Obama Blocks Repeal Of DADT

[punked]

Dre good luck trying to explian to Shady how the system works he doesn't care about good goverance.

[Shady]

In an effort sure to energize his base . The Obama Administration has asked a federal court of appeals to block the overturning of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' military policy. What's even more ironic is that it was a Republican group that filed the challenge to the law, and won. And now Obama is looking to stop the court ruling.

Gov't seeks stay of 'Don't ask, don't tell' ruling

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Wednesday asked a federal appeals court to immediately suspend a judge's ruling that overturned the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

The government says it wants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco to take action on Wednesday. The federal government is preparing arguments for the appeals court on why the ruling on "don't ask, don't tell" should be suspended while the case is appealed.

Yahoo AP

If his goal was to suppress his vote before the upcoming election, well played Mr. President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnwcUkPrZLw&feature=player_embedded#!

[dre]

In an effort sure to energize his base . The Obama Administration has asked a federal court of appeals to block the overturning of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' military policy. What's even more ironic is that it was a Republican group that filed the challenge to the law, and won. And now Obama is looking to stop the court ruling.

If his goal was to suppress his vote before the upcoming election, well played Mr. President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnwcUkPrZLw&feature=player_embedded#!

I think this is just normal operating procedure. Isnt the executive supposed to defend the legality of legislation it has signed? (in addition to being a "gotcha" for partisan hacks like you)

Edited October 21, 2010 by dre

[Shady]

I think this is just normal operating procedure.

How exactly is it normal operating procedure?

Isnt the executive supposed to defend the legality of legislation it has signed?

That's complete jibberish. The law was found to be unconstitutional.

(in addition to being a "gotcha" for partisan hacks like you)

Why is it "gotcha?" This effects people's lives. And who's the real partisan hack? Me, or Obama, who champions gay rights, but then for pure political reasons tries to stop a ruling that eliminates the anti-gay policy of don't ask don't tell? Yeah, I'm the hack.

[dre]

How exactly is it normal operating procedure?

That's complete jibberish. The law was found to be unconstitutional.

Why is it "gotcha?" This effects people's lives. And who's the real partisan hack? Me, or Obama, who champions gay rights, but then for pure political reasons tries to stop a ruling that eliminates the anti-gay policy of don't ask don't tell? Yeah, I'm the hack.

How exactly is it normal operating procedure?

Its NOP because the white house almost always defends the nations laws. Even if they disagree with them.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, one of the lawyers who brought the successful challenge to Prop 8, told TIME this summer that the White House nearly always defends statutes in court, whether the President agrees with them or not. There are exceptions, he said, but they typically involve laws that the President believes are clearly unconstitutional or that infringe upon the constitutional power of the Executive Branch.

[bloodyminded]

Why is it "gotcha?" This effects people's lives. And who's the real partisan hack? Me, or Obama, who champions gay rights, but then for pure political reasons tries to stop a ruling that eliminates the anti-gay policy of don't ask don't tell? Yeah, I'm the hack.

Obama doesn't "champion gay rights." He's opposed to same-sex marriage. The US government, both major parties, including Obama, is to the political right of the general population on this issue.

[Shady]

Its NOP because the white house almost always defends the nations laws. Even if they disagree with them.

That's complete nonsense.

Dre good luck trying to explian to Shady how the system works he doesn't care about good goverance.

LOL! You're too funny punked! When Republicans block the repeal of DADT, they're supporting homophobia. When Democrats block the repeal of DADT, it's "good governance!"

So continuing discrimination based on sexual orientation is now good governance? That's priceless!

Obama doesn't "champion gay rights." He's opposed to same-sex marriage. The US government, both major parties, including Obama, is to the political right of the general population on this issue.

His statement at 3 minute mark of the video is especially apt. "And finally we're going to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. That is a promise I made as a candidate, and it's one this administration is going to keep."

Fast forward 4 months. After a Republican group challenges the law and wins. Obama seeks and obtains a stay, allowing for DADT to remain in place. Classic.

[bloodyminded]

His statement at 3 minute mark of the video is especially apt. "And finally we're going to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. That is a promise I made as a candidate, and it's one this administration is going to keep."

Fast forward 4 months. After a Republican group challenges the law and wins. Obama seeks and obtains a stay, allowing for DADT to remain in place. Classic.

I'm not disagreeing with you about this point. Not at all.

I'm saying Obama is not, and never has been, a "champion of gay rights," not even in rhetoric. He opposes gay rights.

And I said the government was to the right of the population on this issue--because the percentage of elected leaders who support same sex marriage is far lower than the percentage of the American population who support it.

It's probably improved slightly over the past two years; but as recently as early 2008, during the run-up to the primaries, there were exactly two candidates of interest (out of over twenty) who supported same sex marriage; one from each party: Paul and Kucinich. That's it.

Edited October 21, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

....And I said the government was to the right of the population on this issue--because the percentage of elected leaders who support same sex marriage is far lower than the percentage of the American population who support it.

These are two different issues....efforts to converge them are premature at best. See Defense of Marriage Act.

[bloodyminded]

These are two different issues

Yes, true enough.

....efforts to converge them are premature at best. See Defense of Marriage Act.

Premature at best...just so.

That wasn't my intent; I was only disagreeing with Shady that Obama has ever specifically acted as a "champion of gay rights." This is an observation, quite aside from my personal views on the matter.

[GostHacked]

This whole DADT policy is simply not needed. I personally don't care if part of my crew were gay ... as long as they know how to do their job and work as a team, this should not even be an issue.

Does it make a difference on the performance of the team if one is gay? Or is there a difference because of the way the rest of the team perceives the gay person?

If it's all perception, then the problem is not with the gay person.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Does it make a difference on the performance of the team if one is gay? Or is there a difference because of the way the rest of the team perceives the gay person?

If it's all perception, then the problem is not with the gay person.

That was never the legal or policy issue...the impact on military readiness, information security, and.. homosexual conduct...was deemed to be incompatible with military service. So get the votes and change the law.

[GostHacked]

That was never the legal or policy issue...the impact on military readiness, information security, and.. homosexual conduct...was deemed to be incompatible with military service. So get the votes and change the law.

Those are what I call bullsh!t issues. It no way compromises readiness, information security... the only thing would be the 'conduct' which is already covered because fraternization (even between a man and a woman) is frowned upon within the military.

Because gays have been in the military for decades. But it's only an issue in the last 10 years or so? I call bullsh!t on all of it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Those are what I call bullsh!t issues. It no way compromises readiness, information security... the only thing would be the 'conduct' which is already covered because fraternization (even between a man and a woman) is frowned upon within the military.

Because gays have been in the military for decades. But it's only an issue in the last 10 years or so? I call bullsh!t on all of it.

That's because you are too young to recall what society would do to exposed homosexuals, including blackmail. This was at the heart of information security concerns. You can call "bullshit" all you want.....you have no meaningful experience with the American UCMJ or military service. Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to serve.

When PET was working on the 1982 Canadian constitution, specific language was stricken that would have extended rights and protections for sexual orientation.

[xviolatex]

we do not acknowledge your sham political system...

[GostHacked]

That's because you are too young to recall what society would do to exposed homosexuals, including blackmail.

Ahh so it IS how others perceive the gay person. Thanks for the confirmation.

This was at the heart of information security concerns.

I bet, then you got vigilantism among the ranks, again, it's not the gay person that is the problem here. It's not a problem that he is gay and stays quiet about it,,, it;s the fact that if he says he is gay, and let's it be known the other guys want to harm him.

It's not the heteros that are afraid that the gays will turn them gay,(which is often claimed as a reason) it is meant to protect those who are gay from the rest of the group that obviously does not have a brain.

That is a sad state when you are supposed to TRUST each other.

You can call "bullshit" all you want.....you have no meaningful experience with the American UCMJ or military service. Nobody, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to serve.

No one has the right to serve? However is someone genuinely wants to serve, something should be done to facilitate that. You want a few good men. Then let them serve and serve openly.

When PET was working on the 1982 Canadian constitution, specific language was stricken that would have extended rights and protections for sexual orientation.

Another 'canada' response. Hit another nerve, because this is the only time this card comes out.

Keep it going BC, I'll still be here on MLW long after you decide to leave and one day, you are going to make that decision.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ahh so it IS how others perceive the gay person. Thanks for the confirmation.

No...not perception (which has changed drastically anyway), but actual behaviours and the ability to exploit that behaviour (historically) in the context of a dis-approving society.

I bet, then you got vigilantism among the ranks, again, it's not the gay person that is the problem here. It's not a problem that he is gay and stays quiet about it,,, it;s the fact that if he says he is gay, and let's it be known the other guys want to harm him.

Not so much, as a common method to seek early discharge is/was to openly proclaim a homosexual orientation....this became more popular than dope addiction because there was no criminal penalty unless engaged in a "homosexual" act. Remember, sodomy remains illegal in the UCMJ regardless of sexual orientation. It was always about behaviour, not orientation.

It's not the heteros that are afraid that the gays will turn them gay,(which is often claimed as a reason) it is meant to protect those who are gay from the rest of the group that obviously does not have a brain.

A minor consideration, as once so declared, separation from ranks is swift.

That is a sad state when you are supposed to TRUST each other.

But that works both ways.

No one has the right to serve? However is someone genuinely wants to serve, something should be done to facilitate that. You want a few good men. Then let them serve and serve openly.

Not my decision...there are many many excluding attributes for service....nothing special about sexual orientation save for its current cause celebre on the social agenda.

Another 'canada' response. Hit another nerve, because this is the only time this card comes out.

This is a Canadian forum...deal with it.

Keep it going BC, I'll still be here on MLW long after you decide to leave and one day, you are going to make that decision.

One can always hope....America will still always be here....you can't help yourself.

[GostHacked]

No...not perception (which has changed drastically anyway), but actual behaviours and the ability to exploit that behaviour (historically) in the context of a dis-approving society.

The actions have always been there. Why is it an issue now?

Not so much, as a common method to seek early discharge is/was to openly proclaim a homosexual orientation....this became more popular than dope addiction because there was no criminal penalty unless engaged in a "homosexual" act. Remember, sodomy remains illegal in the UCMJ regardless of sexual orientation. It was always about behaviour, not orientation.

Proclaiming you are gay was a cause for discharge? But orientation does not matter?

IF it is about behavior, then it does not matter if you are straight or gay, since orientation does not matter. If gays can abide by it, then there is no problem. But if the rest of the team suddenly changed their view on the person that now proclaims themselves to be gay, then it is simply not the gay person's fault. If he was an effective and valued member of the team, he will continue to do so regardless of what others think. Again, this is why I say it's the others who have changed their perception of the gay person.

But that works both ways.

It does. IF you trust your squad, and they trust you, being gay won't matter one bit.

Not my decision...there are many many excluding attributes for service....nothing special about sexual orientation save for its current cause celebre on the social agenda.

No of course nothing is your decision. You seem to be unable to make a decision.

This is a Canadian forum...deal with it.

And this section is American Politics. But then you will trot out .. 'ya but hosted in TEXAS LOLOLOL'. *yawn*

One can always hope....America will still always be here....you can't help yourself.

I hope the USA will still be there. But I don't really like what it's turning into. Because that does affect us here in Canada, whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not.

[bush_cheney2004]

The actions have always been there. Why is it an issue now?

Because Americans are making it an issue, at least a larger issue than before in the context of a broken campaign promise and so called GLBT rights.

Proclaiming you are gay was a cause for discharge? But orientation does not matter?

Orientation requires declaration...heterosexuals do not ordinarily proclaim either. Here is a good U.S. DoD treatment on the entire subject:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1awgI_81CbQJ:milcom.jag.af.mil/ch07/homosexual.doc+homosexuals+military+UCMJ&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

IF it is about behavior, then it does not matter if you are straight or gay, since orientation does not matter. If gays can abide by it, then there is no problem. But if the rest of the team suddenly changed their view on the person that now proclaims themselves to be gay, then it is simply not the gay person's fault. If he was an effective and valued member of the team, he will continue to do so regardless of what others think. Again, this is why I say it's the others who have changed their perception of the gay person.

Wasted bandwidth.....there are many many reasons to bounce a person out of his/her unit. The "gay" game is just one of them...we also have the "drug" game, "suicide" game, "insubordination" game, etc.

It does. IF you trust your squad, and they trust you, being gay won't matter one bit.

Does to some people....just ask them. Why are separate facilities required for female troops/sailors if it doesn't matter one bit?

No of course nothing is your decision. You seem to be unable to make a decision.

I have finally decided something....your life would be even more boring without America.

And this section is American Politics. But then you will trot out .. 'ya but hosted in TEXAS LOLOLOL'. *yawn*

Other members repeatedly reference America in other forum areas....are they in violation, or does my reciprocal behaviour just irk you?

I hope the USA will still be there. But I don't really like what it's turning into. Because that does affect us here in Canada, whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not.

Tough titty for you....I guess you should worry...a lot. Because America is going to keep on doing just as it wants to, whether it affects you or not. That's what booting your throne in the ass was all about.