For *true* LGBT allies, the time is right now. You're now with us or against us.

[Prism]

DADT is dead. Judge Virginia Phillips has slain it.

The Obama administration may resurrect it for the vaguest of political purposes, but it is under no obligation to do so.

Democrats, we need to talk.

- Every election, we're told to wait until after the election. 2000, 2002, 2004 (where we took the blame for the Democratic Party's incompetence), 2006, 2008. The story is always the same. "Please, just keep quiet and bear with us, and after the election, we'll help you out." Not this time. The time for "after the election" is over. There is no such thing. There is only now. No day but today.

- There is no such thing as "a difference of opinion in tactics" when there is the pro-equality now opinion and the eternal rationales and explanations and excuses and "close studying" whenever an LGBT issue is at stake. Nearly three-fourths of the American people support a repeal of DADT. There's your explanation, your excuse, and your rationale. Reasonable, pro-equality people do not disagree. The time is now. DADT is dead. The American people support its death. Who are these people supporting its revitalization?

- The current ruling buries DADT. But it can be dug up. It can become a zombified DADT if the administration appeals. We have absolutely zero guarantee the Senate will take up repeal in the lame duck session. We have even less a guarantee it will pass with several senators being immediately seated due to special election. We have John McCain promising to filibuster, with no foreseeable super-majority capable of breaking it.

Democrats, you are either pro-equality in your bones, sincerely, fully, wholeheartedly, honestly, or you are a bumper-stickerist. Like "Save the Whales" it's possible you kind of halfway sort of support equality, but when it comes to your team or favorite politician, well, things happen.

That is no longer acceptable. The administration must be opposed on the DADT appeal. Equality demands nothing less. If you are pro-equality, one of our allies like you say, a staunch defender of justice, you must oppose the administration at this juncture. Defense of this appeal is the defense of ruining LGBT lives. Our allies do not defend such things.

As far as Nov. 2nd, here is my ballot. Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Lee. All Democrats, all allies, all defenders of LGBTers when it counts.

It counts now. This DADT repeal is it. THIS IS IT.

Are you for us or against us? Is it just words you say, or did you mean it?

Get in the administration's face. Protest. Make your voice known. Disrupt. ACT UP. Say "No more!" Do not accept another single excuse for delay. Do not accept another single life destroyed.

That's what true allies do.

Non-allies, well, they do the opposite of that.

What are you? Because the time has finally come to answer that question. Judge Phillips has thrown down that gauntlet. We are at that moment in history, and the question now needs answering - whose side are you on?

[activa8tr]

1. One of the times one can truthfully say and mean.. "with us or against us"

There is no reason to oppose the court order rescinding DADT!

NONE!

I'm surr 99.9% of Du'ers are "with us", the rest probably didn't care.

But for so many Republicans to still oppose, it's just so obvious they don't have much in the brain department, and some have a very shaky sexual identity.

[DesertDiamond]

166. WITH

[pnwmom]

2. Not sure what you're saying. You're fortunate to be living

in a District where the Democrats are strong on LGBTQ rights.

So am I.

But what are people supposed to do who aren't living in those districts? Not vote at all? Vote for the Republican to teach the Democrat a lesson? That never works.

[Sweet Charming Dem]

3. I think what he's saying is it's time to get vocal about demanding equal rights

To really push our politicians to do the right thing.

I didn't see anything in his post about not voting.

[unapatriciated]

5. That is how I read it too.

I voted D but will not stay silent when they are wrong. Way past time for DADT to go.

[Prism]

4. I am not saying "Don't vote for Democrats"

I am a realist, and I know a Republican Congress is a Congress that will not enact meaningful, pro-equality legislation.

What I am saying is that it is not a choice. It is not an either/or. It is not a mutually exclusive thing. You can vote for the Democrat and still protest. You can support the party and still get out there and raise hell.

There are not two choices. There are legion.

[unapatriciated]

6. Anyone who read this as a don't vote D thread

need to put their glasses on and re-read it.
Understood you perfectly.

btw rec and:thumbsup:

[Prism]

15. Exactly right

People can vote D and still shout at the top of their lungs. It's not either/or. The fact we now frame it as either/or is troubling and anti-equality.

[ruggerson]

30. recommended n/t

[ruggerson]

185. whoops - wrong spot - meant to recommend the OP

my bad

[mitchtv]

98. I refuse to vote for the Dem candidate for state senate

I will write in my primary choiceMary Salas, (who lost by 22 votes, btw) Juan Vargas voted against ss marriage when he had the chance, thus losing my vote forever. I look foward to voting for Brown, Boxer, etc

[donco6]

126. *Ball flying hopelessly over pnwmom's head*. N/t

[rhett o rick]

265. They can contact the Pres and tell him to stop supporting DADT. STOP THE APPEALS.

The president can let DADT die, he has the power to let it die. We must tell him it is way past time for him to commit to equal rights for the LGBTQ community.

[sabrina 1]

322. I think what was said was very clear. What was it you didn't

understand? This is a turning point in history. Are Democrats going to be on the right or the wrong side of history? We KNOW where Republicans stand and always have when it comes to issues of Civil Rights.

The president has it within his power to go down in history on this issue as a champion of Civil Rights, or, he can choose to be recorded in history as the president who facilitated a delay in granting those rights at a time when all the cards were in his hands. It is not even a difficult decision, as it was for other presidents, like Lincoln or LBJ. This was has been handed to him.

So far, he appears to want to delay justice for nebulous reasons that don't make much sense. All people want to know is, who is on the side of Civil Rights for every citizen, not just by saying they are, but by standing up now before they are simply swept aside as events and the American people move forward without them.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[muffin1]

9. I wish you

sounded THAT smart. Prism is asking Democrats to help with the fight for EQUALITY. You know, support them on a Democratic board,
write/call the White House, attend rallies if you can. Is that request really so radical?

[Prism]

12. Actually, I sound like the opposite

Because I have every reason under the sun to not vote for Democrats, to be discouraged, to scorch the earth and inflict rage on the party and politicians, to paint a black and white political choice.

But, I didn't, did I?

I said, vote for the Democrats, but still shout and protest and get out there and hold feet to the fire. To be an ally, no matter your vote.

Do you think a post rejecting this administration while still voting for democratic politicians was Bushian?

[unapatriciated]

23. Is that all you have?

This is what bush sounds like....

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/the_ten_worst_lgbt_moments_of_george_w_bushs_presidency

The op has nothing in common with that vile pos.

[QC]

26. Sadly, that really is the best he can do,

as he has made so abundantly clear over the years.

[xchrom]

8. recommend

[VMI Dem]

10. DADT is dead. This admin should stop trying to resurrect it.

I am an ally.

:toast:

[Prism]

14. Hell yeah, you are

And I hope you know it's noticed and very appreciated after all this time. You're a constant for our community on this board :hug:

[mitchtv]

105. I second that Prism

thank god for VMI

[donco6]

298. me too. n/t

[Evasporque]

33. The GOP should stop playing politics with peoples rights....

THEY are the ones holding this up and making political threats...

[rhett o rick]

267. The GOP has nothing to do with this now. Pres Obama appears to be trying to keep DADT alive.

We need to contact him and say "let DADT die". Your attempt to deflect the responsibility is discouraging. The ball is in Pres Obama's court.

[ThomCat]

I hope this admin fails to resurrect it.

You know they'll do all they can to try. :(

You know they're getting a lot of pressure from conservatives within the party and from across party lines to resurrect it, and they'll respond to those pressures. They'll also deny it and continue to pretend to be advocates for our rights.

It'll be interesting theater, if nothing else.

[polichick]

11. K&R If we had waited until everyone was comfortable about rights for women and blacks...

...we'd still be waiting.

[Prism]

17. If we can't fight when 75% of the people support us

When can we?

This is the easiest decision of this Democratic generation, and still we struggle.

[polichick]

67. That's right! I called the DOJ today about this - hope many others do too. nt

[muffin1]

13. K&R

I'm with you all the way! :fistbump:

[cordelia]

16. Rec

[Starry Messenger]

18. k & r

Solidarity.

[bvar22]

19. I have never wavered in my support.

I don't see this as a GLBT issue.
It is an American Civil Rights Issue.
Equal Rights and Equal Protections for EVERYBODY...NOW!
No exceptions.
No "fixing it later".
There is NO gray area.
Thee are NO valid excuses for delay.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[VMI Dem]

20. Exactly.

[Raksha]

226. An American civil rights issue--you are SO right!!!

To write it off as "identity politics" is to trivialize and falsify it. The gay rights movement is every bit as much a civil rights movement as the one MLK led a generation ago, which is still far from won.

[LWolf]

21. I'm with you. nt

[Happyhippychick]

22. Whose side am I on??

YOURS BABY!!

:toast:

[TheKentuckian]

24. I got your back. Equality is a prerequisite for freedom and justice.

[Mad_Dem_X]

25. K&R - This straight woman is with you!

[myrna minx]

27. This ally stands with you. The time is now! K&R n/t

[bullwinkle428]

28. K&R for a very powerful post.

[lightningandsnow]

29. Thanks for posting! Although, I would like to point out,

that even if DADT is overturned, trans people would still not be able to serve in the military.

Just goes to show that, once again, the T is silent.

Our work is never done.

On edit: a lot of people think DADT is the wrong thing to be prioritizing because of the USA's history of imperialist wars. I think it's okay to fight for the end of DADT, but I know I'm sure as hell not going to be satisfied until western countries stop bombing the shit out of people for profit. Does that make me a bad queer?

[JNelson6563]

36. Regarding the "T"

Correct me if I am mistaken but isn't it due to the amount of surgery that would bar acceptance into the military?

Julie

[lightningandsnow]

37. I believe it's that the military considers transgenderism a medical condition

that would prevent someone from serving.

[msanthrope]

31. "This DADT repeal is it." Yes. Precisely. It is it.

And I support repeal.

What Judge Phillips did was not repeal.

The problem comes when you conflate different actions by different branches of government, and their consequences.

[SidDithers]

35. +1...nt

Sid

[bullwinkle428]

44. Of course, a Congressional repeal of DADT would MAGICALLY

PREVENT any future Republican Congress and President from enacting DADT one more time!

[msanthrope]

83. Actually, it would.

Here's how--

The passage of DADT was predicated on the 'finding' that 'homosexuality' was inimical to the service, as a morale and unit cohesion breaker. To that end, you had months of testimony by military experts and the like on what would happen....


If you repeal, by addressing that finding, and gays are accepted, then the true reason behind the original passage becomes clear if you try for reinstatement--animus. Animus is always unconstitutional. A repuke congress could do all it wants--it neve gets past judicial scrutiny.

[laughingliberal]

248. Phillips' injunction, in no way, interferes with the ability of Congress to repeal DADT.

And they should. The fact that the military has functioned quite as they always do after 6 days of an injunction against enforcement of DADT and will have been doing fine for several weeks of no DADT once Congress reconvenes just strengthens the case that DADT serves no purpose.

[QC]

32. KICK! n/t

[lunatica]

34. I just sent an email to the White House

I'm definitely with you

http://www.whitehouse.gov/thank-you

[MrScorpio]

38. I'm not exactly convinced that it is "dead" yet, and it's pretty easy to figure out why

From what I understand of how laws work is that the only way something like DADT can be TRULY "dead" is if the Supreme Court declares it to be dead (By ruling that it's dead or not hearing the case, which would preclude it from being heard in the other circuits), or if Congress repeals it (They're in recess right now, so it would be killed in the lame duck, as mentioned by Barney Frank).

I'm sure that's exactly how the White House sees it as well and prefers it to actually happen with one of those two ways. All in all, it can't be totally killed in the Ninth Circuit alone, IF there are still processes ongoing, and there are.

So, we're dealing with various levels of "dead" here that, you yourself have acknowledged, still presents a problem with this issue. I sense your unease about it, and you are absolutely correct to have that unease. Because it's ONLY "dead" halfway and frankly, I'm not completely satisfied with killing this thing half way either.

I'm on the side of killing it totally. The thing is like a dragon... And I'm not happy with just sticking a pike in DADT's heart and leaving it at that.

I want to cut off its head, wings, arms and tail, rip out its heart and bury them all at the four corners of the Earth.

There's no "us vs. them" about wanting to see DADT TOTALLY DEAD on DU at all.

We ALL want to see it that way, and I would never dare to question any other DUer's commitment towards that goal.

[supernova]

57. +1000

This post is a good example of why we need a rec function for individual posts.

I agree completely.

Certainly support repealing DADT unreservedly. AND I support the courts fully nullifying it so that it can be replaced in Congress with a a true pro-equality act at all levels of society.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

110. Excellent Post Mr. Scorpio!

:thumbsup:

[donco6]

124. 21 Senators, including Al Franken, are advocating leaving it "dead".

So am I.

[MrScorpio]

131. That's all well and good right now... And it's something to portend the outcome.

But I'm not totally convinced that it will be completely dead until all the processes are exhausted.

[donco6]

168. I'm content with half-dead and unmoving.

Because while it's unmoving, my folks are all coming out in every branch of the military and everyone will discover that a giant meteor will NOT be striking the earth and that the world really isn't going to end. By the time someone tries to revive it, it will have been rendered moot.

[MrScorpio]

170. Even the the OP is concerned that " half-dead and unmoving" may not be enough...

I agree with that suspicion.

[TriMera]

204. Should be interesting when they find out

how many of us are already there.:D

[Hekate]

208. I agree Mr Scorpio. The damn thing needs to have a stake driven through its heart...

... otherwise it will rise from its coffin once more. Its the reason I am all about the process.

Hekate

[HughMoran]

184. "There's no "us vs. them" about wanting to see DADT TOTALLY DEAD on DU at all."

Thanks for your level-headed analysis of this Mr.S!

:applause:

[Hekate]

209. Amen for recognizing our essential unity on this issue.

[laughingliberal]

249. The only entity with standing to appeal Phillips' decision is DOJ. If they didn't appeal...

it would be dead.

That said, nothing in the injunction prevents Congress from repealing the law while the injunction is in place.

[rhett o rick]

270. If the Pres takes no action, DADT is dead. Just as dead as if Congress repeals it.

If the Pres takes no action, then Congress would have to take action to bring it back. Congress has already failed to repeal it and it's going to get worse in a couple of weeks. Now maybe a new Congress will resurrect it (I doubt it) but if they do, then it isnt in the cards anyway.

As much as we all would love to see it dead for good, I dont trust the Roberts Court not to screw it up.

No appeal. Take what you can get.

[MrScorpio]

280. Strike now, while the iron is hot, I say

The last thing I would hate to see if some future scenario resurrects it because of lack of action today.

The cards are lined up for DADT's complete destruction... It's really a good thing in the long run to see the whole process through.

[rhett o rick]

311. I retract my ealier rants. Someone finally explained the pres tactic.

It is not a good precedence to allow a federal judge to be the final word re. a bills Constitutionality. The DoJ is obligated (not by law, I dont believe) to take the issue to the SCOTUS.

In any case, I think the president could have from the beginning, put a hold on prosecutions until the issue is settled. Again, tell me if I am wrong (which happens occasionally....ok some times more).

[Deep13]

39. I fully agree with the so-called gay agenda.

I vote for D. candidates which around here often means the lesser evil. I sometimes support with time or money D. candidates that are skeptical or hostile to gay civil rights because the alternative is usually a lot worse both for civil rights and other issues. I voted against Ohio's version of Prop. 8 which passed anyway in 2004. I do not support any religion or religious charity and, therefore, do not support any that are anti-gay (which, let's face it, is most of them.) I have quietly taken steps to add sexual orientation to the local party's nondiscrimination policy.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether I'm with you or against you.

[Upton]

40. I'm not fond of ultimatums

I don't care who they come from. Sure I'm sympathetic to your plight, but if you really want to make allies, perhaps you should take a less confrontational tone..

[Missy Vixen]

41. The LGBTQI posters and members of the Democratic Party

have been issued ultimatums in the last six elections. That's okay, though, right?

:sarcasm:

I stand with them. I always will.

-MV

[muffin1]

74. Yeah!

Just because they don't have (and have never had) the same rights as you and me is no reason for them to be so outspoken. :eyes:

[Politicub]

201. Our "plight?"

Seriously? Institutionalized bigotry is beyond plight -- it's an injustice that needs to be made right.

[laughingliberal]

251. Our slaves would have been freed a lot sooner if they'd shown their betters the proper deference!

And this should not be needed but, sadly, is:

:sarcasm:

[Irishonly]

253. Plight?

The GLBT community has been patient. It is long past time we stick together. It's not a plight, it's wrong and immoral.

[Bluebear]

290. We're not fond nor do we need lukewarm "sympathies" such as yours.

[donco6]

300. Prism, you forgot "please" and "ma'am".

What were you thinking?

[QC]

319. And next time, bring a nice gift, maybe one of those fancy desserts you people

are so good at whipping up.

[NJmaverick]

42. The Dems are in a serious struggle with the GOP and Tea Party for the future of our nation

the fate of every man, woman and child is affected by these election results. So the question should be are you with the Dems or are you helping the GOP and Tea Party.

[VMI Dem]

43. I think fighting this ruling is helping the GOP and Tea Party.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

45. A lawyer doesn't appeal a convicted murders guilty verdict

because they think murder is wrong. That's not how our legal system works.


Still attacking the Dems would be helping the GOP and Tea Party more than the President obeying the law.

[VMI Dem]

47. The leader of our nation appealing the ending of an unconstitutional law is helping GOP and TP.

[NJmaverick]

50. The courts decide what is and isn't constitutional and that's how it's being done

and how it's been done and how it should be done.

[VMI Dem]

54. I think the Presidents personal objections to homosexuality are shaping his policy decisions.

[NJmaverick]

56. I think you are wrong and that your opinions are not grounded in facts

[VMI Dem]

59. I think his bigoted words and inactions are all the facts we need.

[Upton]

60. So now the President is a bigot?

You know, it would be nice if many of those always running down Obama, spent as much time going after the real enemy. You remember, the Republicans.

[VMI Dem]

61. Is a person that opposes interracial marriage a racist?

[muffin1]

68. Crickets on that one, eh?

Now come on, you don't want to confuse the poor fellow.

[NJmaverick]

77. You know intellectual honesty requires one to differentiate

between no believing in and opposing. They are two very different positions.

[VMI Dem]

82. What?

[NJmaverick]

93. OK, time for complex ideas

There is a world of difference between one's personal beliefs and what one opposes and legislates against. John Kerry would be a perfect example. John Kerry's religious beliefs say abortion is wrong. However that doesn't mean he is actively seeking to outlaw abortions because of his personal beliefs.

[awoke_in_2003]

96. +1 Billion. nt

[muffin1]

80. According to this post

by none other than Skinner himself, President Obama would not even be welcome on DU because of his position on same-sex marriage.

In that same thread, Skinner says that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a homophobe.
See Guidelines numbers 1 & 3:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

[Upton]

90. Well then..I've got an idea

Why don't you start a nice big thread about how you believe President Obama is a homophobe and therefore shouldn't be allowed on DU. It shouldn't be a problem. After all, you seem to think the administrators will back you up. Go ahead...let's see how far it gets ya..

[VMI Dem]

91. Why don't you start a thread arguing that opposition to gay marriage is not really bigoted?

I thought so.

[Upton]

94. You haven't even answered my first question..

except with another question..I'll try again, a simple yes or no will suffice....do you believe President Obama is a bigot?

[VMI Dem]

118. Is a person that opposes interracial marriage a bigot?

:shrug:

[muffin1]

106. I would really like to think that they would back up their own words.

However, experience has shown me that it may not, in fact, be the case. I've posted it here, though, and if they want to TS me for it, I'm sure you'll know about it soon enough. It would hurt me, though, not to be able to interact with good people such as yourself.

[NJmaverick]

97. Again intellectual honesty requires one to differentiate between

opposing something and not believing in something. Sen Kerry because of his religious beliefs thinks abortion is wrong. However that doesn't mean he opposes it and seeks to have it outlawed. This is a complex world requiring complex thoughts.

[muffin1]

115. Obama has stated on more than one occasion

that he is against same-sex marriage. Why? If it's because of his religion, why doesn't he follow ALL of 'God's laws'? I've seen him eat seafood, I notice that he shaves, he lets Michelle walk RIGHT NEXT TO HIM instead of behind him, I saw their garden (different crops SIDE-BY-SIDE, and although I have never peeked into their closets, I'd bet they wear clothes made of mixed-fibers. Nope - just like most religious folks, he is a member of 'buffet-style' religion. Take what you want, leave what you don't. Why is it that he's hung up on that one particular passage? Hmmm?

As someone asked in this thread, is it racist to say one doesn't agree with mixed-race marriage? If you are 'intellectually honest' you'll answer that it is. Then why don't you think about what it says about President Obama when he says he's against same-sex marriage?

[NJmaverick]

116. Now you are telling the man what he should believe in

I wouldn't think anyone would presume to dictate another person's beliefs. What one has to respect is that President Obama has done more for the GLBT community than ANY OTHER President. Actions are what's important not his personal beliefs that you want to control and dictate.

[muffin1]

120. I'll ask again

Is it racist to say one doesn't believe in mixed-race marriage? Why or why not?

And in no way did I "tell him what to believe". He can believe whatever the fuck he wants to believe. And *I* can believe whatever the fuck I want to believe about those beliefs. And for the record, I am heterosexual, and his work for GLBTQers seems pretty weak to me. However, unlike some, I know that this struggle is not about me. Therefore, I will defer to the GLBTIQers regarding their rights - or rather, lack of rights.

[VMI Dem]

121. By the way, people that oppose mixed race marriage use religion as an excuse too.

[muffin1]

123. Indeed they do.

[NJmaverick]

128. You are avoiding the issue with false anologies

[muffin1]

130. Please explain yourself,

because to me, it looks like you're cornered and you don't know how to answer. Take your time, feel free to ask some of your buds.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[muffin1]

142. Thank you so much.

I actually have a lot still to do today! :hi:

[NJmaverick]

146. Do you have anything to add other than false personal attacks?

is that all you can bring to the table?

[superduperfarleft]

148. I didn't personally attack you. Read the post again.

This time keeping some "complex" thoughts in mind.

[NJmaverick]

149. So the answer is yes that is all you bring to the table

duly noted and it's off to the ignore list with you

[superduperfarleft]

153. You need to read the post again.

It's very complex.

Sad that you'd rather bury your head in the sand rather than acknowledging Teh Facts. So sad...

[Forkboy]

206. Nothing false about them. That person has a good handle on you it seems.

[NJmaverick]

145. You can make any fact free claims you wish to

it will not change the FACT that you failed to appreciate the subtle but important difference between belief and opposition. You need to develop much more complex ideas and concepts in the real world. Simplistic with us or against us (as the OP demonstrates may) may feel good but it's completely lacking when it comes to addressing the real world and all its complexities.

[Winston Wolf]

288. Irony...

"The Dems are in a serious struggle with the GOP and Tea Party for the future of our nation. The fate of every man, woman and child is affected by these election results. So the question should be ARE YOU WITH THE DEMS OR ARE YOU HELPING THE GOP AND THE TEA PARTY." - Post #42 (Emphasis mine)

"...Simplistic with us or against us (as the OP demonstrates may) may feel good but it's completely lacking when it comes to addressing the real world and all its complexities." - Post #145

(Edited to no longer be formatted in plain text.)

[Lyric]

269. Toss not your pearls before swine, muffin1.

Try Ignore. You'd be amazed how much cleaner the air smells.

:hi:

[dflprincess]

223. I don't buy Obama's using religion as an excuse

for over 20 years he was a member of the United Church of Christ which supports same sex marriage and was the first mainline Christian church to do so.

He's either a homophobe or pandering to religous bigots and I'm not sure which option is worse.

[Bluebear]

289. 'always running down Obama' - who said marriage is between a man and a woman

Whatever, Upton.

[MessiahRp]

293. LMAO

Or vice versa...

[ClarkUSA]

177. In that case, Hillary Clinton is also a bigot as was every major 2008 presidential candidate.

I can't wait to see who you end up supporting for president in 2016, VMI Dem.

[awoke_in_2003]

95. ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

[QC]

104. It's striking what a quick, concise, direct answer he always gave to that question.

On every other subject he sounded like a nervous doctoral candidate taking orals, trying to cover every possible theoretical perspective and not offend a single member of the committee, but whenever the marriage question came up, he pounced on it and answered it practically before the interviewer could finish asking it.

[superduperfarleft]

133. It's also striking that now it's apparently up for discussion whether or not

opposition to marriage equality makes one a bigot.

[walldude]

158. Yes they do... and they did...

are you saying the Dems should not follow the Constitution and appeal this ruling? The law has been decided, a Federal Judge has ruled DADT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So where is your problem?

[displacedvermoter]

323. Just like you determine who the loyal Dems are and those

who aren't loyal here on DU?

[defendandprotect]

271. .... "is helping the GOP and Tea Party" ... in what way? The ruling attacks prejudice ....

GOP and Tea Party seem typical right wingers -- bigotted --

Think that's been made quite clear to Americans -- don't you?

[bullwinkle428]

46. Got it - another "Shut up until after the elections" post.

We don't get enough of these around here.

[NJmaverick]

49. This whole post is a simplistic either you agree with my position or your are against us

in light of that, you comments are just beyond silly

[VMI Dem]

51. I remember you fervently rec'ing a "with this party or against us" "rant".

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

52. I see that irony is lost on you

:eyes:

[VMI Dem]

58. The irony of your hypocrisy is not lost on many in this very thread.

:hi:

[NJmaverick]

78. The "many"you refer to have shown to be wrong far more often than they are right

so I don't care what the "many" believe.

[unapatriciated]

62. I have a similar memory

There seems to be a few here who need new glasses. The op is not about voting D and more about standing up for civil rights.
I will remain standing until all are equal.

[NJmaverick]

76. Yes because the Tea Party and the GOP is all about civil rights

:eyes:

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

92. "Earned my pay" how exactly???

[Touchdown]

100. What do you think?

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

103. You brought it up you spell it out

enough of sneaky innuendo, come out and say what you mean

[Touchdown]

109. Nah. I'm more interested in how you feel.

[NJmaverick]

111. Talk about a complete waste of time

:eyes:

[Touchdown]

112. Indeed.

... And how do you feel about that?

[displacedvermoter]

324. Like others hereabouts, he/she questions your motivation

for the ongoing attacks of anyone who dare to criticize the Obama Administration on anything.

Or so I take it, and agree with him/her, if I am correct.

Did I fall into a clever NJM trap?

[displacedvermoter]

325. Like others hereabouts, he/she questions your motivation

for the ongoing attacks of anyone who dare to criticize the Obama Administration on anything.

Or so I take it, and agree with him/her, if I am correct.

Did I fall into a clever NJM trap?

[unapatriciated]

85. and you bring this up why?

no where in the op or my comments is there any mention of drinking tea or going red.

but you know that.

why do you continue to use that tactic for those of us who support equal rights?

You know we are capable of voting D (as I did last Tuesday) and letting our reps know where we stand on this and many other issues. In fact it is what responsible involved citizens do.

[QC]

87. Why do squids spray ink into the water? n/t

[unapatriciated]

88. spot on

[NJmaverick]

102. It's election time?

The time of year when we are supposed to be rallying behind the Dems

[unapatriciated]

297. oh I get it

your saying it's "election time" and for the good of the party we must support bigotry and hatred with our silence.
That might work for you but not so much for me. I have been a D since the 60's and didn't shut up and sit down than and won't now.

There is always an election or campaigning going on just as there will always be those who tell us we must not criticize what we know to be wrong.

[Mimosa]

342. In the 1950s-1960s there were many segregationist Democrats

Here in GA and in the rest of the South The Democratic party was about 75% pro-segregation.


What would a good Democrat have done then? Well, some actively fought for progress and fought against racist pro-segregation candidates. Say, Marvin Griffin, Herman Talmadge of GA, and George Wallace of AL. My grandfather was an attorney who helped get more pregressive Democratic candidates elected, Ernest Vandiver and Carl Sanders among several.

Sometimes a person of good conscience could not punch or mark a ballot when a racist Democrat was the only option. But I guess there would be somebody on the ballot who didn't totally stink.

[walldude]

211. While it's true that they aren't, how do you reconcile

the fact that some Republicans got this law declared unconstitutional, while you and the Administration were all for sitting on your hands till the "time was right"? All I keep hearing is "but if we do it now it might get overturned". Yeah well it might not either.


I really don't understand the mind of a person who is secure in their "rights" but refuses to stand for others rights unless it's convenient for them or adheres to the manner in which they would like to see the rights be given.

[muffin1]

303. +1,000,000

:loveya:

[QC]

65. Yeah, but that rant had italics. Totally different situation. n/t

[dflprincess]

220. You either support civil rights or you don't

that's the position the OP is taking.

And if you don't support civil rights for all Americans you are indeed against the group that is fighting for them.

[rucky]

81. And standing up for equal rights would help this cause.

DADT repeal is supported by the majority.

[NJmaverick]

107. The Dems are the ONLY party standing up for equal rights

a fact lost on far too many

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

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

[readmoreoften]

214. Will transportation to the gulag be provided, or will their be a DLC shackle bus to pick us up?

See! We're finally not under the bus!

You truly are a mindless extremist, Mr. "Maverick"--wasn't McCain a maverick? Is that where you got that from?

[rhett o rick]

272. How insulting. You ask if DU members are going to be helping the TeaPotty or the GOP. What do you

think?

[Skittles]

282. LOLOLOL

we can always count on you to, aw fuck it, why even bother

[Iggo]

I think it's merely restin'...

...but I'm all in, no matter what.

[EFerrari]

48. Presente.

:kick:

[Dappleganger]

53. With you from the start.

And my small "contribution" is not voting for those who make false promises any longer.

[krabigirl]

55. Exactly. But the corporAte wing of the dem party is crap. It just is.

[struggle4progress]

63. An order from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

has force within the Central District of California and not to other judicial Districts. To obtain broader jurisdictional scope would require an order from a higher court. While other Districts might regard a ruling from the United States District Court for the Central District of California as advice, other Districts will not regard a ruling from the United States District Court for the Central District of California as binding precedent. Until the matter is uniformly resolved at an appropriate level, the possibility of other lawsuits from various plaintiffs in other districts leaves open the possibility of an untenable inconsistent patchwork of law, as different rulings regarding the constitutionality of DADT might apply in different Districts: what, for example, is the actual legal situation in the United States, now that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has found against DADT but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has upheld the ruling (of the United States District Court for Massachusetts) in Cook v Gates? Aside from the bureaucratic complexities of crafting and administering the military, if it is governed by a hodge-podge of judicial rulings, some applicable here and some applicable there, it seems unfair to service members to expect them to bear in mind which legal environment currently controls their lives, as they transfer from one duty station to another.

This matter can eventually be addressed by the Courts, and it will end at the Supreme Court if it is thus addressed: the Supreme Court, however, does not consist entirely of our friends, and perhaps we should therefore not eagerly await its eventual resolution of the issues. It would be better to eliminate, legislatively, the current restrictions on service and to craft a corresponding body of military law and regulation that presupposes equality: this requires action from both the President and the Congress

[Prism]

181. You're wrong. Period.

Only the administration has standing to appeal and resurrect DADT. The court's ruling applies worldwide - not just in that one district.

At this moment, the discharges are halted worldwide. The Pentagon is complying with the judge's ruling.

Only the administration is in a position to bring back DADT at this point in time.

[struggle4progress]

196. Concur in part and dissent in part. Of course, it will generally be true

that only the parties to a suit have standing to appeal a ruling in that suit. The fact, that the Pentagon complies with the judge's order, does not preclude other parties with standing from taking offense, now or at a later date, at the Administration's failure to enforce the current law as written and from suing in other Districts or Circuits for enforcement. It is entirely evident that there are people who are not on our side in this matter and who would have standing to sue: I do not consider it particularly beneficial to elaborate here. In the event of such suits in other Districts or Circuits, the ruling of this particular US District Court in California would impose absolutely no precedent. The ideal outcome would be orderly Congressional repeal, rendering the judicial involvement moot

[Prism]

200. I disagree about standing. But why "ideal"? Nothing is really ideal.

I mean, ideal would be having Congress being the only people to pass or repeal laws, as they would reflect the will of the people. But the great cries of judicial activism from the right-wing have given us this strange frame, that things are only really legitimate if Congress does it.

I feel we've allowed the Right a very troubling win in diminishing an entire third coequal branch of government from its proper place as interpreters of the Constitution.

Instead of celebrating the death of DADT, we're now in this odd position of questioning the ruling's legitimacy and the court's right to even make such a determination. And we do that, because the Right has been effective in framing the role of the courts as illegitimate to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. The Right wants mob rule, and as long as we buy into "Only Congress can or should do X, no matter what" we're increasing the potency of the judicial activism crowd. We're defending their arguments and internalizing them as our own.

This strikes me as wholly bad for the republic.

[struggle4progress]

205. I have no objection to tripartite government: I simply have no confidence in the Roberts Court,

which is approximately 50% rightwing ideologue, and this matter will ultimately end in the Roberts Court unless Congress settles it

Having seen what the conservatives were willing to do in the 2000 election, and again in Citizens United, I am not at all overjoyed by the prospect that the Roberts Court may touch this

I did not question the legitimacy of the ruling: I have not read it, but I would probably regard it as correct if I did read it, since from what I know it accords with my views

But constitutional law is as political a matter as any matter can be, and so strategic political considerations will sometimes govern what litigation one wants to pursue

[Radical Activist]

64. It looks like Barney Frank isn't on your side.

He has a slightly different take on tactics. He thinks DoJ should simply wait to announce an appeal and give Congress time to repeal DADT in a lame duck session of Congress. By your own standards, that makes him not on you side since there can't be "a difference of opinion in tactics."

I'm on your side. I've advocated for LGBT rights for over 10 years. But calling people enemies because they take a different approach has never helped any movement. Ever.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

72. Actually, it was the OP who argued

that everyone must think alike. Didn't you read it? The OP said there was no room for differences of opinion on tactics. I was pointing out the opposite. I believe there are diverse opinions about tactics and there's nothing wrong with that. So you just called the OP a bigot, not me.

[muffin1]

86. Are you clear on the meaning

of the words "radical" and "activist"?

[Radical Activist]

137. Are you?

Can you explain what about my statement isn't radical or activist enough? Do you disagree that there are many different tactics being pursued by LGBT leaders? Getting stubborn about tactics and pushing away allies who share a common goal isn't radical. It's just stupid.

[Hekate]

218. ~*~

:thumbsup:

[bullwinkle428]

73. As a member of Congress, Barney Frank has a certain vested interest

in seeing it overturned through Congress rather than through the courts! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that one...

[Radical Activist]

75. I would think Frank's bigger interest is getting DADT repealed.

Either way, I think it's fair to say that reasonable people who are on the same side can have a difference of opinion about the best way to reach a common goal. And Frank isn't the only LGBT leader who the OP would define as an "enemy" because they don't have the same view about the best way to repeal DADT.

[polmaven]

333. His vested interest

is seeing it overturned in a manner that cannot be undone without further legislative action. As it stands now, if a plaintiff with standing files suit, and a different district judge finds DADT constitutional, then that is the law of the land. Only the legislature, or SCOTUS can make it final.

[Prism]

101. Barney Frank is a politician, first and foremost

Politicians do what politicians do. I haven't paid him any heed on our issues in a long, long time.

And since when is calling out enemies a bad thing? The LGBT community has been painted as the opposition by Obama loyalists for going on two years now.

Oh, right. You mean, calling the loyalists who sacrifice LGBT rights for the sake of their guy is a bad thing. But castigating gay people day in and day out for two years, well, that's just gravy train isn't it?

Uh huh.

[Radical Activist]

135. There's no point to calling allies like Barney Frank and many others enemies.

There are many different views about tactics, and that doesn't make someone the opposition. Calling out enemies is a bad thing when you end up attacking friends.

I have never discouraged anyone from fighting for their rights. If I've had disagreements on this board it's with those who exaggerate and distort the facts in their efforts to attack Obama unfairly. No one should paint LGBT advocates as the opposition and no one should be asked to sacrifice their rights. I support anyone who makes fair criticism of Obama for not moving fast enough.

[Prism]

183. Empty words

I'm sorry, they're empty words. No one should paint LGBT advocates as the opposition? It happens all the time, every time, the moment we ask a little too forcefully. No one should be asked to sacrifice their rights, and yet here we are, again and again, sacrificed in the name of party and politician.

People say they're supportive, they say they're with us, they say "You know, when it happens, I'll be there."

We're there. Right now. Now is the time. Are you with us, or is there a billionth reason (yet again) that you're not quite on board with us at this point in time? Is there another excuse, delay, justification, and apology for why LGBTers have to wait yet again?

I see a lot of excuses. I do not see all these supposed fierce advocates and allies supporting the community and helping us hold this administration responsible for the DADT appeal.

Now is the time. Now it counts. The moment is here. Make your choice.

[donco6]

308. Radical's advocacy makes the Fierce Advocate appear . . . *fierce*. n/t

[Radical Activist]

318. Empty words

You wrote: "I'm sorry, they're empty words. No one should paint LGBT advocates as the opposition? It happens all the time, every time, the moment we ask a little too forcefully. No one should be asked to sacrifice their rights, and yet here we are, again and again, sacrificed in the name of party and politician."

Yes, and I wrote that I agree with you. So let up on the hostility.

[dionysus]

210. oh jesus.

"The LGBT community has been painted as the opposition by Obama loyalists for going on two years now."

"But castigating gay people day in and day out for two years, well, that's just gravy train isn't it?"

thats some fabrication right there.

so "obama loyalists" sit around daily trying to hurt gay folks? on what planet?

[readmoreoften]

216. Homophobic. Is Alan Keyes pro-civil rights because he's black?

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Radical Activist]

247. What are you even talking about?

Your hatred has made you descend into incoherent insults. It reads like you're too blinded to see or understand what I wrote.

[readmoreoften]

260. What's hard to follow: Alan Keyes isn't pro-Black civil rights just because he's Black.

Barney Frank isn't pro-gay rights just because he's gay. Do you need it in a foreign language, or what?

Glad you've picked up on my distain for you. No apologies.

[Radical Activist]

284. You think Barney Frank is against gay rights?

After all he has done to champion gay rights in Congress? That's seriously fucked up.

I think I see the problem. Barney Frank doesn't hate Obama as much as you do. So you think he's the enemy.

[TriMera]

285. I don't think that's what she was saying but, carry on. n/t

[Radical Activist]

286. That's exactly what she was saying.

She was questioning the credibility of Barney Frank as a gay rights advocate. She has to believe anything that reaffirms her admitted hatred for Obama and his supporters. Even if it means attacking Barney Frank.

[jonnyblitz]

306. no that is NOT what she is saying but there is no point in arguing

with somebody like you who purposefully DOESN'T want to get what she is saying because it takes away from your "you just hate Obama and his followers" narrative. just because Frank is gay DOESN't mean he puts gay rights issues before other things such as POLITICS. If you were a close of observer of Frank on the issues like many of us are you would know what we are talking about.

[Radical Activist]

317. It's not just a narrative

when a poster has specifically written that she hates Obama's supporters more than teabaggers.

She wrote: "Barney Frank isn't pro-gay rights just because he's gay."

Yeah, it's pretty clear that she's accusing Barney Frank, after all he has done, of not being for gay rights. That's very fucked up. What do you suppose motivates someone to turn on Barney Frank, other than her blinding hatred of anything Obama?

[mstinamotorcity]

66. Been with you

all the time.

[alsame]

69. Always with you. nt

[Individualist]

71. I'm with you

Gubernatorial candidates in my state (TN) are a republican and a "democrat" who opposes gay couples adopting children and supports teaching intelligent design creationism in schools. I'll vote for NEITHER of them.

...and I'm wearing purple today.

[political_Dem]

79. Treat people of color within and outside of the LGBTQI with dignity and respect

then true equality will mean something.

I have been a long advocate of civil and human rights for all communities, including the LGBTQI. It hurt what happened after the Prop. 8 vote because Black people and communities of color were mistreated and discriminated against in the anger linked to the passage of this legislation. No one apologized. In fact, the underlying disrespect goes on against people of color as this issue is debated across the country.

I just ask that the conversation of "equality" cannot solely be based on a white privileged point of view. The concept of equality is much deeper and more complex than that.

Other than that, I stand by this fight in these tremendous times.

[NJmaverick]

99. You can also add that the Transgendered community is being neglected in all of this

as transgendered people are not allowed to serve.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Touchdown]

165. Thin skinned, huh?

[Name removed]

224. Deleted message

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

[Prism]

108. This is like the fifth time you've posted your "racist gays" meme lately

Seriously. We get it. Racist gays. Rawr.

There's so much wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. But you keep posting and posting and posting about racist gays, no matter how unrelated to the topic at hand

[political_Dem]

157. And like equality is being brought up, this issue will be brought up as well.

Whether you like it or not, racism is a part of this--especially after the aftermath of Prop. 8.

I'm sorry it bothers you, but this is a fact that needs to be brought up and discussed. Equality means being truly and fully equal for all, not some. That means eliminating racism within and outside the LGBTQI community and not sweeping it under the rug. It means also pledging your solidarity to communities of color and other disenfranchised groups.

If you're afraid of your own community being filled with racists, it's time to get the ball rolling to eliminate it.

[HughMoran]

173. "Equality means being truly and fully equal for all, not some"

Hear! Hear!

Equality is the opposite of "my way or the highway"

[Prism]

189. Racism is not a part of this. You're using it as a weapon to smack LGBTers around.

Let me ask you this. How would you feel if every thread about African American issues that had nothing to do with LGBT rights, was suddenly sidetracked by "Well, you know, it's really hard to help out the African American community. I mean, there's so many prominent homophobes in it. If they'd respect us, we'd probably get much further and you'd have more LGBT people on board."

Imagine if a thread about African American unemployment got "Well, I of course support you, but the number of homophobic black preachers who continue to go on and on make me less like to really be on your side here."

There is so much wrong and so much offensive within those statements, we could take a week picking it all out.

But that's what you do with LGBT issues, again and again and again. You take some racists in the LGBT community and decide you're not only going to paint all of us with it and assign collective guilt, you're going to troll our issues on account and inject thinly disguised racial homophobia into the conversation.

Here's some truth for you. The black community has a big homophobia problem. Deal with it. It is not racially especial, but religious - just as it is in the white community. The LGBT community has many leaders of color who we value and listen to. You don't like the tony HRC dinners with the white privileged monied folk hobnobbing with celebrities and politicians?

Guess what? Most of us don't either. The President chooses to make them the people he works with. He picks them, because they're loyal party operatives. He sends his advisers and friends and administration officials to their monochrome dinners. I would trade a Joe Solmonese for a Pam Spaulding in a heartbeat. I would rather have a Keith Boykin as the head of the Taskforce any day of the week.

Half the internal tension in the LGBT community is over the white, affluent self-described leaders who go to their cocktail parties, rub elbows, and kiss powerful ass while the rest of us are living diverse existences and trying to do the best we can to hold our entire community together.

The problem here, is that you do not know the LGBT community at all. You seem to think there are no LGBT leaders of color, and if there are, they're ignored. This is not even close to the truth. You seem to think the LGBT community is some kind of self-isolated world, preoccupied solely with its own issues. And yet, look at any major demonstration. Look at the immigration demonstrations from several years ago, as millions marched. You know what you'll see in the pictures?

Rainbow flags.

Do you know what gay conservatives' major complaint about the LGBT community is? We're too left-wing. We're too concerned with non-gay issues. We're too pro-choice, too anti-war, too Democratic, too everything that conservatives hate. If only we'd focus solely on LGBT issues, gay conservatives wouldn't have a problem.

You don't know us. But you're happy to paint us all with the racist brush (which is odd, because there are so many LGBTers of color who are valuable, prominent voices in our community).

Respect? Look to home first because presuming to explain it to us. It's a two way street. And let me leave you with this.

Before Prop 8, the LGBT community was still getting trolled on the racial issue. We were told our civil rights struggle wasn't equivalent, that we had no right co-opting the struggles of the mid-20th Century Civil Rights Movement, that our lifestyle was different than race. Look at the GLBT forum here on DU and skim from, say, 2004-2008. Notice just how much LGBTers were getting racially sandbagged before Prop 8 was a wish in a right-winger's black little heart.

You want an apology? Well, here it is. Again. For about the billionth time from me. I'm sorry. I'm sorry some people in my community have racist hatred in their hearts, I'm sorry some of them lashed out in anger towards blacks, I'm sorry anyone was subjected to that ugliness. I'm sorry some people saw race when what they needed to recognize was the religion.

Now, will you apologize for McClurkin or Eddie Long? Do I have any right to ask you to? Isn't it offensive as hell to have anyone come to you and demand an apology of you for something an African American individual did? You know that happens all the time. You know people coming from a place of white privilege hold your entire community accountable for the actions of individuals.

What about that bigotry is so attractive that you need to practice that same attitude against LGBTers?

Because that's precisely what you've been all about for going on two years now. Look in a mirror when you speak of respect. There's a whole lot of reflection that needs to happen there.

[ruggerson]

197. +1

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

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

[political_Dem]

219. Okay.

I did craft a long response to your outburst, but I decided it wasn't worth it. You are too concerned with calling people bigots. While you are doing that, I am going to continue fighting for people from all walks of life to be respected on a level of true equality. That means talking about racism, misogyny and other forms of bigotry repeatedly as I see fit.

There are a lot of people who truly fight for respect and equality in this country without pointing others out in a McCarthyite fashion. Those are folks who deserve coalitions to fight for justice.

[readmoreoften]

261. Part of being in a coalition and fighting for justice is not dismissing the rights

of the people you're in a coalition with.

[political_Dem]

277. You're right. That goes both ways.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

274. You got your ass handed to you and all you can do is pout about an "outburst"

The truth hurts. Deal with it.

[political_Dem]

313. To be honest, The OP's comment doesn't have that effect on me. Neither does yours. :-/

Btw, I will still discuss racism, sexism and bigotry as I see fit because it is the right thing to do in pointing the way toward understanding others and building bridges with folks from other walks of life. I'm sorry you joined the OP and the others in not wanting to define a true equality that is inclusive for everyone regardless of race. That's your perrogative. Following your advice, I accept and deal with your utter need to treat race and racism as bothersome. Thank you for showing your true colors on this issue so much that others will see it too.

Now continue the back slapping while others do the heavy lifting to build a coalition that doesn't require a tribunal, put-downs and a purity test to join.

As for myself, there's no time to pout. There is time, however, to get to know open-minded folks who aren't hostile to different ideas and people from walks of life. I don't want to exchange ideas in fear.

[Bluebear]

291. 'your outburst' - as arrogant as the White House on this issue.

[political_Dem]

294. I'm going to take the high road on this.

Take care.

[Bluebear]

321. Yes you do that.

[Prism]

310. No outburst here

You have flung some very weighty allegations while heaping the attitudes of privilege upon the LGBT community with standards I cannot imagine you enjoy seeing applied anywhere else. You have repeatedly entered LGBT threads with the sole purposes of calling out racists, but you object to my calling out homophobia.

It is not McCarthyism to call out the numerous double standards, the privilege, the racial homophobia, and, yes, the bigotry that comes from using broad brush attacks, pigeon-holing an entire community, and assigning collective guilt while demanding collective atonement for the sins of individuals - just as privileged whites have done to the black community from time immemorial.

You got called on the carpet for it. Own it. No one who adopts the poses, demands, and attacks of white privilege is doing any of the things you say you desire to do.

If your intent was to fight for equality or build bridges, you have failed here.

Massively.

[political_Dem]

314. On the bright side, in failure I see opportunity.

There's other people who see this issue differently than yourself and are willing to discuss the issues you don't want to talk about. I did it last night with a few people. And I will do it again today with a few more. So while you are resting on your laurels for a "job well done" in bullying my ideas here, there's work to do by openly discussing this issue and finding solutions with others who are more patient, generous, courageous and open-minded. That is what I am interested in now. There's no time to engage in this pettiness. I'm moving on.

[Prism]

328. You do that.

That, by the way, is also a function of white privilege that you're adopting. Insult, belittle, and promote bigoted thinking, then behave as if you are above the fray, interested in solutions, the good person here, and paint the people you just insulted as the bad guys.

I'm not even sure you know you're doing it at this point.

It is interesting to watch though.

[political_Dem]

329. So be it. Like I said, I'm moving on.

Here's food for thought, though.

McCarthy suffered from an empty, fearful place while pointing at phantoms, tilting at windmills and accusing everyone of being traitors. After all that sound and fury, the people he forced to side with him revolted and fought back against his form of tyranny. There's a lesson there in that.

[Prism]

330. And yet, you've not learned it.

More studying is in order, I think.

By the way, about the word bullying you used earlier. That's also a function of privilege. Launch a reprehensible attack, and then when met with resistance, assume the mantle of victimhood.

Is there a Big Book of Privilege laying nearby and you're just moving down the list, checking off all the tactics as you go along?

Like I said, it's very weird to see from a person of color, given how your community has been devastated by privileged attitudes since the very founding of this country.

[political_Dem]

331. I've learned quite a deal-- even from your sheer hypocrisy.

As a person of color, to see the hypocritical thinking in the attacks you are engaging in is rather sad. Since, I've dealt with others who are as just as hostile about race being introduced in the conversation as you are, your behavior is old hat. Been there done that. The aftermath of Prop. 8 brought me extra training in dealing with such hostility as this.

You aren't fooling anyone with throwing around the concept of "privilege", let alone white privilege. In fact, your use of these terms to lecture me makes this entire thing rather ironic and sad.

Now, I'm truly bowing out and going away from this sordid affair. I'm sorry that there has been a failure of communication on your part.

[Prism]

334. I'm willing to discuss race just fine.

In fact, I've done just that several times on DU, discussing race and the LGBT community, the problems, the potential solutions, the way different ethnicities and cultures communicate about orientation differently.

You know who did their damnedest to shut down those conversations? I'm sure you'll never guess.

But, like you, I think I've made my point very clearly.

I have no respect for anyone who believes support for equality should be conditional, as you have stated in some of your responses of late. You make your support contingent on unacceptable premises, and all the empty rhetoric in the world cannot mask that.

At the end of the day, some people really do only have words.

[mitchtv]

255. +7

thanks

[donco6]

301. + a billion. Thanks. n/t

[Number23]

193. But folks don't want to bring it up, PD

As you can tell. It's much easier to cast people as "homophobes" or "tokens" as the OP has done to a black lesbian on this site when the issue of racism was brought up. And it's even easier to bring up past or current relationships with black people as if that means any damn thing in the vein of the "but my best friends are black!" defense. Even black gays who approach this subject are called "homophobes" and without even the slightest trace of irony or awareness of how utterly disgusting and offensive this is.

I'm not happy with the DADT appeal. I understand the legal ramifications and I'm happy to read more about this issue, but I want DADT gone yesterday. Though I have to admit to being absolutely baffled that DADT (which affects at most a couple of hundred people) seems to get so much more attention on this web site than DOMA, which affects millions and is far more sweeping and disgusting.

PD, I don't know if you're familiar with the National Black Justice Coalition, but they are an excellent resource on important issues in the gay, black community. http://nbjc.org/ (Facebook site here http://www.facebook.com/NationalBlackJusticeCoalition) And if you'll notice, the Valerie Jarrett dust up is no where to be found on this web site. :)

I really appreciate your comments in this thread and just wanted to let you know.

[political_Dem]

222. Thank you for saying that, Number 23. I appreciate your support.

I wanted all sides of this issue out there--especially when it deals with the issue of true equality. I also am grateful for the information. I will make a note to check it out because I need to hear another side of this subject matter without the dramatics.

[Number23]

236. You're welcome.

:)

I'm probably going to leave this thread now because the hypocrisy within it is enough to kill a horse. When the same folks who have co-opted phrases/history from the black struggle in this country call you "disrespectful" and "offensive" for your accurate characterization for what happened after Prop 8, it's time for me to back out before I say something that may get me banned (but which I would not regret saying in the least).

Best of luck and I'll see you around, PD.

[racaulk]

304. A couple of points on your DADT/DOMA comparison.

You stated that DADT "affects at most a couple of hundred people." That is an inaccurate statement. Since its inception, more than 13,000 troops have been dismissed under the policy. Also, there are approximately 3 million soldiers that are either active duty or in reserve. If you accept the conventional wisdom that approximately 10% of people are gay and lesbian, then that means that approximately 300,000 gay and lesbian soldiers are currently serving under DADT.

These figures also do not include the spouses, domestic partners, girlfriends, boyfriends, children, and other friends and family members of those soldiers whose lives are certainly affected by the crushing secrecy under which their loved ones have to work. All of these people also have a direct stake in seeing DADT overturned, and their lives and livelihoods would also be even more negatively affected if their loved one were to be discharged under the policy. In addition, when a soldier is discharged under DADT, all of those costs that went into training that soldier are lost -- and that costs all US taxpayers.

While I agree with you that DOMA is far reaching and horrendous, the effects of DADT are much more pervasive than you seem to realize. Certainly many more than "a couple of hundred people" are affected by the policy.

In addition, you mentioned that you are baffled that DADT is receiving more attention than DOMA. I think part of the reason is that there is currently more of a push from the public to repeal DADT than to repeal DOMA. It's more of a "low hanging fruit," if you will. There is a clear and solid majority of Americans who support fully repealing DADT -- the same cannot yet be said for repealing DOMA. DADT is what our political leaders seem to be focused on right now, which is why the issue gets more play in the M$M (and DU, by extension) than DOMA does.

[Touchdown]

113. Uh'... White guy here. I'm dating an African American man.

While there are a few racist gays out there, the majority of us aren't. Try not to paint with such a broad brush.

[political_Dem]

161. I know that not all people from the LGBTQI community are racists.

Furthermore, I don't like broad brushes. But, I do ask that people do think about the broader aspects of what equality means. I also would like people to not forget the witch hunt that happened after Prop. 8 and learn from it. The underlying animus is still there--especially when the Valerie Jarrett affair came up. In both incidents, the broad brush was used against Black people. Few people spoke up.

I think that it is quite ironic to speak about equality when there are other groups that are mistreated.

The movement for equality is groundbreaking and momentous. Thus, this campaign for human and civil rights, if successful, will make our country and world into a better one. But the victory will be bittersweet if there are still some folks who are treated as second class citizens.

That's all I wanted to say.

[Touchdown]

164. I agree with you on the broader sense.

And you are right about the Prop 8 aftermath. But I will not defend Valerie Jarret's idiotic remarks. It's not about her, but her attitude.

[political_Dem]

167. You don't have to defend Ms. Jarrett's comments. What she said was terrible.

I just want people to treat each other with respect in solidarity. That's all and the bottom line.

I also want to thank you for having this discussion with me. It's exchanges like these that true movement in social change occurs. :)

[Smashcut]

195. Valerie Jarrett deserved the blowback from her use of RW buzzwords

It had nothing to do with her being black, and you know it.

Yet another thread you're using to cast GLBT people as racists (even though as many people of color are GLBT as any other group) and somehow getting away with it.

[readmoreoften]

263. Not all people in the LGBTQI are even white. Just like in the straight community.

[political_Dem]

276. I know that. I've never said that all members of the LGBTQI were.

I'm simply talking about a true equality that respects everyone from all walks of life. I also pledged my support in being an ally as well. I just want in this discussion of equality that no one is forgotten regardless of their station in life. The fight for same sex rights must be everyone's fight. No matter the derision I get, I still believe that everyone must have dignity and the same rights in this country. I am glad that DADT is dead in the water. I hope that it is the domino that knocks down all the rest from the courts to Congress.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[political_Dem]

159. I am. Are you a true champion of eliminating racism?

Do you fight to ensure that no one is treated as a second class citizen within and outiside your community?

[ruggerson]

194. You are trying to make the story of Prop 8 about something else

PRop 8 was a frontal assault on the LGBT community. It attempted to write discrimination against gay people into a state constitution. It was about gay people being stripped of a basic civil right, and about the moral and legal travesty of Americans being able to vote on each other's rights in the first place.

It was about nothing else.

It is immoral and disrespectful and offensive to try to twist the stort of Prop 8 into something else entirely.

[readmoreoften]

225. And who is most abused under DADT? Lesbians of color.

[political_Dem]

228. I know. And it is a shame. :(

[ruggerson]

235. Are you down at your local LGBT center helping gay kids

who can't go home any more? Many, if not most, of whom are gay kids of color.

Cause many of us do just that IRL.

Sorry, I don't find your posts constructive in the least. They are combatitive, accusatory and suffused with heterosexual privilege.

[political_Dem]

240. I'm sorry you feel that way. But I'm not going to stop caring because you don't like it.

And if I did give you a list of the organizations I help and have helped it's not going to change your mind. You wouldn't give a damn.

[ruggerson]

243. No one asked you to stop caring

least of all me. I think, as I stated above, if this is your attempt at bridge building, you're going about it the wrong way. ANd that includes throwing around the bigot word and playing victim when you are the one who came into this thread with all the ridiculous accusations.

[muffin1]

89. Time for another

big KICK. :kick:

[mitchtv]

117. K&R

great Post, I ignore the directions of our "strait allies", we will lead this movement. I am tired of being sold out

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. As I noted in another thread, if this administration is as pro-gay as they claim to be

they wouldn't contest it. They'd issue a statement supporting the overthrow of DADT at a bare minimum.

The fact that they want to contest it shows that either they're still trying to appease the right-wingers, as if that ever did any good for anyone, or they really are homophobic at heart.

[VMI Dem]

122. This adminstration is not pro-gay in any way, shape or form.

[ClarkUSA]

125. lol! You're confusing this administration with the Clinton administration, who gave us DADT & DOMA

[jesus_of_suburbia]

129. I KNEW you'd make an appearance on this thread.

:pals:

[VMI Dem]

134. What was Clinton sycophant Wes Clark's view on DADT at that time?

Just wonderin'.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[VMI Dem]

140. You must care. You seem to have a hardon for the Clinton years in every GLBT related thread.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

141. Why? Because you say so? ROFL! "hardon"? What's that?

[VMI Dem]

143. Because you are in every GLBT related thread I see posting it. I'm sure some others can verify that

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

144. What's "hardon"? What's "it"? BTW, I haven't posted in days due to staying busy with GOTV.

More people should try supporting the Democratic Party's midterm efforts via a weekend of non-stop GOTV instead of whining 24/7.

[VMI Dem]

147. "What about Clinton!?" "Clinton is a bigot too!" "Clinton started it!" "What is this thread about?"

[ClarkUSA]

152. Why won't you tell me what a "hardon" is? And why are you putting quotes on phrases I haven't said?

[VMI Dem]

154. Clinton said it first!

:rofl:

[muffin1]

155. First, that was fifteen fucking years ago.

He and Hillary both support same-sex marriage now. In 2010.

Second, OBAMA is the one who claimed he was going to be a 'fierce advocate'. I'm sure you probably think he is, too. He isn't and neither are you.

[ClarkUSA]

174. So what? President Obama is still the ONLY president who has ever wanted to repeal DADT.

<< He and Hillary both support same-sex marriage now. >>

Bubba finally did in Sept. 2009. Big whoop.

Hillary was against gay marriage when running as president in 2008. To my knowledge, she hasn't changed her mind.

<< Second, OBAMA is the one who claimed he was going to be a 'fierce advocate'. I'm sure you probably think he is, too. He isn't and neither are you. >>

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one.

Here are two FACTS: President Obama is still the ONLY president who has ever wanted to repeal DADT via Congress. And unlike Bubba, he's passed pro-LGBT laws instead of anti-LGBT laws.

[rhett o rick]

273. DADT would be dead if he didnt appeal. His appeal doesnt indicate he wants DADT dead. nm

[ClarkUSA]

326. Nan Hunter, 1st winner of the Dan Bradley Award, GLBT National Bar's highest honor, agrees w/the WH.

See Reply #327.

[mitchtv]

171. give it a rest

you're like a broken record, besides that was years ago we have a whole new crop of spinelss Dems to deal with now

[ClarkUSA]

175. Sorry, I won't give the facts a rest so as to not interrupt 24/7 whining.

[unapatriciated]

302. It was because many had the courage to engage in "24/7 whining"

That we had the civil rights movement. We are now continuing that movement so all are equal.

We get it we know where you stand, it's whining 24/7 to support equal rights.

[foxfeet]

182. Do you consider yourself an ally of the LGBTQI community?

[foxfeet]

203. *crickets*

[Forkboy]

207. Kick for an answer.

[donco6]

227. Heh.

Well, there's a reason for his ecstasy at the DADT appeal.

[ClarkUSA]

230. Do you consider yourself an ally of the Democratic President?

[foxfeet]

232. Yes. Now please answer my question.

[Name removed]

233. Deleted message

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

[superduperfarleft]

241. I think you guys got your answer. n/t

[ruggerson]

250. Everyone should read this exchange n/t

[racaulk]

305. I notice you still haven't answered foxfeet's question.

Since you have chosen not to answer it, perhaps your silence is the answer.

[donco6]

307. Well, that clears up a lot.

Not that it wasn't clear before.

[Gormy Cuss]

234. And what exactly has this administration given us? Nothing substantive on DADT or DOMA

except a promise that somewhere down the line they'll get addressed, sort of. Maybe not. Depends on whether it will cost the Democrats the next election, or the one after that.

[ClarkUSA]

237. There is no easy out. Walter Dellinger was on the Rachel Maddow Show making this case.

Walter Dellinger was Clinton's Acting Solicitor General. On the Rachel Maddow Show, he said that it's wrong to allow a single district judge to overturn a law passed by Congress. He gave an example of a future Republican president finding one district judge to rule against HCR and deciding not to appeal. He also said that President Obama has done alot to move the repeal of DADT forward by making the military get on board, which is a big deal. The Justice Department's orderly defenses of laws passed by Congress are constitutionally sound. Dellinger said that ultimately, Congress really needs to repeal DADT but that President Obama is doing a "delicate" dance to set the stage for that to happen.

[readmoreoften]

264. So Clinton sucks too. What's your point?

Is this somehow evidence that Democrats have been good to LGBT people? Not a very strong argument.

[Radical Activist]

139. "They'd issue a statement supporting the overthrow of DADT at a bare minimum."

They've done that many, many times over. Obama said it personally again just last week. He said it in the state of the union speech.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

163. So why are they contesting the decision?

Yeesh.

[ClarkUSA]

176. Walter Dellinger was on the Rachel Maddow Show making this case.

Walter Dellinger was Clinton's Acting Solicitor General. He's saying that it's wrong to allow a single district judge to overturn a law passed by Congress. He gave an example of a future Republican president finding one district judge to rule against HCR and deciding not to appeal. He also said that President Obama has done alot to move the repeal of DADT forward by making the military get on board, which is a big deal. The Justice Department's orderly defenses of laws passed by Congress are constitutionally sound. Dellinger said that ultimately, Congress really needs to repeal DADT but that President Obama is doing a "delicate" dance to set the stage for that to happen.

[slackmaster]

136. Pro-LGBT rights, pro-military checking in

K&R!

:kick:

[totodeinhere]

150. I am 100% behind LGBT rights including full marriage equality, however...

I am uncomfortable with the phrase "You're with us or against us" because those are the very same words that shrub used to justify his police state tactics. There is always room for debate about tactics and nuances on any issue, this one included.

[crim son]

151. Diehard ally here

as I've made clear, I hope, over the years.

[racaulk]

160. You have made that clear.

And you are appreciated.

:hug:

[MuseRider]

156. Solidarity!

Forever and always an ally.

We have made progress here and passed anti bullying and cyber bullying legislation. We are getting closer to a floor hearing of ENDA every year. Shoot, I spent 30 minutes in the Red Neck Rappers office talking to him about it. That was fun, let me tell you, but even he is beginning to look just a tiny bit differently at what we are asking.

I do not do nearly enough now, I have done as much as I can in the past. With the next wave of Red hitting my state after November I will be glad I took some down time to heal my ownself because we are going to be headed straight back to the dark ages and it will be hell to keep anything we have done alive let alone progress.

Anyone who does not support these issues is not someone I would ever want to be friends with. Any person living in this country who considers themselves more worthy than someone else is not truly American and needs to go back and take a look at what this country is supposed to stand for. It amazes me that there is any question about this issue of equality at all. Scream, shout, protest but mostly get involved and work your tails off to assist in this fight.

Standing beside you with pride and commitment.

[Lucy Goosey]

162. I'm with you, for what it's worth

I'm Canadian, so I can't vote in the US or anything, but I'm with you in spirit.

This happened so differently in Canada, largely because there was no legislation surrounding it: a lesbian officer with a good service record was fired; she decided to sue the military for employment discrimination; the military settled the case and rescinded its gay ban before the case went to trial. Parliament could have tried to enact legislation, but I think they saw the writing on the wall - based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they weren't going to be able to uphold the discrimination. That was 18 years ago, and under one of our most Conservative Prime Ministers - Mulroney, who was our Thatcher/Reagan.

[cordelia]

178. And your support

is much appreciated.

Thank you.

[TriMera]

169. Kick n/t

[bertman]

172. With you 100%. Great post, Prism. Rec. nt

[Ignis]

179. K&R

This isn't a time for triangulation, bipartisanship, and 3-D chess.

This is an opportunity to show voters that Democrats stand for equal rights for all.

[foxfeet]

180. K&R

And thank you, Prism. Love ya!

[proReality]

186. Well, there's some unrecommending being done here.

It was at 89 when I recommended, but once posted the recommends are at 87.

[fascisthunter]

187. Rec

[Unvanguard]

188. The administration should refuse to appeal. DADT ought to die now.

But I don't think your suggestion that there are no reasonable, pro-equality grounds on which to call into question that conclusion is particularly fair. Among other things, there are valid rule of law concerns with the idea that the President should use an isolated district court opinion to invalidate a Congressional statute.

[Prism]

191. It is always, always something

There is always a reason for delay, always a reason that it has to be done "just so", always a reason that LGBTers must wait.

It's 2010. The reasons are weak and not holding anymore.

It must be now. If not now, when? Because the promises of an amorphous someday can no longer be accepted. We've had decades of somedays. We need a today. We need to draw that line, at long last.

We need to pick a moment to say "No more."

I feel this should be that moment when the Democratic Party is held accountable for the promises they always make but find eternal reasons to leave unfulfilled. We have to stand up for the lives destroyed and decide not to accept another single one because of political connivance.

Our leaders must lead, or they must be led. And since they clearly cannot or will not do the former, it must now be the latter. We have to draw this line and make this choice.

[Autumn]

190. I am going to stand right here with you, until you

have the EXACT same rights as this straight woman. And I will accept nothing less.

[boston bean]

192. I'm with you.

What you keep hearing from people who want someone like you to shut up is that they are fearful of losing an election, and dems need the bigot vote. They want you and me to cave to bigots for their agenda.

Despicable.

Perhaps if these people fought with us instead of against, DADT would be gone sooner rather than later.

[nashville_brook]

199. big f'n k and r

[Politicub]

202. Right on! Our time is now.

Kids are dying out there because of inequality. It's time for our country to move forward.

[Stinky The Clown]

212. I am unequivocally on your side.

I see the usual "wait till . . . ." bullshit in this thread. That is unacceptable.

[Initech]

246. As am I.

[Texasgal]

213. I've been with you 100% since the beginning!!

Can you cut me some slack though? I am in texas and I am busting my ASS just to get Governah Good Hair ousted!

I am WITH YOU. ;)

[Exilednight]

217. WooHoo!! I am the 100th K&R. WIth you all the way!!

[Citizen Worker]

221. This could turn out to be a test of civilian control over the military. Will Obama intervene,

appeal, or remain quiet and risk a palace coup? When the military rebuffed Clinton and he reached a compromise with DADT I was and remain concerned.

[NutmegYankee]

229. Hear Hear!

I'm with you.

[ruggerson]

231. There are only a handful of hecklers in this thread - I, for one, appreciate the vast majority

who have long demonstrated that they stand with their DU gay friends and family as well as their LGBT loved ones in real life.

We are all on the cusp of achieving something momentous - largely because we all have spent years, decades speaking truth to power.

[Stinky The Clown]

238. "Hecklers"

You're a kind person.

[ruggerson]

242. Heh

You're a good soul, Stinky.

[ClarkUSA]

239. I support the Congressional repeal of DADT, not this OP's premise.

<< The Obama administration may resurrect it for the vaguest of political purposes, but it is under no obligation to do so. >>

There is no easy out.

Walter Dellinger was Clinton's Acting Solicitor General. On the Rachel Maddow Show, he said that it's wrong to allow a single district judge to overturn a law passed by Congress. He gave an example of a future Republican president finding one district judge to rule against HCR and deciding not to appeal. He also said that President Obama has done alot to move the repeal of DADT forward by making the military get on board, which is a big deal. The Justice Department's orderly defenses of laws passed by Congress are constitutionally sound. Dellinger said that ultimately, Congress really needs to repeal DADT but that President Obama is doing a "delicate" dance to set the stage for that to happen.

[laughingliberal]

252. Nothing in this injunction prevents Congress from repealing DADT.

They can move ahead on this just as easily with the injunction in place as they can without it.

[ClarkUSA]

258. You're ignoring the point made by Walter Dillinger on The Rachel Maddow Show.

I repeat:

There is no easy out.

Walter Dellinger was Clinton's Acting Solicitor General. On the Rachel Maddow Show, he said that it's wrong to allow a single district judge to overturn a law passed by Congress. He gave an example of a future Republican president finding one district judge to rule against HCR and deciding not to appeal. He also said that President Obama has done alot to move the repeal of DADT forward by making the military get on board, which is a big deal. The Justice Department's orderly defenses of laws passed by Congress are constitutionally sound. Dellinger said that ultimately, Congress really needs to repeal DADT but that President Obama is doing a "delicate" dance to set the stage for that to happen.

[readmoreoften]

266. I'll take my chances, Mr. Wise Caring Straight-Man.

[laughingliberal]

275. He's entitled to his opinion. As I said, nothing in this injunction prevents Congress from...

repealing DADT. I'm sorry but, 'delicate dance,' sounds too much like the 11th dimensional chess we heard about all through the HCR debate.

[donco6]

309. Do you consider yourself an ally of the LBGTQI Community? n/t

[QC]

335. Still waiting for an answer to that one, eh? n/t

[donco6]

336. Not really. But it's fun to keep pointing it out.

Pointing out the fact that he ISN'T.

[QC]

338. Has Nan Hunter issued a statement on the issue? n/t

[donco6]

341. I proffered it in anticipation of a Nan Hunter concurrence.

Did that sound appropriately legal-ish?

[muffin1]

339. Oh, come on now

I'm sure he's as strong a supporter as Obama is.:)

[donco6]

340. I cannot argue with that.

No sirree. :)

[OnyxCollie]

244. K&R. nt

[unkachuck]

245. K&R....n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

254. there are alot of democrats tired of hearing "wait" from other democrats

You are not alone. Many democrats who are in the minority(women, gays, progressives) get told to be patient and be good democrats and do as you're told and vote the party line. We patiently vote democrat and never get the things we are promised. I don't blame you for getting tired of waiting. If I were a citizen who was having their freedom denied and my own party wasn't doing anything about it, I'd be out the door. It does feel like your time. I've often wondered why so many gays just sit paitently on the side lines and fight quietly for one or two concesions thrown like little scraps to the dog at the dinner table. Get out there and demand your feedom, I say. Any group that has ever wanted freedom in this country has had to stand up and fight for it. I am glad to see so many stand up to the hatred after all the devestating suicides that have been happening lately. My daughter and her classmates are wearing purple tomorrow in support of all those who have committed or are thinking of commiting suicide lately. Now we've got the Pentagon saying it's okay to recruit gay people, and a judge has thrown out DADT. I agreee. It is time to take a stand.

[RetroLounge]

256. With you all the way!

:hi:

Tired of the same bullshit from the cultists around here, too.

RL

[demmiblue]

257. Ally! (Wow... subthreads by the same old, same old. Disgusting). n/t.

[inna]

259. Huge K&R, and Solidarity (nt)

[DeSwiss]

262. K&R n/t

[defendandprotect]

268. With ya -- but wasn't there some good news today? Recruiters told to accept gays????

Did anyone post that here --

Gibbs statement today was ridiculous! We have to overturn this crappy DADT thing now ---

been 20 years? Since Clinton!!

And Obama has to get rid of Gates -- and anyone else who doesn't like it!

[beam me up scottie]

278. K&R

At your service. :patriot:

[colsohlibgal]

279. Everyone Has Rights

Rights to Life, Liberty, Justice, etc. People on the right and a few on the left talk about "lifestyle choices" and that makes no sense. Who in their right mind, given a choice, would want to put up with what LGB and T people have put up with?

A guy sleeping with a guy or a gal sleeping with another gal doesn't impact my life at all - unless it would have been one of my children and I would have loved and respected them regardless.

People are who they are, I firmly believe that. They deserve dignity just like all the rest of us.

My guess is that in the near future people will wonder what all the fuss was about. Already, most polling suggests that 20 somethings of both parties don't give a flip about any of this.

[Skittles]

281. ALWAYS BEEN WITH YOU

I HAVE NEVER WAVERED; NEVER WILL

[dgibby]

283. I'm with you all the way! n/t

[Winston Wolf]

287. Kicked and Recommended.

[earcandle]

292. Follow the declaration of the courts. Be free. Live, love, pursue happiness, and help us get the

fuck out of the economic mess we are in, please if you can
help as a body?  I think you are pretty smart guys and gals,
so if you want equal status show up as a group and join our
efforts to get our rights and privileges, via regulations back
into the rule of law.  

Congrats, BTW!  

[Swamp Rat]

295. Solidarity NOW!!

:grouphug: :kick:

[Dragonfli]

296. I am with you, this admin ignores people like me, but I will raise hell on the phone for you

[democrank]

299. This is a Civil Rights issue.

Count me in.

[Iggo]

312. Exactly.

[TriMera]

315. Kick n/t

[QC]

316. Sensible, pragmatic kick.

:kick:

[Romulox]

320. I count myself an ally. K/R nt

[Name removed]

327. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

332. Well it says something that Nan Hunter, GLBT National Bar's first top honoree, agrees w/the WH.

See what she says here and other facts that disprove the OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9356323&mesg_id=9356361

[Arkana]

337. And you don't get to decide that I'm suddenly a homophobe

because I don't think that DADT is the most pressing issue facing this country. Sorry.