Another glorious win for the homo-phobes?

miraja2 · #1 11-04-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And Obama didn't do a goddamn thing to help in a state where he's relatively popular either, which is especially rich.

They even played the "we're not familiar enough with the measure to comment" card...it's pretty self-explanatory.

Would you expect anything else given the extreme conservatism with which this White House has handled DADT?

brianwspencer · #2 11-04-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miraja2

Would you expect anything else given the way this White House has handled DADT?

Nope. Not at all.

Just voicing discontent with the fact that nobody will grow a pair and stand up and say THIS IS WRONG. Not even the President who campaigned heavily on the "fierce urgency of now" and being a strong advocate for the community.

Fierce urgency of you're on your own.

Wait til people close the purse strings when they get fed up (and I mean literally, my people all carry purses). There's a lot of money out there to be had, and a lot of passionate people willing to do anything for someone and something they believe in.

Not overall, but today? F*ck him.

miraja2 · #3 11-04-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Nope. Not at all.

Just voicing discontent with the fact that nobody will grow a pair and stand up and say THIS IS WRONG. Not even the President who campaigned heavily on the "fierce urgency of now" and being a strong advocate for the community.

Fierce urgency of you're on your own.

Wait til people close the purse strings when they get fed up (and I mean literally, my people all carry purses). There's a lot of money out there to be had, and a lot of passionate people willing to do anything for someone and something they believe in.

Not overall, but today? F*ck him.

The ridiculous thing about the way the administration has handled DADT is that it isn't like they are just too cowardly to go against public opinion (at least on this issue) because poll after poll suggests that the majority of Americans favor allowing people who are homosexual to serve in the military.
I don't know what their exact reason might be, but whatever it is, it is ridiculous, not to mention a complete reversal on a campaign pledge.

Danzig · #4 11-04-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miraja2

The ridiculous thing about the way the administration has handled DADT is that it isn't like they are just too cowardly to go against public opinion (at least on this issue) because poll after poll suggests that the majority of Americans favor allowing people who are homosexual to serve in the military.
I don't know what their exact reason might be, but whatever it is, it is ridiculous, not to mention a complete reversal on a campaign pledge.

obama said they didn't have time to fool with DADT, as the economy was on the front burner. funny, that all went out the window when he leaped on health care with both feet! there's more to that story as to why he won't fool with it-but the excuse of having other things to fool with is b.s. imo.

GenuineRisk · #5 11-04-2009, 01:51 PM

This is a very good example of why rule by simple majority is not infallible. If civll rights for blacks had been left to the American voters, we'd have seen segregation laws last into the 1980's. Hell, they'd still have them in Georgia.

Danzig · #6 11-04-2009, 02:13 PM

it's not supposed to be majority rule. the will of the people isn't supposed to supercede the constitution. if the majority voted to get rid of the press, do you really think that would happen? so why should civil rights only be permitted to some? it's simple-they're not supposed to be. all are created equal is supposed to mean just that.

dellinger63 · #7 11-04-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not supposed to be majority rule. the will of the people isn't supposed to supercede the constitution. .

it does in Chicago and some suburbs where it's illegal for a homeowner to have a handgun INSIDE their own home.

GenuineRisk · #8 11-04-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not supposed to be majority rule. the will of the people isn't supposed to supercede the constitution. if the majority voted to get rid of the press, do you really think that would happen? so why should civil rights only be permitted to some? it's simple-they're not supposed to be. all are created equal is supposed to mean just that.

Yeah.... but the response from these nutjobs is that there is already equality- any gay person can get married; he or she just has to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I agree with you- the will of the majority should not be used to supersede the rights of a minority, but then I'm not on the side of those who wail about so-called "activist judges." (What does that even mean, besides, "a judge who makes a decision I personally disagree with?")

Rupert Pupkin · #9 11-09-2009, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not supposed to be majority rule. the will of the people isn't supposed to supercede the constitution. if the majority voted to get rid of the press, do you really think that would happen? so why should civil rights only be permitted to some? it's simple-they're not supposed to be. all are created equal is supposed to mean just that.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and you don't even realize it. On the one hand, you are saying that the Constitution and the founding fathers had much more sense than the masses do today and that we should trust the judgement of the founding fathers. That is a reasonable argument.

But on the other hand, you know what things were like in those days. The founding fathers weren't in favor of gay marriage. I think gay sex was a crime back then. So you can't have it both ways. Which is it? Should we listen to everything the founding fathers said. Or should we ignore the founding fathers and do what we think is right?

I wouldn't even have a problem if you said that the Constitution was a good document in general but it needs some changes because the founding fathers were dead wrong on some issues. That would be a fair argument. But I think it's silly to invoke the Constitution when it comes to the gay marriage argument because we know that the founding fathers were not in favor of gay marriage and being gay was not acceptable in those days. I'm not saying the founding fathers were right on this issue, I'm just saying that that is where they stood on the issue. How can we pretend that the Constitution would allow gay marriage when we know the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution would have vehemently opposed gay marriage?

I'm not saying that gay marriage should be illegal. I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other on the issue. I'm just saying that when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, allowing gay marriage was not one of their intentions. Quite to the contrary. If they would have even dreamed that there would be such a debate today, they would have probably spelled out specifically that there should be no gay marriages. Once again, I'm not saying they are right. They were far from infallible. They were in favor of slavery. I would say they were dead wrong on that issue.

I think it is a fair argument to say that gay marriage should be a right and that it should be legal. I could make an excellent case as to why gay marriage should be legal including the argument that it is the only fair thing to do. But I can't make an argument that it should be legal based on the founding fathers' document (the Constitution), because we know that the founding fathers would have never allowed gay marriage in a million years.