Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 16, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

A Victory Lap for Obamacare




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

‘Don’t Ask’: Not Quite Fa La La Just Yet

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 22, 2010
AP / Alex Brandon

By Larry Gross

According to the mainstream media and the Obama administration, it would appear that all us gay folks should don our gay apparel and go caroling from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol, thanking our elected representatives for finally giving us the right to kill and be killed without simultaneously hiding in the closet. Progress, no doubt, in the sense that any denial of our civil rights is a denial of our basic right to full citizenship—but not a cause for unalloyed celebration.

Consider that President Obama campaigned on a menu of promises to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks, and I very much doubt that most of us would have put repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” at the top of that list. Early on Congress added sexual orientation to existing federal hate crimes legislation, which was one item on the promised agenda—although another that evokes ambivalence, given the troubling civil liberties aspects of hate crime laws. Here, too, as with the military, we seem confined to saying “we’re not thrilled with the institution, but if it exists we shouldn’t be excluded.” I think it is fair to say that two other issues ranked higher on the LGBT agenda than either hate crimes or DADT: enacting the Employment Non-discrimination Act [ENDA] in its transgender-inclusive form, and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].

Bills to provide gay folks with protection against discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation have been introduced in Congress since the mid-1970s and, while the number of co-sponsors has increased, they have never approached the threshold of success. As a matter of strategy, the organizations that claim to speak for the LGBT “community,” notably the Human Rights Campaign (the civil rights group that dare not speak its name), narrowed the focus of the legislation to employment discrimination, presumably because this was viewed as less controversial (and it is supported by large numbers in opinion polls). Still, ENDA has not yet passed either house of Congress, and no one expects Speaker-to-be John Boehner to shed any tears over this issue.

Twenty-one states have enacted some version of ENDA and some of these cover housing and public accommodation, as do ordinances in over 140 cities and counties. But it remains the case that in more than half of the states in the USA, it is not illegal to fire someone or deny them housing or public accommodation on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Marriage equality has been the hottest button on the political dashboard since the Hawaii Supreme Court first pushed it in 1993. Since then, over half the states have enacted prohibitions against same-sex marriage—14 states did this in 2004 alone, an election year in which the Republican platform included a call for a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage. At the moment, five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire) and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. The California Supreme Court legalized it, but the decision was nullified by Proposition 8 in 2008, and a legal challenge in federal court is headed toward the U.S.  Supreme Court.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
During the anti-same-sex marriage hysteria of the 1990s, a large bipartisan majority in Congress passed the draconian Defense of Marriage Act, championed by such stalwarts of traditional marriage as twice-married Congressman Bob Barr, thrice-married Newt Gingrich and twice-married Bob Dole. President Clinton signed DOMA in August 1996, forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions and permitting states to decide for themselves whether to recognize same-sex unions performed in other jurisdictions. Until that point, there had been a controversy over whether states would be required to extend marriage rights to couples married in other states. The rights and responsibilities of marriage granted at the federal level, thus, do not apply to same-sex unions.

Incidentally, DOMA will create some interesting conflicts with the military’s soon-to-be nondiscriminatory status. Will a married gay couple in the military be married when they’re stationed in Connecticut but not when they’re transferred to New York? Will a surviving spouse be eligible for military benefits, yet still be denied Social Security benefits?

As we approach the midpoint of President Obama’s first term, it is true that some promises have been kept, but it’s also likely that we will now be told to be quiet and be grateful, and go back to our accustomed place at the rear of the political bus. At least, Rahm Emmanuel might have told us were he not now running for mayor of Chicago and suddenly a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage, we’re not being thrown under the bus. At the moment.

Still, the more important items on our agenda, enacting ENDA and repealing DOMA, seem no further along than they did last month, and it’s hard to believe that our “fierce advocate” (as Obama characterized himself during the campaign) will see our issues as helpful in his neo-Clintonian triangulating phase.

In the end, the solution is simple, if not immediately strategic: Sexual orientation should be added to the basic federal civil rights legislation. Pure and simple. This would obviate the need for ENDA, kill DOMA, and make DADT-type discrimination impossible. Of course, politics, like truth, is rarely pure and never simple, and we won’t get there anytime soon. But despite the excessive influence of the older, less-educated, rural and religious states (see my article on Lady Gaga), the demographic facts are on our side. It may take a while till we sing joyous, all together, but the day will come.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Conden, December 26, 2010 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

The extreme information sharing which took place after 9/11 meant that yes, army privates could find a way to get this information (and Bradley Manning had hacker friends, so special knowledge perhaps.) It is a genuine act on his part, and not a setup; the information is damaging, is important.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 26, 2010 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE (Bucky5):

“How in tarnation could a lowly Army Pfc access ANY of these records/cables/documents even if he was working in communications or cybersecurity?”
____________

Consider the possibility that Manning was purposefully allowed access **BECAUSE** his profile indicated that he might leak the information fed to him.

The embarrassing but not very damaging information “stolen” is providing useful pretexts for all manner of medieval response to heighten security and get tough on free speakers… and there may well be an item planted in those files Manning had access to that does do some serious damage wanted done, but also wanted to look accidental.

The likelihood of that being so is greatly supported by Zbigniew Brzezinski having promptly appeared on the PBS News Hour after the leaks to assure the public that the leaks were due to incompetence… not any part of any intelligence operation.

The corporate state doesn’t do anything that isn’t part of a conspiracy. That’s a fact, not a theory.

Report this

By Bucky5, December 26, 2010 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

Conden and David…. While it may appear religion ceded marriage to others, legally it’s a state-controled institution in which each state is free to define what rights, obligations and conditions must be met for a “legal” marriage. Thus, varying ages of consent in different states and vast differences in property division/distribution if an individual dies intestate (sans Will). When my paternal grandfather died without a Will, NJ law stated ALL assets went to his first-born son (my father). It made no provision for my grandfather’s second wife of 50-plus years who actually raised my father.

David ... as for the lack of separation of church and state, I’m right there with you. I live in a rural community where men fear god (and sheep fear men). After years of arguments, prayers at the start of Town Council meetings have stopped. Next effort attemping a return to the ORIGINAL, pre-Eisenhower Pledge, in which God wasn’t mentioned.

Conden ... re: Bradley Manning, etc. The whole thing is a FARCE. I come from a military family with members in every branch of service. Our family spans extremes from well-to-do with political aspirations (Annapolis)to minimum-wage, high school drop-outs who enlisted out of desperation. Regardless, what you say about the need for approval, love, etc, is true. But what concerns me far more is….

1) How in tarnation could a lowly Army Pfc access ANY of these records/cables/documents even if he was working in communications or cybersecurity? A Pfc doesn’t have clearance to get to those files—or shouldn’t. And if he had the skills to do so by hacking; that should have been recognized, cultivated and treated as a critical military asset.
2) Aren’t we innocent until proven guilty? Manning hasn’t been CHARGED with anything, much less convicted. So why is he doing hard time in solitary? By that logic, the entire Bush junta should be in jail awaiting Congressional hearings in, say, 2048.
3) Aren’t we, by law, to encourage an active, investigative and free press? How is it that the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. can publish the Pentagon Papers, break the story on Deep Throat or blow Valerie Plame’s cover while winning global acclaim and Pulitzer’s? Yet a switch in media from print to electronic, and Manning / Assange become more “WANTED” than those responsible for Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Deepwater Horizon, crashing the global economy and on and on? Manning (IF he had ANYTHING to do with any of this) and Assange should be hailed as international heroes, not vilified and treated like criminals. But…

Thus it is—and will only get worse—as 98% of Americans, lacking critical thinking skills, allow themselves to be lead like sheep to slaughter by the uber wealthy 2%, the so-called elite of our society.

Happy Boxing Day, the offical end of a most sacred Christian season. Amazing how the indoctrination of capitalism over the egalitarian ideals espoused by a democratic society starts with starry eyed infants. Surely that’s what Jesus wanted—innocent tykes tussling under a traditional pagan tree snatching at imported plastic trifles while remaining utterly ignorant the day’s ostensible significance.

Retail trumps religion. Greed trumps charity. Incarceration trumps innocence.  Minority manipulates majority. And We the People rejoice in ceding our rights to the elite so we can revel in self-subjugation and stoopidity.

Sorry for publicly lancing my highly pressurized Christmas Carbuncle, packed as it was with putrid plum pudding and pus. It just felt so good. Look forward to your ongoing words of wisdom my wise men.

Report this

By Conden, December 25, 2010 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

Bucky5, I agree with what you’ve said. It doesn’t matter what word is used, as long as everyone is equally free to choose any word they like; gay atheists should be able to be married, that word shouldn’t be seen as belonging to gay-hating churches.  You aren’t wrong about my being male. 

Unfortunately, repealing don’t ask don’t tell hasn’t stopped the military from holding gay whistleblower bradley manning under conditions that constitute torture.  Bradley Manning reportedly joined the military in order to impress his father; because he was not loved or respected unconditionally at home, but had to risk his life and enter bondage in order to make a ditch effort to win parental love that likely never materialized.  So, bravely, he fought back against the system; though it might cost him his life. 

We should remember that the highest levels of military recruitment are from states like Texas, where students, especially boys, are still regularly beaten at schools, and also often at home, long into their teen years.  This violence they are subjected to becomes ingrained inside them, along with the American exceptionalism they learn at school, the forces of religious bigotry and other dominant, hierarchical philosophies they are held under at home.  This, alongside the fact that yes, they are pushed by adults of both sexes into the idea that they aren’t good without macheesemo, primes them for the military.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 25, 2010 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment

QUOTE (Bucky5):

In the United States (at least), “marriage” is most definitely a civil construct and contract which religious institutions have been given the authority to preside over in a wedding ceremony that is accepted as a legal substitute for a purely civil service performed by a town’s mayor, justice of the peace, ship’s captain or other authorized “authority.”
____________

I believe it was the other way around. The religious institutions allowed secular authorities to perform marital ceremonies because the state had united itself with the religious institutions… each serving the other.

Whenever I attend town or county government meetings there are two religious ceremonies conducted before each meeting… two Church and State conjoined ceremonies that I do not participate in. First the board members and other citizens in attendance pray aloud to their Almighty Christian God. Then they all stand, while I remain seated, and they pledge allegiance to the flag of their God’s perpetual war waging country.

I do agree with you that the equal rights obtained are of greater import than the label used, but I’d prefer that we actually have a real separation of church and state… so we might then have an end to America’s God blessed wars of aggression.

Report this

By Bucky5, December 25, 2010 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

David and Conden—Greetings, gents (he says making a gross assumption about Conden’s gender). Conden, unless I’m misreading something, I don’t think Mr. Cyr is attacking anyone or any persuasion. However, I want to add a point of clarification to David’s quote as follows:

“But there are many couples who would prefer to be legally married, rather than be civil union joined. Atheists, on the other hand, can prefer to have a secular service with absolutely no religious connotation — prefer to be legally joined, but not “married”.”

David—I do think you’re wrong about why certain couples want “marriage” equality and it has nothing to do with religion. My partner and I have been together 21 years and legally hitched in NJ (what do ya call that… we got civilized? ... we got unionized?.... Neither is applicable as were a couple of grubby old farmers who are far from civil and don’t belong to a union, but I digress).

In the United States (at least), “marriage” is most definitely a civil construct and contract which religious institutions have been given the authority to preside over in a wedding ceremony that is accepted as a legal substitute for a purely civil service performed by a town’s mayor, justice of the peace, ship’s captain or other authorized “authority.”

The reason many gay persons insist on “marriage” equality has little or nothing to do with wanting to force religious institutes to accept LGBT people into their folds. Rather, it has to do with the rights (inheritance, tax, property, etc.) given to “married” couples, but not to unmarried couples.

Even were DOMA (and DADT, etc.)to be repealed, that would not effectively put gay couples on equal footing with heterosexual couples. Most legislation pertaining to such is worded so that rights inure to “married” persons/couples. In this context, religon has nothing to do with it, the laws are referring to a binding civil contract between two individuals ... who until today have been ASSUMED to be of opposite sexes, although nowhere is that stated in any foundational documents of the federal nor any state governments.

The most direct way to deal with this (once DOMA is repealed) is to adopt a law which is, by reference, incorporated into all federal and state laws regarding the marriage or legal union of two people, stating simply that, “The terms wedding, marriage and civil union shall be considered interchangeable and synonymous, conveying identical rights to all persons entering into such a contract, regardless of who/how the contract was entered into.”

Yeah, yeah, there’s more to it than that, but let’s not go there today. I couldn’t care less about churches, synagogues, mosques or other religious institutions. They exist specifically to exclude “outsiders” despite such behavior being contradictory to the teachings of all major religions. And I don’t care if the RC Church doesn’t want to “marry” me and my partner. All I want is access to the exact same rights and benefits granted to all other couples bound by a legal contract, regardless of what you call that contract.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, December 25, 2010 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Re: David J. Cyr, December 24 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

You State: A “civil union” is about various rights, most of which pertain to property (Note: The female was/is often considered to be property).

“Marriage” is a religious rite.

Society’s dominated by religion dominated people have associated the rite with the rights.

Response: The correlation between any semblance between the usages of a license and/or rite related to whether one wishes to refer to a union of individuals wishing to live and govern themselves, accordingly by certain terms and conditions, is enough to establish any action performed by the parties singularly, jointly, or severally as a marriage contract! And individuals may define such actions, however they may wish. But the foundation of any agreement to be rightly called a contract must have earnest consideration for equal value received, with certain reasonable rights and duties appertaining to the interactions related thereto.

But to put to rest in the minds of some, that marriage isn’t a contract, we provide without question beyond a reasonable doubt, the solution to such questions. And that is, one only has to review the jurisprudence historically governing controversies arising respective thereto. For example, Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d 871 (1947); and, Van Koten v. Van Koten (1926), 154 N.E. 146; and, Linneman v. Linneman, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953).

But what is most interesting about the Roberts case aforementioned, is the jurisprudence of the Courts of California declaring its prerogatives via the collusion (agreement/contract) of the spouses, viz..“As protector of the morals of her people it is the duty of a court of this commonwealth to prevent the dissolution of a marriage by the decree of a court of another jurisdiction pursuant to the collusion of the spouses. If by surrendering its power it evades the performance of such duty, marriage will ultimately be considered as a formal device and its dissolution freed from legal inhibitions.” 

Now that little remark above-stated about ‘Formal Device” says a mouthful contractual speaking! Can you believe it!!! The State is saying that the license individuals receive from the State, in what is termed a ‘civil contract’ possibly might not be a ‘Formal Device’ binding either party formally!

To better comprehend why a license isn’t a ‘formal device,’ one only has to understand the true meaning of the word ‘license.’ The meaning of the word comes from doing something which is wrong. Such as ‘licentious’ behavior governed by whomever. So, who is doing something wrong by acquiring or giving a license to do what is naturally right to do in the first place?

When I was a young fellow, I kept hearing about the so-called evils of individuals in relationships where there were more than two people in cohabitant relationships. These were called ‘menage a trois’ or ‘triads,’ or ‘trinogamous’ relationships. But all in all, the only real reason that such relationships consistently received disapproval, was due to the fact that they where illegal and/or unlawful in the view of the State.

One begins to wonder, if one was a reasonable individual, and wanted to avoid the dictates of whatever State over the exercise of the self-evident rights to which the Law’s of Nature and Nature’s Creator have entitled us, why not learn how to create your own ‘Formal Devices’ to avoid being subject to morale’s or deceptive practices exercised by others which limit your self-determination to create reasonable contracts to govern yourselves? Whether unilaterally, bilaterally, or multilaterally with others based upon your reasonable predilection to govern by continuing Good Will, in the interest of Universal Peace with All Walks of Life?

In support of the aforementioned, one only has to avail themselves of these facts by reading the “4” declarations posted by the SEA at the web link: http://www.scribd.com/rahyah.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 25, 2010 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

The conservative resistance to repeal of DADT is likely due to a deep dread fear that every Marine will come out of the closet… all of them.

Why do boys join the Marines? It’s because they’re seriously insecure in their sexuality. Their doubts about whether or not they can become “real men” in the eyes of America’s “normal” sociopathic society compels them to overcompensate.

The sad irony is that becoming a “killing machine” that roams about the world as a member of a heavy weapon gang, with a license to kill people in other nations either under orders or just for the fun of it, doesn’t make anyone of any sexual orientation a real man.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 25, 2010 at 2:02 am Link to this comment

QUOTE (Conden):

“Marriage is a cultural universal that existed before the religions we know of, and exists after them to; it does not belong to religious people or heterosexuals.”
____________

For life partners who don’t consider marriage to be a religious rite, their having a secular civil union in which all the same legal rights as marriage are obtained would be no different from being married. Those people would (or should) be content with a civil union. But there are many couples who would prefer to be legally married, rather than be civil union joined. Atheists, on the other hand, can prefer to have a secular service with absolutely no religious connotation — prefer to be legally joined, but not “married”.

A civil union is a practical means for life-partners to protect themselves from the state’s sometimes severe discrimination against non-married couples.

If a civil union is available that adequately addresses material needs, then a desire to still be “married” seeks an emotional fulfillment. That’s because marriage does both historically and presently have a cultural religious association that a civil union does not.

Regardless of their sexual orientation, loving couples should be able to freely choose to be legally joined in either manner. It shouldn’t be an issue for anyone to “struggle” with.

Report this

By Conden, December 24, 2010 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

Marriage is a cultural universal that existed before the religions we know of, and exists after them to; it does not belong to religious people or heterosexuals.  But if you really believe it is 100% religious, than please go after straight irreligious married people, instead of targeting GLBT folks seeking equality.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

A “civil union” is about various rights, most of which pertain to property (Note: The female was/is often considered to be property).

“Marriage” is a religious rite.

Society’s dominated by religion dominated people have associated the rite with the rights.

Report this

By Bucky5, December 24, 2010 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

David Cyr—

Question… Just scanning earlier posts and see your reference to marriage having foundations in religion. My understanding leans more toward marriages being a civil contract used to ensure property rights, inheritance and create larger/stronger empires thru strategic familial alliances. As religion became dominant, cross-empire power, it assumed responsiblity for blessing marriages, but at its core, marriage was/still is, essentially a civil contract. Just curious about your comments….

Next, gotta HOWL over how military and nation define equality. In a Q&A interview recently (maybe in Advocate, NY Times???) military HR person stated that LGBT troops, single or married, would not be put in segregated housing b/c no “special accommodations or privleges” will be made. Then same spokesmodel stated that spouses of LGBT military personnel will not be given medical or other benefits as doing so would be giving them “special benefits” not available to unmarried, co-habitating opposite-sex partners of heterosexual military members.

Wow. Talk about circular logic spinning along the event horizon of a black hole…. Maybe would SHOULD put McCain in charge of this whole mess. Even he couldn’t come up with anything more illogical or discriminatory.

Frankly, I say “they” should just confine the entire LGBT community to P’town, Manhattan, Key West, San Francisco, Palm Springs and give us one or two states to be determined by a special election. Then we can all have pink houses, lavendar sidewalks, ruby slippers, fabulous haircuts and close our borders to ignorant bigots. Fa la, la, la, la—indeed!

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 24, 2010 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

QUOTE (Conden):

“LGBT people deserve 100% equality whether each of their members joins the green party, or not.  There are many of us who are on the far left; and we shouldn’t be insulted by straight people who want to dim our political plight by bringing up some who support the democrats.”
____________

I believe all people deserve equality, whether they’re LGBT or not.

Any natural person who supports corporate party Democrats dims their own political plight… and everyone else’s too.

There’s nothing more queer in America than to be a natural person who votes, but never for any corporate person’s party candidate.

Democrats exist for the purpose of making elections serve no good purpose.

Report this
LocalHero's avatar

By LocalHero, December 23, 2010 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

Of course this is nothing to celebrate. Just more “grist for the mill” is all. More brainwashed young people sent to the Department of Defense slaughterhouse.

With all the stipulations about how, when or if this thing will be implemented though, it sure shows ya who’s in charge in this sick country.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, December 23, 2010 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

Re: Bucky5, December 23 at 11:42 pm

You State: Condon ... Thank you. I spent some time at the link Orbis suggested. Wow. SEA (Soverign Earth Alliance) espouses some idealistic notions about universal equality and freedom. That’s nice but has nothing to do with DADT nor my question about how, why or under what authority our nation’s standard, well codified legislative process was perveted vis-a-vis the additional “certifications” required after presidential approval and signing.

Response: Condon…you absolutely correct about the alliance having nothing to do with U.S. legislative policy via DADT or otherwise, not specifically related to the protocols between the high contracting party(s() aforementioned! Why? Because we know we have no Standing politically within a social compact contractually to reach a consensus one way or the other to effectuate any national policy changes and neither do you!!!!!!!

So, why prattle on about any possibility related thereto, appertaining to the aforementioned, as if such were a possibility?  Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt our premises raised in the specific documents to which you have been directed to prove otherwise!

Lastly, failure to believe these stated inferences, you do at your own peril. But what we would humbly wish for you instead, is to apprise yourselves via the material we continue to foster for exhortation, edification, and your only political salvation, which is your only reasonable choice under the circumstances, that every individually faces globally or otherwise! It has always been your choice to believe what those who would enslave you tell you to believe…or…what, with your on reasoning, tells you to be the truth of any matter via the Science of Right Reason.

In support of the aforementioned, one only has to avail themselves of these facts by reading the “4” declarations posted by the SEA at the web link: http://www.scribd.com/rahyah.

And if one chooses, they may chose to click on the web link (http://seagov.net/) found within the aforementioned earlier web link given, for further simple discussions, appertaining to the Right of Self-determination of All Walks of Life, to evolve in the interest of Universal Peace and the supporting constructs applicable thereto.

We honorably await any actual and provable evidence to prove the premises presented in-particular to the established facts raised with the declaration dealing with the Four Freedoms on pages 13-15 to prove otherwise.

My best to all who post herein, for the purpose of proposing hopeful enlightenment or garnering enlightenment, while proffering Good Will in the interest of seeking Universal Peace with All Walks of Life!

Report this

By Bucky5, December 23, 2010 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

Condon ... Thank you. I spent some time at the link Orbis suggested. Wow. SEA (Soverign Earth Alliance) espouses some idealistic notions about universal equality and freedom. That’s nice but has nothing to do with DADT nor my question about how, why or under what authority our nation’s standard, well codified legislative process was perveted vis-a-vis the additional “certifications” required after presidential approval and signing.

Why don’t we add unique requirements for passage of all legislation? (Rhetorical question…) If recent legislation extending the Bush-era tax reductions required “certification” by, oh, Paul Krugman, T. Boone Pickins, Warren Buffet and Cindy Sheehan, the tax cuts would have expired as intended—while stil giving Obama and Congress the right to say, “Hey, we tried to do the right thing, but…”

I don’t understand how an approval process that seems arbitrary and unconstitutional was attached to this one bit of legislation. I’m hoping someone can provide a serious explanation based on US law—not vague philosophical thoughts.

Report this

By Conden, December 23, 2010 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

LGBT people deserve 100% equality whether each of their members joins the green party, or not.  There are many of us who are on the far left; and we shouldn’t be insulted by straight people who want to dim our political plight by bringing up some who support the democrats.

Report this

By Conden, December 23, 2010 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Bucky5, you are right; this is not a real repeal, but one that is full of loopholes that allow the pentagon et all to drag out the (pending) process for as long as possible.

Orbis, you likely aren’t gay, and your ramblings don’t contribute to this discussion, so please stop spamming.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, December 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

Re: Bucky5, December 23 at 6:39 pm

You State: And since when did Congress get approval to add an entire series of special steps to the legislative process that brings in non-Congressional oversight?

Response: Answer…When the Constitutors created the social compact styled ‘The United States of America’ and gave up all right, and title or interest in said property, (created) without any conditions set forth (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Nos. 94-6415 & 94-6417, Apr 07, 1995) as clearly revealed in the Preamble of the U.S. Consti. per Article VI.

Wakeup, wakeup! All this prattle and pandar of Civil Rights or their violations don’t mean a hill of beans to those exercising Political Standing/Power established by the Creators/Signatories of the social compact known as the United States for The United States of America!!!!!

Lastly, failure to believe these stated inferences, you do at your own peril. But what we would humbly wish for you instead, is to apprise yourselves via the material we continue to foster for exhortation, edification, and your only political salvation, which is your only reasonable choice under the circumstances, that every individually faces globally or otherwise! It has always been your choice to believe what those who would enslave you tell you to believe…or…what, with your on reasoning, tells you to be the truth of any matter via the Science of Right Reason.

In support of the aforementioned, one only has to avail themselves of these facts by reading the “4” declarations posted by the SEA at the web link: http://www.scribd.com/rahyah.

And if one chooses, they may chose to click on the web link (http://seagov.net/) found within the aforementioned earlier web link given, for further simple discussions, appertaining to the Right of Self-determination of All Walks of Life, to evolve in the interest of Universal Peace and the supporting constructs applicable thereto.

We honorably await any actual and provable evidence to prove the premises presented in-particular to the established facts raised with the declaration dealing with the Four Freedoms on pages 13-15 to prove otherwise.

My best to all who post herein, for the purpose of proposing hopeful enlightenment or garnering enlightenment, while proffering Good Will in the interest of seeking Universal Peace with All Walks of Life!

Report this

By Bucky5, December 23, 2010 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment

Before deciding whether to don our gay apparel, blah, blah, blah ... let’s be clear the DADT HAS NOT YET BEEN REPEALED. Bottom line:

After Obama signs the bill, there is a 60-day waiting period for the military to review implementation thereof AND decide if it’s feasible. THEN the repeal of DADT has to be unanimously “certified” by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, THEN Robert Gates has to “certify” it ... then it returns to Obama for a final sign-off.

Despite some serious digging, I’ve yet to find out how or what defines “certification.” And without all these certifications, DADT will not be repealed.

Seems to me this leaves many a door open to block the repeal of DADT. Imagine McCain cornering Gates and threatening to reveal something that would demolish Gates’ career. Under such circumstances, it appears possible that Gates could withhold his certification and prevent the “signed, sealed and delivered” approvals (certifications) from ever getting back to the White House.

Can anyone shed more light on this? And since when did Congress get approval to add an entire series of special steps to the legislative process that brings in non-Congressional oversight? Happy Holidays, indeed.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, December 23, 2010 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

Re: David J. Cyr, December 23 at 4:13 pm

You State: Here’s some history, demonstrating that liberals in the LGBT community aren’t actually different from “normal” liberals:

In 2004, Jason West — a Green — in his official capacity as the elected Mayor of New Paltz, NY, direct-action civil disobediently married 25 same-sex couples.

Did the LGBT community respond by supporting the Green Party’s candidates in New York? No! Most LGBT have politically married themselves to the disingenuous Democrats… who don’t deliver on promises when they can.

Response: Like I’ve said many times before, in this or any other political system of governance where you lack Standing to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted, how can you honestly expect any simile of respect for the principles of equality or self-determination depending on the whims of party dictates which only perform as told by those exercising political Standing?

What Mr. Cyr points out emphatically supports the aforementioned premise, that what we have constantly put before the mainstream of human suffering is the need to evolve politically, beyond the systemic programming of the corporate misrepresentations foisted upon us from womb to tomb!

The absurdity of the corporate or societal governance to deny what cannot not be denied justifiably via the Science of Right Reason, is all the manifestations and proofs you need, to reasonably consider your condition. And, that you have been duped by society Role Models into subjugation against your own reasonable self-determination and equality before the Pillars of the Law of Justice for All Walks of Life.

Lastly, failure to believe these stated inferences, you do at your own peril. But what we would humbly wish for you instead, is to apprise yourselves via the material we continue to foster for exhortation, edification, and your only political salvation, which is your only reasonable choice under the circumstances, that every individually faces globally or otherwise! It has always been your choice to believe what those who would enslave you tell you to believe…or…what, with your on reasoning, tells you to be the truth of any matter via the Science of Right Reason.

In support of the aforementioned, one only has to avail themselves of these facts by reading the “4” declarations posted by the SEA at the web link: http://www.scribd.com/rahyah.

And if one chooses, they may chose to click on the web link (http://seagov.net/) found within the aforementioned earlier web link given, for further simple discussions, appertaining to the Right of Self-determination of All Walks of Life, to evolve in the interest of Universal Peace and the supporting constructs applicable thereto.

We honorably await any actual and provable evidence to prove the premises presented in-particular to the established facts raised with the declaration dealing with the Four Freedoms on pages 13-15 to prove otherwise.

My best to all who post herein, for the purpose of proposing hopeful enlightenment or garnering enlightenment, while proffering Good Will in the interest of seeking Universal Peace with All Walks of Life!

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 23, 2010 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

Obama says that he is “struggling” with the issue of same-sex marriage… something that anyone respecting rights to religious freedom wouldn’t ever need to struggle with.

Although sense cannot be made of religion, because religion is firmly based upon nonsense, the same can be said for near all legislation.

Marriage is a religious concept. If this nation has the religious freedom that it advertises, then a marriage “sanctified” or “solemnized” by any religious organization should be automatically accepted to be legal… whether different or same-sex.

Here’s some history, demonstrating that liberals in the LGBT community aren’t actually different from “normal” liberals:

In 2004, Jason West — a Green — in his official capacity as the elected Mayor of New Paltz, NY, direct-action civil disobediently married 25 same-sex couples.

Did the LGBT community respond by supporting the Green Party’s candidates in New York? No! Most LGBT have politically married themselves to the disingenuous Democrats… who don’t deliver on promises when they can.

Any Democrat perceived to be “good” is a Democrat who has successfully deceived the perceivers.

Report this

By dstelbcn, December 23, 2010 at 7:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I couldn’t agree more with your column. My own reaction was, yeah, that’s nice. see http://www.thestelly.com/2010/12/22/dont-ask-dont-tell-ho-hum-yawn/

Report this

By Candice Cameron, December 23, 2010 at 12:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Political thinking…who can explain it, who can tell you why? Fools give you
reason, wise men never try.

Some enchanted evening, people who are deemed fit to freely admit who they are
while they go off to kill and be killed will also be deemed fit to live their lives with
someone they love without apology or limitations!

Which is the more important issue? Let’s see…death; or love. I don’t know. Let’s
let Washington make the decision. Oh, that’s right. They are!

CC

Report this

By Conden, December 22, 2010 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

War is very heterosexist; based around a bunch of rich old men and women seeking to kill as many attractive young men as possible.

Report this

By Conden, December 22, 2010 at 7:53 pm Link to this comment

I am among the many gay people who want a wide path of reforms to secure equal rights - not merely the ones that the pentagon and right wing democrats find politically convenient.  We need marriage rights, ENDA, and serious social change to stem the tide of homophobia that especially GLBT youth suffer from.  Many of them end up homeless, living a miserable existence on the streets because they’ve been thrown out of their families and society on account of their sexuality.  They shouldn’t be sent to the military; they need guaranteed housing, secure living wage jobs, free healthcare, and open space in the community to express themselves.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, December 22, 2010 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment

Re: Casual Observor, December 22 at 6:15 pm.

Casually speaking, I must agree with your premise, that a good defense is to align the front-line with those eying the rewards of their efforts. Instead of the ‘Dear John Letters’ received from a such a despicable dishonorable distance!

In my book of honor, if one is in any relationship and one is required to go the distance to hopefully defend the other in whatever conflict, should never be able to legally or lawfully allowed to exit such relationships for a period of reasonable time upon the return. To cure the potential instability of any relationship! For whatever such should exist circumstantially speaking. That is, until reasonable attempts can be manifested to either resolve the relational matter, to allow for agreeable departure due from one willing to sacrifice life and limb to defend the rights of another to exist peaceably with any social order guaranteeing their right to reasonably chose their choices! Whatever they may be via Variation by Agreement and in accord with the Science of Right reason!!!!

Lastly, failure to believe these stated inferences, you do at your own peril. But what we would humbly wish for you instead, is to apprise yourselves via the material we continue to foster for exhortation, edification, and your only political salvation, which is your only reasonable choice under the circumstances, that every individually faces globally or otherwise! It has always been your choice to believe what those who would enslave you tell you to believe…or…what, with your on reasoning, tells you to be the truth of any matter via the Science of Right Reason.

In support of the aforementioned, one only has to avail themselves of these facts by reading the “4” declarations posted by the SEA at the web link: http://www.scribd.com/rahyah.

And if one chooses, they may chose to click on the web link found within the aforementioned earlier web link given, for further simple discussions, appertaining to the Right of Self-determination of All Walks of Life, to evolve in the interest of Universal Peace and the supporting constructs applicable thereto.

We honorably await any actual and provable evidence to prove the premises presented in-particular to the established facts raised with the declaration dealing with the Four Freedoms on pages 13-15 to prove otherwise.

My best to all who post herein, for the purpose of proposing hopeful enlightenment or garnering enlightenment, while proffering Good Will in the interest of seeking Universal Peace with All Walks of Life!

Report this

By Casual Observor, December 22, 2010 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Scientists and people like that say war is all homo erotical. The bestest soldiers ever was was gay Spartan guys who could whip the asses of all of Persia with just 300 of em, being gay was a requirement (It’s in the history books.)

Hell, I think we should have a must ask must tell policy. We should only let guys in the military if theys gay. Recruiters should say are you gay? Are you bi? Or are you bi curious? If the answer is yes they should sign em up with a big sign up boner… I mean bonus. Yeah, sign em up and tell em “Enjoy those showers, barracks, latrines, and whatever…

Think of it, It would be like a great big superbowl, U.S. Homos vs. Talibanny Heteros.

Report this
Orbis Unum's avatar

By Orbis Unum, December 22, 2010 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

Re: MaxShields, December 22 at 3:28 pm.

You State: Progress, no doubt, in the sense that any denial of our civil rights is a denial of our basic right to full citizenship—but not a cause for unalloyed celebration.”

Response: What you deem as Civil Rights will always rest upon the lore that you have any rights not subject to those exercising political rights. So, which would you rather have, Civil Rights or Political Rights to determine your own Self-determination via Variation of Agreement via the Science of Right Reason?

Lastly, failure to believe these stated inferences, you do at your own peril. But what we would humbly wish for you instead, is to apprise yourselves via the material we continue to foster for exhortation, edification, and your only political salvation, which is your only reasonable choice under the circumstances, that every individually faces globally or otherwise! It has always been your choice to believe what those who would enslave you tell you to believe…or…what, with your on reasoning, tells you to be the truth of any matter via the Science of Right Reason.

In support of the aforementioned, one only has to avail themselves of these facts by reading the “4” declarations posted by the SEA at the web link: http://www.scribd.com/rahyah.

And if one chooses, they may chose to click on the web link found within the aforementioned earlier web link given, for further simple discussions, appertaining to the Right of Self-determination of All Walks of Life, to evolve in the interest of Universal Peace and the supporting constructs applicable thereto.

We honorably await any actual and provable evidence to prove the premises presented in-particular to the established facts raised with the declaration dealing with the Four Freedoms on pages 13-15 to prove otherwise.

My best to all who post herein, for the purpose of proposing hopeful enlightenment or garnering enlightenment, while proffering Good Will in the interest of seeking Universal Peace with All Walks of Life!

Report this

By MaxShields, December 22, 2010 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

“According to the mainstream media and the Obama administration it would appear that all us gay folks should don our gay apparel and go caroling from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave to the capitol, thanking our elected representatives for finally giving us the right to kill and be killed without simultaneously hiding in the closet. Progress, no doubt, in the sense that any denial of our civil rights is a denial of our basic right to full citizenship—but not a cause for unalloyed celebration.”

Precisely!

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook