Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

Feds appeal Mass. rulings against US marriage law

 

Boo.  I suppose their hands are tied, though.  The DOJ has to defend the constitutionality of congressionally enacted laws, without prejudice or bias.  Overall, however, I have not been overly pleased with some of Holder's decisions.  He may even personally support DOMA.  Sadly, Obama supports "traditional" marriage, but he does not support DOMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOJ to seek halt to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell order today

By The Associated Press

10.14.2010 3:37pm EDT

 

(Washington, DC) The Obama administration will ask a federal judge to allow the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law on gays in the military to continue in force pending an appeal of her order to end it, a lawyer in the case and a person in the government familiar with the discussions said Thursday.

 

Lawyer Dan Woods said his client, Log Cabin Republicans, which won the ruling on Tuesday, has been notified that the Justice Department “will appeal and seek a stay later today.” That word was confirmed by the person in the government knowledgeable about the administration’s discussions.

 

The law bans gay or lesbian Americans from serving openly in the military.

 

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This episode in the NY gubernatorial election is hysterical in a depressing kind of way:

 

Rabbi Breaks With Paladino Over Apology

 

The alliance between the Republican Carl P. Paladino and an Orthodox rabbi from Brooklyn has fallen apart, with the rabbi denouncing Mr. Paladino on Wednesday for his apology over remarks he had made about homosexuality on Sunday.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/nyregion/14paladino.html?scp=5&sq=carl%20paladino&st=cse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who voted for Obama, I find it embarrassing and insulting that his administration is proactively seeking to stay the federal judge's ruling that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is unconstitutional on the grounds that it would (a) be disruptive and (b) that it's a congressional and not judicial manner.  Those are both incredibly weak reasons when you look at the context of the situation. 

 

First of all, I think it's ridiculous to presume that straight soldiers cannot function alongside homosexuals.  They are brave enough to fight the enemy but too scared to sleep next to someone gay?  What?  And since most countries permit homosexuals to fight, well then, are straight Americans simply more violently homophobic than everyone else?  Is that he's saying?  I can't imagine a gay translator who is fluent in Arabic and working in intelligence is going to somehow distract our soldiers, and I don't understand what the argument is on the contrary.

 

And second, if Obama is really going to take umbrage with the the courts deciding law here, then he's a hypocrite for not going after all other judicial made law such as, oh I don't know, Roe v. Wade.  Hey Obama, the courts decided on abortion, not Congress.  Is that okay?  Should this decision be reviewed as well (obviously I'm being facetious here but you get my point).

 

There is simply no benefit from Obama appealing this decision.  He claims to be pro gays in the military and pro gays equal rights overall, yet is going to actually go out of his way to hurt that very community simply because he disagrees with this process?  He is going to piss off gays, liberals, and...heck...70% of the public that believes Don't Ask Don't Tell is RETARDED!  The reality is that the courts have to legislate sometimes, as Congress is simply not always up to the task.  Without judicial activism, segregation would still be permissible in the public education (Brown v. Board). 

 

And even if he disagrees with this process, why choose this decision to go after.  Just respectfully disagree with the process and move on to more important matters such as, oh I don't know, anything else.  Who is he trying to appeal to - Fred Phelps?  Constitutional law professors?  Scalia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the appeal was even debated at all tells you the administration was seriously considering the approach you ask for.  But you are not viewing the issue through the appropriate lens.

 

If the administration did not appeal this ruling, it is possible that NO ONE could have.  Therefore, the law of the land would have been set by a single federal district court judge, without recourse.  As controversial as it is for the administration to appeal the ruling, it would have been 10x that for them not to appeal it.  And if you read their briefing to the court, you will see that they do not agree with the law but are compelled to defend it as a duly enacted legislative measure.  Doubts as to the constitutionality are not to be resolved through executive discretion.  That's the judicial branch's job and the appeal ensures that process can proceed.

 

Funny thing is, I bet there were some members of the GOP and Tea Party who were on their hands and knees praying that the DOJ would not appeal.  It would have gotten that issue off their back for obstructing the repeal in Congress and would have made for some great campaign material that would have been framed as an abuse of office.  Oh well, I guess they will just have to concoct some way to criticize him for the appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hts, you crack me up! The anti-gay marriage Obama has his Administration appeal a pro-gay marriage decision and you figure out a way to blame Tea Partiers! Ha ha ha!

 

Valerie Jarrett apologizes for remark about gay teen

 

By ABBY PHILLIP | 10/14/10 10:50 AM EDT  Updated: 10/14/10 5:05 PM EDT

 

White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett apologized Thursday morning for referring to a gay teen who committed suicide as having made a “lifestyle choice.”

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43601.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hts, you crack me up! The anti-gay marriage Obama has his Administration appeal a pro-gay marriage decision and you figure out a way to blame Tea Partiers! Ha ha ha!

 

Ha ha ha!  You don't even know what law I was discussing in that post!  "Pro-gay marriage decision"???  Ha ha ha!  Way to add to the discourse!  Ha ha ha!  And how did I "blame" Tea Partiers?  Ha ha ha! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hts, you crack me up! The anti-gay marriage Obama has his Administration appeal a pro-gay marriage decision and you figure out a way to blame Tea Partiers! Ha ha ha!

 

Ha ha ha! You don't even know what law I was discussing in that post! "Pro-gay marriage decision"??? Ha ha ha! Way to add to the discourse! Ha ha ha! And how did I "blame" Tea Partiers? Ha ha ha!

Ha ha ha! That was either a typo or I don't read your posts. Take a guess :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The executive branch has a lot of responsibilities and with that the discretion to pick and choose which issues have the greatest importance.  As of this very second, the military may not discriminate against gays as don't ask don't tell is now invalid.  And now the Obama administration is seeking to validate this discriminatory policy with  its appeal despite paradoxically claiming to oppose it. 

 

Unbelievalble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they hadn't, you'd likely have been the first to cry foul.

Elaborate.

You probably would've posted each of the over 9000 articles by anti-gay righty-tighties that would have complained about Obama's disregard for his role to uphold the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The executive branch has a lot of responsibilities and with that the discretion to pick and choose which issues have the greatest importance. As of this very second, the military may not discriminate against gays as don't ask don't tell is now invalid. And now the Obama administration is seeking to validate this discriminatory policy with its appeal despite paradoxically claiming to oppose it.  

 

Unbelievalble

 

So you are saying that Congress passes the laws and then the Executive branch (through the DOJ) should "pick and choose" which laws to defend when a single judge declares that law unconstitutional?  C'mon.  Be reasonable.  It's their duty to appeal and defend the law, just like the Attorney General of Ohio is sworn with the duty of defending the laws of our State and the Cleveland Law Director must defend the laws of the City when challenged.  And like I said before, this particular circumstance is somewhat unique because the administration is arguably the only party that COULD appeal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cops see some kids jaywalking and they let it slide.

 

Local prosecutors decide to give a defendant a break because a trial is not worthwhile.

 

In the same way, government does have the discretion to pick and choose what cases to pursue.  This should not be one of them, especially since the President supposedly supports the decision. 

 

The Obama administration has a million things going on.  Why focus their attention and resources on this issue.  Their time is too valuable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the Nuremberg trials.  It's an appeal to the 9th Circuit.  One, maybe two briefs, limited in page length and a 30-45 minute oral argument.  All this done by some Assistant Attorney General and his/her lackeys within the DOJ, who have already produced briefs on the identical issues to the District Court.  Lack of resources is not a legitimate concern.

 

For the record, I would be more supportive of a decision from Obama to simply refuse to enforce DADT.  After all, he is Commander-In-Chief.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I would be more supportive of a decision from Obama to simply refuse to enforce DADT. After all, he is Commander-In-Chief.

 

This, I agree with. I think I misspoke earlier, when talking about enforcing laws indiscriminately. I support the decision not to enforce marijuana laws where they conflict with state laws, and I would also support a decision not to enforce DADT. Unfortunately, it seems Obama and his advisors have decided the discharges between January 2009 and whenever congress finally acts are worth the sacrifice to save political capital.

 

On that note, I agree with TBideon: for shame, Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This particular article was written before the appeal was filed, but explains the dilema quite well.

 

Choosing not to appeal carries big risks, and not just for the President. It's true that most Americans support ending the military's discrimination against gays. And it's true that the House has already passed a bill repealing "Don't ask, don't tell" (though the Senate has so far refused to follow suit). And yes, appealing would mean going to court to defend a law the President has himself denounced as unfair and wrong. But if Obama does not appeal, it's likely that no one else will have the standing to do so. The result: a single trial judge would then set policy for the entire country on a question of fundamental importance — a situation that the Administration perceives would be an uncomfortable one for a substantial number of Americans.

 

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2025270,00.html#ixzz12RrbZQTM

 

This decision to appeal, IMHO, encapsulates the Obama presidency perfectly.  His faith to what he percieves as his duty as President has overriden his personal beliefs and inclinations.  He's almost TOO respectful of the separation of powers.  Exactly the opposite of what all the hootin' and hollerin' critics during the campaign predicted - check that... assured - he would be as President.

 

Interesting (or maybe not) that we have not heard from any of our conservative leaning forumers on this specific issue.  Has the narrative not been provided yet? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Department Abides by ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Injunction

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2010 - Pending an appeal, the military services have halted discharges under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, DOD officials said today.

 

Judge Virginia Phillips of the U.S. Central District of California ordered the halt to discharges and investigations. Phillips found the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell statute unconstitutional in a Sept. 9 ruling. On Oct. 12, she issued an injunction ordering the Defense Department worldwide to halt discharges and investigations.

 

“Earlier today, the staff judge advocate generals from the military services, in consultation with the Office of the Secretary of Defense Office of General Counsel, sent to their service staff judge advocate counterparts in the field an e-mail informing them of the ruling by Judge Virginia Phillips of the Central District of California, issuing an injunction barring the enforcement or application of 10 United States Code 654, commonly known as the ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ statute,” Pentagon spokesman Marine Col. Dave Lapan said in a written statement.

 

Read More...

 


 

US urges delay in ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ ruling

By The Associated Press

10.15.2010 7:34am EDT

 

(Washington) After two days of silence, the Obama administration urged a federal judge on Thursday to let the military press on with its “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military. Still, President Barack Obama insisted the policy that has divided the nation for two decades “will end on my watch.”

 

The Pentagon said the military “will of course obey the law” and halt enforcement while the case is still in question. But gay rights advocates cautioned gay service members to avoid revealing their sexuality in the meantime.

 

A federal judge abruptly threw out the Clinton-era ban on Tuesday, setting in motion a legal, political and human-rights back-and-forth that put the administration on the spot just two weeks before crucial midterm elections. Obama has consistently argued against the ban, approved by Congress in 1993. But he says it is up to Congress to repeal it.

 

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that military discharges have halted Don't Ask Don't Tell, we might have a weird situation where soldiers will come out of the closet without consequence, yet when it is all said and done, the courts may eventually say that Don't Ask Don't Tell is valid.  What then happens to the soldiers who had admitted they were gay during this present "Okay-to-be-gay" interim.  It's like there would be then two classes of gay soldiers:  (1) the ones who are out of the closet RIGHT NOW (just say that soldiers no longer have to hide who they are) and (2) the ones that, in this hypothetical, would be discharged for being gay after the courts or government or whoever validates DADT.  As such, in my hypothetical, some gays would be allowed to serve openly and others would not.  Wonderful.

 

It's kind of similar to the gay marriage situation in California, where there were at one time 2 classes of gay people - those who were allowed to marry (before Proposition 8 was passed) and then those that weren't (after that stupid proposition passing).  Of course, the Cali Supreme Court eventually threw out that stupid proposition so this is a non issue...for now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all that were to happen I don't think they'd be exactly "openly serving."  Sure everyone would know they're gay but if the rules came back into effect they'd have to live effectively closeted again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^The California Supreme Court has not thrown out Prop8 to my knowledge.  As I understand it, Prop8 was in response to a California SC decision, not the other way around.  Then, the California Supreme Court UPHELD the voter initiative.  However, the Federal Court in SanFran overturned the law and stayed its effect pending appeal, which currently is pending before the 9th Circuit.

 

I think your "weird situation" is one of the reasons the administration DID appeal the ruling.  Suppose that the Federal Judges order was allowed to stand, unappealed.  Then suppose that 50 different discharged service members filed suit in 50 different District Courts claiming damages for their discharge.  As to whether their rights were violated, the District Court's decision would not be "binding" on the other courts.  It would have led to peacemeal litigation and conflicting opinions.  Unless the government was just going to fold tent and admit liability in each case (and then pay damages), it would have had to defend against each suit.  But now, with the appeal pending, the government may be able to obtain stays on any new suits filed until the appeal process has been exhausted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrelated, but fascinating:

 

I don't think it's unrelated. German society was progressive in a lot of ways including openness to gays, and before global economic crisis gave the Nazis a platform to pander to intolerance, it would have been unthinkable for such a thing to have happened there. Scapegoating by people who aspired to power paved the way for repressive legislation, and all of it gave angry people a target for their frustrations and a sense of license to persecute and ultimately attempt to exterminate everyone they wanted to blame for their hardship. That category kept expanding to include everyone they simply didn't like or approve of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think he meant unrelated as in unrelated to current conversation, re: DADT. It's definitely on topic for the thread.

 

Here's a good question: why is there no gay marriage in Germany? (I don't know the answer...I just find it odd that they don't have it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see an important distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance to me is putting up with someone's improper or potentially damaging choices or behavior, whereas acceptance means coming to recognize that the things that differentiate someone have no bearing on my interaction with them as a friend, neighbor, co-worker, etc.

What you're calling acceptance, I call tolerance.  Acceptance implies agreement.

 

Acceptance implies respect for the individual, not just for his/her rights under law. Tolerance doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see an important distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance to me is putting up with someone's improper or potentially damaging choices or behavior, whereas acceptance means coming to recognize that the things that differentiate someone have no bearing on my interaction with them as a friend, neighbor, co-worker, etc.

What you're calling acceptance, I call tolerance.  Acceptance implies agreement.

 

Acceptance implies respect for the individual, not just for his/her rights under law. Tolerance doesn't.

 

I agree, Robert. The simplest way to demonstrate what 'tolerance' of gays/lesbians means is to take a phrase like :

 

"I tolerate gays and lesbians"

 

then substitute other people/things you "tolerate". You'll probably find that you "tolerate" things you don't like but don't feel you can do anything about, such as:

 

"I tolerate the traffic at 5PM"

"I tolerate my neighbors who are sometimes loud"

"I tolerate frozen yogurt when I'm out of ice cream"...

 

The difference between tolerance and acceptance is that something you tolerate you would just as soon do without. Acceptance means you are fine with the presence of something. Frankly, I'd prefer it if people could be happy for people who are gays and lesbians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge formally rejects stay for ‘Don’t Ask’ injunction

Chris Johnson | Oct 19, 2010

 

A California federal judge on Tuesday formally rejected the Obama administration’s request for a stay on a worldwide injunction against the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

 

In a notice, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips explains that she denied a stay of the injunction because the U.S. government has provided inadequate reasons for her to take such action.

 

“Having considered the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the Application, as well as the arguments advanced by counsel at the hearing, the Court DENIES the Application for the following reasons as well as those set forth on the record at the hearing,” she writes.

 

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was an appropriate place for this considering it happened in Lake County.

 

 

I love how the person taping says, "that was wrong" but does nothing!

 

Haven't there been enough gay suicides in Lake County?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see an important distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance to me is putting up with someone's improper or potentially damaging choices or behavior, whereas acceptance means coming to recognize that the things that differentiate someone have no bearing on my interaction with them as a friend, neighbor, co-worker, etc.

What you're calling acceptance, I call tolerance.  Acceptance implies agreement.

 

Acceptance implies respect for the individual, not just for his/her rights under law. Tolerance doesn't.

 

I agree, Robert. The simplest way to demonstrate what 'tolerance' of gays/lesbians means is to take a phrase like :

 

"I tolerate gays and lesbians"

 

then substitute other people/things you "tolerate". You'll probably find that you "tolerate" things you don't like but don't feel you can do anything about, such as:

 

"I tolerate the traffic at 5PM"

"I tolerate my neighbors who are sometimes loud"

"I tolerate frozen yogurt when I'm out of ice cream"...

 

The difference between tolerance and acceptance is that something you tolerate you would just as soon do without. Acceptance means you are fine with the presence of something. Frankly, I'd prefer it if people could be happy for people who are gays and lesbians.

 

You can't expect people to do any more than 'tolerate' something. I have to tolerate my sister's loser boyfriend. Actually, I don't even do that; I make fun of him every chance I get. Not accepting someone based on something as shallow as their sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion or whatever else, won't get people very far in life. I had an interview 4 days ago and the guy that interviewed me was blatantly gay. The interview went really well because it's easy for me to find common ground with anybody. All my life, I've been around all different kinds of people. If I gave off any vibes that I was uncomfortable or homophobic, he probably wouldn't have told me he was going to recommend me. He would have probably thrown my resume in the shredder. I wouldn't blame him either; who wants to be in a work environment where people don't respect each other or can't get along just because the company is diverse? Like I said, haters don't get far in life. I'm sure there's 10,000 other scenarios to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see an important distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance to me is putting up with someone's improper or potentially damaging choices or behavior, whereas acceptance means coming to recognize that the things that differentiate someone have no bearing on my interaction with them as a friend, neighbor, co-worker, etc.

What you're calling acceptance, I call tolerance.  Acceptance implies agreement.

 

Acceptance implies respect for the individual, not just for his/her rights under law. Tolerance doesn't.

 

I agree, Robert. The simplest way to demonstrate what 'tolerance' of gays/lesbians means is to take a phrase like :

 

"I tolerate gays and lesbians"

 

then substitute other people/things you "tolerate". You'll probably find that you "tolerate" things you don't like but don't feel you can do anything about, such as:

 

"I tolerate the traffic at 5PM"

"I tolerate my neighbors who are sometimes loud"

"I tolerate frozen yogurt when I'm out of ice cream"...

 

The difference between tolerance and acceptance is that something you tolerate you would just as soon do without. Acceptance means you are fine with the presence of something. Frankly, I'd prefer it if people could be happy for people who are gays and lesbians.

 

You can't expect people to do any more than 'tolerate' something. I have to tolerate my sister's loser boyfriend. Actually, I don't even do that; I make fun of him every chance I get. Not accepting someone based on something as shallow as their sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion or whatever else, won't get people very far in life. I had an interview 4 days ago and the guy that interviewed me was blatantly gay. The interview went really well because it's easy for me to find common ground with anybody. All my life, I've been around all different kinds of people. If I gave off any vibes that I was uncomfortable or homophobic, he probably wouldn't have told me he was going to recommend me. He would have probably thrown my resume in the shredder. I wouldn't blame him either; who wants to be in a work environment where people don't respect each other or can't get along just because the company is diverse? Like I said, haters don't get far in life. I'm sure there's 10,000 other scenarios to prove it.

 

You showed the interviewer your man boobs, didnt you?  Youuuuuuu slut! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is "gay rights", but sort of funny/sad in its own way.  Apparently the Dayton PD is enforcing that anti-stripper law (whicever one applies here.  I think there is more than one?).  I think this is sort of stupid on the barowners part, as another gay bar in town is pretty strict on this policy....

 

Three Men Arrested in Bar Sting

 

DAYTON — Three men were arrested at Aquarius night club late Thursday during an undercover sting by Dayton Police detectives.

 

The detectives began surveillance on the bar, 135 E. Second St., after receiving several reports of underage alcohol sales and other illegal activity, according to a Dayton police report filed Friday.

 

The three men worked at the club.

 

(...and iIt sounds like Church Lady wrote the article)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bar in Fort Wayne shut down a couple of years ago after too many violations, the last of which involved customers openly engaged in sex acts in plain view of other customers.

 

The bar started out as a nice place to go; clean, pleasant atmosphere, good food, congenial crowd. Then the owner started letting his personal kinky side creep into the business and for a while it attracted bigger crowds. Eventually the owner and many of the patrons forgot they were in Fort Wayne, not Chicago, and that this isn't all that big a city, or all that blind or indifferent when things go beyond a certain point.

 

Rumor was that the owner of another bar, where the proprietor of the sleaze joint worked before going into competition, was the whistle-blower. The building is now a coffee shop.

 

We've had openly gay bars for years, and most of them haven't had any problems, even the ones with outrageous drag queens spilling out into the street. The ones that have failed have done so because their owners didn't know how to run a business and went broke, albeit sometimes after being robbed blind by the "trusted friends" they hired. The guy who got raided was asking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is "gay rights", but sort of funny/sad in its own way.  Apparently the Dayton PD is enforcing that anti-stripper law (whicever one applies here.  I think there is more than one?).  I think this is sort of stupid on the barowners part, as another gay bar in town is pretty strict on this policy....

 

Three Men Arrested in Bar Sting

 

DAYTON — Three men were arrested at Aquarius night club late Thursday during an undercover sting by Dayton Police detectives.

 

The detectives began surveillance on the bar, 135 E. Second St., after receiving several reports of underage alcohol sales and other illegal activity, according to a Dayton police report filed Friday.

 

The three men worked at the club.

 

(...and iIt sounds like Church Lady wrote the article)

 

 

Well I guess CDM can no longer "make it rain" up in the club, with out risk of going to jail!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CDM...hmm....

 

Anyway,yeah the police here generally have been hands-off on gays, and in fact are starting to recruit in the community (they have an openly lesbian officer who is a sort of liason, too).  The Dayton PD chief is pretty supportive and came to a gay community group meeting with her to discuss things.

 

So yes I agree with Rob on this. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...