,”
his name assigned at birth, and referred to him using female pronouns despite his
consistent presentation of his male gender identity and his mother’s requests
that he be addressed using his preferred name and male pronouns.
In addition, Plaintiff alleges that school personnel, including the school principal and
special education director, “outed” Plaintiff as transgender to students and parents
of students who interacted with Plaintiff by referring to him as a female.
Consequently, some of these parents refused to allow their children to interact with Plaintiff.
<snip>
It has been a long time since I have been so disgusted with a person I don’t know, except thru news sources.
… maybe it’s the use of the phrase: “he/she sincerely believes...”
If Wikipedia is correct, this person sincerely believes marriage is between one man and one woman… at a time,
and she sincerely believes her beliefs supersede the law and/or beliefs of others,
but these beliefs apparently do not include with the concepts of “adultery” or “nepotism”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_%28county_clerk%29
Davis has been married four times to three different husbands.
The first three marriages ended in divorces in 1994, 2006, and 2008.
Her second and fourth husbands are the same [Joe Davis]
She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband in 1994.
Her third husband [Thomas Dale McnIntyre Jr. ] is the biological father of her twins,
who were adopted by her second husband, Joe, who is also her fourth, and current husband.[26]
Joe supports her stance against same-sex marriage.[25]
One of her twin sons, Nathan, works in her office as a deputy clerk and has taken
the same position to deny marriage certificates to same-sex couples.[39]
I sincerely believe this Judge did the proper thing by sentencing her to jail for Contempt of Court.
Kim Davis - Kentucky Clerk of CourtIf she plays her cards right, she can a fortune from idiots who see her as a martyr for the cause, just like the ones that refused to feed a gay wedding. :rolleyes:
but these beliefs apparently do not include with the concepts of “adultery” or “nepotism”.
So you're saying she's a hypocrite?
I hate to defend this woman in any way, but she's a born again Christian. Born again Christians generally think they get a do-over after they are born again. That's the whole point. She had three failed marriages and then was born again. Since then, she has had just one marriage. I see nothing internally inconsistent with her beliefs. She's applying the same rules to everything since she was born again in 2011. I don't think she's a hypocrite.
Maybe we should focus on her behavior as an elected official instead? You know, where she's not doing her damn job and instead applying her personal beliefs as if they were the law of the land? Violating a court order? Contempt of court? Stuff like that? Plenty of reason to criticize her for that without getting personal about it.
It is disappointing to see that she's a Democrat though. I'd like to think the Democrats are better than that.
...but she's a born again Christian...
So you're saying she's a hypocrite?
I expected someone would put forth such that thought.
and No, Glatt, I'm definitely not saying she is a hypocrite.
We do not live in a theocracy where the religion [beliefs] of officials
allows them to pick and choose how they will conduct government business,
either according to the law and/or demands of an appropriate Court,
or the whim of their current belief or to select the laws they agree with,
or are specifically to their family's benefit.
But with respect to her behavior as a "born again Christian",
one interpretation might be that with respect to refusing to issue legal marriage licenses,
she is bearing false witness against her neighbors,
in her belief that they may
- in the future - commit a sin - not a crime - but what she believes is a sin.
She does not know these couples personally, and certainly does not know what they will do/not do in the future.
She has taken an oath as a government representative whose job is, among other things,
to follow KY and US laws by granting marriage licenses to those
who are legally qualified for one.
If she can not, in good conscience perform all of the duties of her job,
she should resign, transfer, take a leave of absence, run for a different elected office, etc.
There are many options open to her. Refusing to perform her duties is not one of them.
.
No, Glatt, I'm definitely not saying she is a hypocrite.
It sure seemed that way to me. You brought up her adultery and nepotism as if they were inconsistent with what she claims to believe.
I mostly agree with you. She's a bigot who belongs in jail for as long as she refuses to follow the law or until she loses her job.
Bitch brings down $80,000/year!
Of taxpayer money!
It sure seemed that way to me. You brought up her adultery and nepotism as if they were inconsistent with what she claims to believe.
I mostly agree with you. She's a bigot who belongs in jail for as long as she refuses to follow the law or until she loses her job.
Her moral values as a government employee before
and after 2011 were what I was referencing.
That is not the same thing as being a hypocrite, which (I think) involves pretense - not moral turpitude.
However,
now her "bearing false witness" in failing to perform her lawful duties regarding
homosexual applicants for a marriage license might be considered the actions of a hypocrite.
She's applying the same rules to everything since she was born again in 2011. I don't think she's a hypocrite.
America was founded on a fundamental principle - one never imposes their religious beliefs on anyone else - ever. Anything less is anti-American.
If she cannot do her job without imposing her religion on others, then she had no business remaining in that job. I find her actions little different than banning blacks the right to vote or denying others the right to work because they might be socialists - Joe McCarthy hate. Those actions also occurred with contempt for American principles.
She is not a good persion. She deserves to be in jail. That is not even debateable - if one remembers principles upon which this country was founded.
BTW, she also ignored clear and simple court orders - and the law - without one good reason. No one ever has the right to impose their religion on anyone else. Court orders and the law are more reasons why she obviously is not a good American. Has simply imposed beliefs similar to what underpinned the KKK - hate. One should have respect for people like that.
America was founded on a fundamental principle - one never imposes their religious beliefs on anyone else - ever. Anything less is anti-American.
Nuh-huh, From their writings we know that a few of the rebels leaders were not favorable to any religious beliefs, but most of the people favored their own religion, and feared being oppressed buy a bigger, stronger group with a different religion, like in Europe. In order to get the far flung population centers to join the revolution, the rabble rousers had to assure everyone that wouldn't happen, that the nation wouldn't impose a one size fits all religion.
However, in each state, and sometimes more than one population center within a state, the people of the majority religion oppressed, and often drove out, anyone of another faith. They even passed laws prohibiting those minorities from government and even some commerce.
So the fundamental principle was, you can fuck with others, but the feds won't let anyone fuck with you.
But she's just a cunt.
The Judge "dismissed" the Contempt of Court charge against Ms Davis,
and she has been released from jail.
The Judge's stated reasoning was that "her" Assistant County Clerks were,
in fact, now issuing marriage licenses.
The oddest aspect of this is how Davis' supporters are so happy and are celebrating her release.
... as if it were some kind of victory... NOT
The next issue is what happens when she returns to her job.
She still has the option to again stop the issuing of marriage licenses,
and the Judge still has the option of again jailing her on Contempt of Court,
... but this time it might be a more severe judgement.
![Kim Davis]("http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_36/1205742/150903-kim-davis-mug-535p_2a10fb4a29fd25fb6bf13a4680f1087c.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg"){kind=link}