The DADT lawsuit was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans

[Recursion]

Republicans are suing a Democratic administration to obtain equal protection for homosexuals.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39089475/ns/us_news-life/

Dan Savage recently suggested the GOP could get a lot of gay votes with a very little effort. Between this and Olson's prop 8 case we may be seeing an attempt at that.

Editing to make more clear:

The Log Cabin Republicans sought and obtained the injunction blocking DADT.

[AmericanMan1958]

1. Sleep with a Snake..

Don't cry if you get bit.

How the GOP fools people with their cheap Politics never senses to amaze me.

[Recursion]

2. This year, Republicans have overturned Prop 8 and now DADT

What have we Democrats done?

[IndianaGreen]

8. Told the Stonewall Democrats to STFU

That's what we were told in 2004.

[Recursion]

11. I intellectually understand that the administration has a responsibility to defend the law in court

But, damn, it stings to see that.

[laughingliberal]

16. Is that even true? I'm asking because I don't know.

I'm just thinking about how Arnold and the AG in CA declined to defend Prop 8 after the judge overturned it.

[Recursion]

19. The CA thing is news because that almost never happens

A law is presumptively held to be Constitutional and the executive branch has a responsibility to defend any current law in the courts (barring absurd law-school-example situations). The issue in CA is that the executive branch would have to take a positive step of initiating a court case to continue; there's not really much precedent that they are required to actually start a case to defend a law, just that if there is a case challenging a law they are supposed to present the strongest argument for that law.

[LostinVA]

44. They certainly don't have to defend it so vigorously or nastily

Hey, separate but equal was once the law, too...

[Recursion]

50. They didn't call any witnesses

Their "defense" consisted of filing the legislative history of the law.

[LostinVA]

52. Have you ever read the DOJ brief?

Bestiality, GLBT Americans aren't protected under the Constitution, etc.

[mitchtv]

6. we'll get bitten by a rat instead

if we have to wait for the Dems to do anything

[Bluebear]

21. LOL

[VMI Dem]

3. Another Obama victory.

Congrats.

[Recursion]

4. Huh? The administration is *defending* DADT

The Log Cabin Republicans were (successfully) trying to get it declared unconstitutional

[RKP5637]

5. I think they were being sarcastic maybe...

[Recursion]

7. Ah, right

I'm biting my nails over the Mississippi State/Auburn game so my sarcasm meter is a little distracted.

[Recursion]

10. And, State loses on a 4th & 10

Not relevant to the thread, but my mind is back on the forum now.

[ProSense]

9. Well, someone had to do it.

Complaining alone wasn't going to get it done.

[Recursion]

12. I'm usually one of the few surviving Obama cheerleaders

But this really, really pisses me off. In the past 6 months Republicans have overturned Prop. 8 and now DADT. ****ing Republicans filed and argued those suits. What the hell is the matter with our party?

[DaughterOfBilitis]

13. The lawsuit began in 2004.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your shit stirring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States_of_America

[Recursion]

14. Is your point that they were originally suing a Republican administration?

Fine, they are still Republicans. Olson's case was suing a Republican administration too. Who fucking cares? What's pissing me off is that it's Republicans that are taking the lead on this.

[DaughterOfBilitis]

15. "Republicans are suing a Democratic administration to obtain equal protection for homosexuals."

You should edit our OP.

[Recursion]

17. Yes, they are currently suing a Democratic administration

When the case began they were suing a Republican administration. Attachment for governments is strange that way.

[DaughterOfBilitis]

18. No, the bench trial began under a Democratic administration.

They originally sued a Republican administration.

Nuance counts.

[Recursion]

20. And the government presented no witnesses

Nuance counts, but impact matters a lot too. The impact here is that Republicans have made two significant advances in gay rights in the past 6 months, and Democrats were either not involved or nominally opposed.

[Bluebear]

22. Who is "shit stirring"?

[DaughterOfBilitis]

23. LCR didn't sue a Democratic administration.

Do you support the first statement made by the poster? Because it's factually incorrect.

You'd probably have a bit more credibility if you dabbled in facts over emotions.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaughterOfBilitis]

25. "Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count..."

Care to answer my question without violating the forum rules?

[Bluebear]

27. LOL subtle! Well, my apologies, welcome to DU, glad you stumbled on the site & you studied the rules

[DaughterOfBilitis]

33. I'd accept your apology, if your intent was true.

But you edited your initial response, which I saw, so why the change of heart?

[Bluebear]

34. Because I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

It's an emotional issue for many of us and many people have signed up for the distinct purpose of being contrary. If it's not the case, I apologize for jumping the gun. Best.

[DaughterOfBilitis]

36. I can assure you that I didn't sign up to be contrary.

I just didn't like the tone set by the first sentence from the poster. I, too, have become disillusioned with the slow pace from Democrats, but I take issue with the hyperbole in the first statement.

Thank you for apologizing. It shows that you are an honest man.

[Bluebear]

39. I am honest.

A hothead sometimes but honest :)

[Recursion]

26. No, it's really not

The respondent is the Solicitor General, still.

[Bluebear]

28. We owe the Log Cabin Republicans a debt of gratitude for advancing this. nt

[Recursion]

29. Unfortunately, yes. NT

[Bluebear]

30. Agreed. But hey, somebody has to lead on the issue!

:toast:

[Recursion]

32. My 7 years in the military tell me this won't change much any time soon

It's very hard to get a bureaucracy to actually change if there isn't significant buy-in.

But, it's important to have this legal decision out there. And I'm furious it wasn't Democrats who made it happen.

[Bluebear]

35. I can't wait for the "survey" of military families to be published.

[QC]

37. "How do you feel about showering with a known sodomite in a state of extreme arousal?"

Would you object to having him bugger you, since it is bound to happen anyway?

Do you men *that* survey?

[Bluebear]

38. Would you A) Call a chaplain? B).....yeah that one.

[Recursion]

40. Here's a scan of it

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36218038/Pentagon-s-DADT-Spouse-Survey

[Bluebear]

41. "Would repealing DADT affect your family readiness?" - Good heavens. nt

[Recursion]

43. "I would avoid getting to know one of them", "I would try to get to know one of them"

*shudder*

[Touchdown]

46. That is a seriously tacky mirror!

To the yard sale!:scared:

[Number23]

45. Thanks for that bit of info.

[Bluebear]

54. Oh, child! Oh, girl! Like you care!

:rofl:

[Number23]

56. About you?? Hell no! About this issue? Definitely

Thanks for your concern, honeylamb! :)

[LiberalAndProud]

31. I find that I don't care who filed against who.

The ruling was a good one, and one more step toward equal protection under the law. This is a good thing. If Republicons want to take credit, I'll give it to 'em, because Democrats certainly didn't earned it.

[kenny blankenship]

42. I guess all those people who wondered how in the world gay people could join an "R" party/group

now have their answer: because Democrats have taken them for granted.

[cynatnite]

47. I've said it more than once...

This is the issue that repugs could claim to really split the Dems.

[backscatter712]

48. The existance of the Log Cabin Republicans boggles my mind.

Almost the entire remainder of the Republican party is homophobic and pushes policies designed to take away GLBT rights.

Why do the Log Cabin Republicans stay with them? Perhaps they'd get their interests served better by joining us.

[SlipperySlope]

49. It probably just sucks to be a politically active "conservative" homosexual.

It probably just sucks to be a politically active "conservative" homosexual. There honestly isn't any party that wants you completely, except for possibly the Libertarians.

[Recursion]

51. A vocal cadre within the Republican party is homophobic

Perhaps they'd get their interests served better by joining us.

Would they? What have we done for gay rights lately? The GOP is running an openly gay candidate for Lieutenant Governor here in MA. We don't simply get to be "the LGBT party" by default. Like I said: this year, Republicans have made significant advances against Prop 8 and DADT. If this keeps up, and their actions keep matching our rhetoric, things don't look good.

Everybody has issues they disagree with their party on. I think gun control is a horrible idea, but I still vote D. It's probably similar for them.

[terrya]

53. Kudos to the Log Cabin Republicans.

Good for them for filing this lawsuit.

This is an excellent ruling. Of course, the Department of Justice will appeal this, however.

DADT repeal, like repeal of DOMA, will be handled through the courts. Since our Democratic Party leaders are too goddamned chickenshit cowardly to actually stand up for our civil rights. I've long since given up on any "fierce advocacy" from the party I've given my donations, my votes and my time for.

[woo me with science]

55. Good for them. nt