How about a discussion of civil rights at a higher, more philosophical level?

[Stinky The Clown]

The essential premise: Are matters of civil rights legal or legislative issues?

The dividing line, it seems to me, is the establishment or recognition of civil rights vis a vis the provision and enforcement of civil rights.

How do you see it?

It might be helpful if, beyond this single mention, the notion of DADT **NOT** be a part of this thread.

[xchrom]

1. On face value alone - you have a confluence of conservative

And 'liberal' great legalinds arguing for 'Equality'.

Shouldn't that have some major weight in this?

[Stinky The Clown]

2. They're arguing "equality" and that's good. Where do they go to define and effect it>

[MineralMan]

3. Civil rights should not be a legal or legislative issue.

We have a Constitution that guarantees them. However, in the real world, legislation is often needed to make it clear. Sadly, there are many who don't actually believe that all people should have the same rights. Sometimes, they're even in the majority and pass laws that deprive some of those rights. When that happens, something has to happen. Sometimes, the courts throw out those laws. Sometimes, new laws get passed. Sometimes it even takes a Constitutional Amendment to make it clear. It's a sad business.