Gay Rights

I plead guilty, too. I guess it's just because after so many disappointments, it just started to look to me like the same ole, same ole.

Hehe...no, I would never target any one particular reader.  But I know a bunch of us have had some issues with #44.  And those issues are going to continue, I fear, for a while.  But on some level, the more Obama delays, the stronger our movement becomes.  To the point where, ultimately, he won't be able to ignore LGBT issues much longer.

It's great that President Obama nominated a Secretary of Army who supports the repeal of the intolerant 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. In addition, the intolerant and behind-the-times 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' military policy must be repealed because it hinders the dignity of the military. Although John McHugh hasn't put out an official comment, but according to Servicemembers United, he would most likely help with the repeal of the intolerant 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

Again, I give Obama a year.  If all the LGBT issues are stagnant, I will be very very angry and stop in full for him in 2012!

LOL angry, ANGRY. Oh Mike if angry is what you are looking for that is a devolution to the ferociousness of loathing many of us are feeling after feeling like we have been lied to. Once the churches over stepped their bounds and pushed to pass prop 8 as well as the adoption ban in AK, some of us were expecting these churches to, in the least, lose their tax exemption for violating the law. None, and not so much as a peep from Obama about it.

If the UAFA fails yet again then what reason do I have for hope for the future, when I cant even find a sponsor for my fiance Ruben. Livid isn't even the word that can describe my utmost disgust for this country and its policies. We shouldn't have to wait until 90 percent of this country feels our lives have meaning before we get our long denied rights.

Hell not even 90 percent of the US likes African Americans, less than 70 percent feel women are equal to men. We have at lest 42 percent of the population behind us for marriage, 75 percent for repealing DADT, how many more people do we need? Even with that, It will be another moment in history when the federal supreme court upholds prop 8. They might not but considering their tract record of 5-4 on almost all issues, it is because of them that we have to pass two separate legislation's just to be seen as a subject minority, despite nearly half a century of scientific research and thousands of scientist and doctors stating that blatantly state we are a minority subject to bigotry because of who we are.

When will our moronic politicians finally start listening to the science. One can have all the beliefs in the world.  I dont care if they even believe that their founding religious leader spoke to Jesus and now sits at the left hand of their god, or met with an alien that planted H-bombs in volcanoes to bring life to earth, science is reality; it is fact. Theology is belief; it is opinion; it is not fact. It is time we start listening to the science for once. More importantly we listen to the scientist who can explain their finding, so people don't take their research and run with it, like wonderful old James Dobson, or quack job Joseph Nicolosi.

NEWS Today June 5, 2009... KNIGHTS OUT is Calling for aSTOP-LOSS Order from Obama.  After Joe S of HRC was on TV and radio yesterday actually calling for action too. Shocked us all!
....and here from comments on blog: Military Legal Opinion.
Here are some legal facts you might need...A few ruthless Obama apologists are banding about assertions that the following point-by-point essay by Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin refutes below. "I would like to respond briefly to recent discussions about whether President Obama could suspend gay discharges with the stroke of a pen. Last week, the Palm Center released a study which argued that the President could, in fact, suspend the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law via executive order. The study was co-authored by three of the top experts on military law in our community, all of whom are nationally respected law professors or practitioners, and military veterans.

While some of those who have critiqued the idea of an executive order are lawyers, THEY ARE NOT EXPERTS IN MILITARY LAW, and there are a number of errors in their analyses: (1) This issue has little to do with the Constitutional question of divided responsibility for oversight of the military, which is mentioned only in passing in our study. Rather, CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT, BY LAW, TO SUSPEND ANY LAW RELATING TO SEPARATION, DISCHARGE AND RETENTION DURING NATIONAL SECURITY EMERGENCIES. CONGRESS HAS DEFINED SUCH EMERGENCIES, AND WE ARE IN ONE NOW. The statutory authority that Congress has given to the President means that there is no need to decide broader constitutional questions. 2) Members of Congress who oppose the order WOULD NOT HAVE STANDING TO FILE A SUIT to challenge an executive order. The fear that Congress would be likely to challenge a presidential order is premised on the assumption that the president would be doing an end-run around Congress. As mentioned above, Congress has given the president authority to sign such an order by law. THERE IS NO END-RUN INVOLVED. (3) THE DETAILS OF HOW VARIOUS SERVICES NOW IMPLEMENT STOP-LOSS REGULATIONS ARE IRRELEVANT. What matters is that the statute authorizing such regulations also authorize the president to suspend any law relating to discharge, separation and retention during national security emergencies. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT LIMITED TO PRIOR STOP-LOSS MODELS in exercising his stop-loss authority. (4) An executive order WOULD NOT SIMPLY DELAY LGB DISCHARGES UNTIL THE STOP-LOSS IS LIFTED. Under federal law, the President has the authority to "suspend any provision of law," not only to suspend discharges under a law. The draft executive order contained in the report spells out the effect of suspending the law, which includes suspension of all enforcement, investigations, proceedings, or other personnel actions. Some of those who have critiqued our study do not seem to grasp THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUSPENDING THE LAW AND SUSPENDING DISCHARGES. Congress has been tepid about the [DADT repeal] Military Readiness Enhancement Act and the leadership has made clear that movement on this issue is unlikely any time soon. IN THE MEANTIME, CAREERS ARE DESTROYED AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS WEAKENED, WHICH BOTH GIVE A SENSE OF URGENCY TO THE NEED TO HALT DISCHARGES. While many people in our community have done heroic work in educating Congress about the need for repeal, the focus on Congressional lobbying need not preclude other avenues to a swift end to the discharges of gay and lesbian troops, including IMMEDIATE EXECUTIVE ACTION. Indeed, there is a strong case to be made that AN EXECUTIVE ORDER WOULD MAKE IT EASIER, NOT HARDER, to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law when Congress is ready to do so, because opponents will no longer be able to argue that discrimination is necessary for preserving military readiness and unit cohesion. Again, the authors of our study are among the most respected experts on military law in our community. They simply do not do sloppy work. Reasonable arguments can be invoked on both sides of the question of whether the president has authority to---and should sign an executive order, but THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED SO FAR ARE WITHOUT MERIT." Thank you!   by: Michael Bedwell @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:05:26 PM CDT

then as there seemed to be a troll complaining it wouldn't work...some more points from Michael B.
1. No one, repeat NO ONE is saying that repeal is not the ultimate solution. While Congress and the Administration is in stasis, these legal METHODS of freezing discharges are perfectly valid. The efforts to positively reanimate Congress could continue as is even while discharges themselves were stop...just as one would apply a tourniquet to stem someone bleeding until the doctor arrived.

2. When Dr. Belkin explicitly states that "THE PRESIDENT IS NOT LIMITED TO PRIOR STOP-LOSS MODELS in exercising his stop-loss authority," why you proceed to bring up such prior models and then shoot yourself down is beyond me. 3. Yes, the sodomy ban would need to ultimately be eliminated [for both gays and nongays]. In fact, Obama is on record somewhere [for all that's worth] as supporting it. However, not only are such prosecutions rare, the subject is irrelevant to the overall discussion as it relates to freezing discharges of people in jeopardy simply for being identified as gay. 4. Your second paragraph re "a body of openly-LGBT"... left as examples" ..."how well they would fight"..."or a discharge for homosexuality on their record" is incoherent and nonsensical in the extreme. If you are suggesting, as some have, that a freeze would result in a large number of gays coming out in the military who would not have otherwise, your fantasy is disputed by the facts. Rand Corporation studies document that even with a PERMANENT policy allowing open gays to serve in place, few gays in foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments come out. As for those gays who end up in jeopardy under normal circumstances [being identified through intercepted phone calls and snail/e-mail; being outed by others; etc.] the rate currently is just under 700 a year. Those identified who wanted to be discharged for whatever reason could be. There's no reason to believe that the balance would be dysfunctional because of "a proceeding hanging over their heads" if the President made it clear that, until actual repeal, they would be protected as long as he was in charge which it's reasonable to assume would be seven more years; longer I believe than the longest enlistment period. While one can't freely extrapolate to such a larger number, it is important to note that Choi and Tsao, who both outed themselves, and Fehrenbach, who was outed, have all sought administrative exceptions by the President or the Secretary of their respective branch to let them continue to serve, and Capt. Margaret Watt, who was also outed, is pursuing retention in the courts. 

The reference in the petition to the CBO's argument that it costs $1billion to enforce DADT is patently disingenuous. Denying benefits rarely costs more than awarding benefits. Were that reference to be of value, we should argue - in cout - that family benefits to ANY family are discriminatory, and that the standard should be gay, rather than the other way around! That case perhaps is easier to win, and would most surely put in perspective the real costs of war, of the military, and of continued discrimination.