Lt. Dan Choi: Repealing DADT -- It's Your Turn President Obama

[kpete]

Lt. Dan Choi

Iraq War veteran
Posted: September 10, 2010 09:45 AM

Repealing DADT -- It's Your Turn President Obama

I commend Judge Phillips, Alex Nicholson and the Log Cabin Republicans for their firm stance in defense of the First Amendment and their unwavering support of our national security. I demand President Obama and Senator Reid do the same, as our moral obligations compel us to strike down injustice and discrimination wherever it exists.

Judge Phillips has forthrightly exercised her unquestionable moral authority and lived up to her mandate to defend our constitution against a most vicious domestic enemy: discrimination against honest Americans. At a time when patriots suffer oppression for simply expressing truth and love, it is morally repugnant for any leader to delay justice based on self-interested timelines of political expediency.

I implore President Obama and his Justice Department to refuse lifting a finger, refrain from wasting any energy, statements, or money defending "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the court system. His constitutional and moral obligations are most compelling at this historic time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lt-dan-choi/repealing-dadt-its-your-t_b_711903.html?ir=Yahoo

[terrya]

1. Exactly right

Exactly right. President Obama doesn't have to lift a finger now. Let this ruling stand.

Why in the name of all that is logical would you appeal this ruling, essentially argue for the constitutionality of a law you say you want to repeal? That would be...just plain stupid. This ruling has been handed to you, Mr. President. This ruling is right, it's correct, it's long overdue. Do the right thing. Leave it be. So that we can rid ourselves of this truly odious relic of bigotry. And that we can retain good people in our military who's skills our country needs. And so that gay and lesbian servicemembers, who want to serve their country, can do so openly and with dignity, without having to lie about who they are.

[ClarkUSA]

2. Where were the Dan Choi's before Bill Clinton even signed DADT?

Why weren't there constant angry demands from the LGBT community for Pres. Clinton to sign an executive order and/or repeal DADT and DOMA during his two-term presidency?

Was there any outrage directed at Bill Clinton at all, even when he approved of and defended anti-gay ads in 1996? I don't recall any, which is odd, given how much outrage is directed at Pres. Obama now when he (via his Democratic allies in Congress) is trying to rectify Clinton's mistakes.

[Hissyspit]

5. The context was different then.

It was a different time. Because it didn't get protested as vehemently then as now, it shouldn't be protested now?

Any and every absurdity in defense of Obama at all time. Ugh. Just ugh. It's time for it to go. Now.

[ClarkUSA]

13. How so?

<< Because it didn't get protested as vehemently then as now, it shouldn't be protested now? >>

Um, who said that? Not I.

I simply want to know why Pres. Obama is the target of such vitriol when he is the one trying to repeal DADT while Bill Clinton barely gets a slap on the wrist for being the gutless wonder responsible for making DADT and DOMA the laws of the land. Furthermore, Bill Clinton approved and defended anti-gay ads in 1996, thereby quite deliberately throwing the LGBT under the bus, if he hadn't already.

It's amazing to me that some Clinton supporters here continue to give Bubba a near total pass on his anti-gay legacy while they revile and excoriate President Obama for not repealing DADT fast enough -- as if Congress has been his to command.

<< Any and every absurdity in defense of Obama at all time. Ugh. Just ugh. It's time for it to go. Now. >>

Who did that here? Not I. I simply asked a couple of salient questions. What exactly are you referring to?

"Any and every absurdity" used to attack "Obama at all time" is more like it.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[_ed_]

8. ???

You obviously slept through the 1990s.

So, you think gays and lesbians are asserting their rights just so they can "hurt" your favorite politician? And they didn't do it to Clinton because they liked him more? That's the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time.

Your contempt for the gay rights movement is apparent. Another "good" Democrat, I suppose.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

10. !!!

<< You obviously slept through the 1990s. >>

No, I didn't, which is why I am asking questions.

<< So, you think gays and lesbians are asserting their rights just so they can "hurt" your favorite politician? And they didn't do it to Clinton because they liked him more? That's the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time.>>

Your interpretation of what I said bears no resemblance to what I actually said.

<< Your contempt for the gay rights movement is apparent. Another "good" Democrat, I suppose. >>

Really? How so? Because I dare to ask salient questions?

[jenmito]

3. On CNN today, Civil Rights Attorney Avery Friedman said,

"The Obama administration has to appeal it because they've got to protect the law passed by Congress. The irony, Fredricka, is that they AGREE with the Federal District Judge and all they can do right now is work with Congress to create a new law addressing the issue."

I hope Obama does NOT have to appeal and just "let it be"!

[Hissyspit]

4. And we're unrec'ing this because why?

Come on. Justify it if you have the courage of your convictions.

[dionysus]

7. i recced it, so you can stop complaining about recs

;)

[QC]

11. We both know the answer to that one, but we cannot say it. n/t

[Mimosa]

12. K&R n/t