posted
I didn't want to start a new DADT thread with so many out there, but the last one I looked to bump wasn't exactly a friendly conversation on the topic, so, new thread it is! I'm sure many people noticed that the Senate punted on the repeal bill, and it seems unlikely that they'll try it again before the midterms. Hope might be alive in the judicial angle, but Obama has pretty aggressively shied away from exercising that option. Looks like the decision is being taken away from him.
Anyway, this article caught my attention. What exactly is the status of DADT legally? I thought a Circuit Court struck it down, which I thought meant it was on its way to the Supreme Court. I could use some clarification on the judicial status.
According to the decision here, the Major has to be reinstated even though she is a professed homosexual. I'm not really sure how this works. DADT can't be violated...but what do you do if it IS violated? The cat's out of the bag, and it's not fair, but wouldn't it blatantly violate the law to reinstate her in the name of fairness? Seems like one of those situations where the just resolution and the legal resolution don't match up. But what caught my eye in this article was this part specifically:
quote:Maj. Margaret Witt, a decorated flight nurse with 20 years of service...Witt was released just before she was set to retire with full benefits.
Served for 20 years and had a partner for almost a decade, and they chose to drop the hammer on her shortly before retirement? That's frigging cold, and it pisses me off. It's crap like this that damages my opinion of the entire military as an institution. I know this is a single incident, but I don't feel much inclined to defend an institution that not only does not defend its own, but puts them out in the cold after a lifetime of service.
quote: What exactly is the status of DADT legally?
It's not much help to summarize it casually, but most people agree that, essentially, the status of DADT is 'doomed.'
I think the biggest issue here is how startlingly cowardly Obama has come off with LGBT issues. It's absolutely not helping him with his core voters, and it does not seem like it earns him a single vote with anti-homosexuals.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the calculation of not taking any firm stances on LGBT issues has less to do with getting votes for Obama himself and more about protecting Democratic congress people who have a significant number of anti-gay bigots in their constituencies.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is the case, he is absolutely falling on his sword for them, and/or has calculated that LGBT activist vote is irrelevant to any challenges he faces in 2012 from the Republicans. Base and calculated electoral gaming to improve 2010 electoral holdings.
The question for LGBT activists like myself though is if this is acceptable in light of the fact that an executive order from him could reverse a lot of injustices .. or should we expect that shortly after the Midterms?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... I think the biggest issue here is how startlingly cowardly Obama has come off with LGBT issues. It's absolutely not helping him with his core voters, and it does not seem like it earns him a single vote with anti-homosexuals.
Indeed. I'm kinda surprised at the latest dropping of the ball.
For example, the handling of the Dream Act, it should be pretty easy to fight a "think of the children!" line against what would probably be a ridiculous "but what about the terror babies?" defence, but no.
Or to cast themselves as the defenders of the middle class by forcing a vote on extending only the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and forcing the Republicans to blatantly vote against it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the idea was to protect Dems in general, he's not going about it the right way. He should have pushed the judicial side of things much more than the legislative side. From the way things are doing, the courts will strike it down without Congress ever having to vote on it. He's put all Democrats up to a vote on it, on the record, and it looks like it won't even pass. Fighting it out in the courts on one side and pushing Congress on the other is more likely to earn him crap from both sides rather than praise.
I was under the impression that he wanted it done legislatively because he didn't want the crap that comes from the courts striking something down, he wanted it done cleanly and with fewer public objections.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The joy with Democrats is that anytime they have an advantage, you can play the how will they screw this up game. It is basically guaranteed that the Dems will screw up- it is just a matter of how creatively they will do it.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the time it comes from cowardice. I think without Obama pushing, they wouldn't have passed half the legislation they did, but the stuff they actually passed was gutted of some of the most popular reforms that were initially in it. If they had stuck to their guns (hah, I know right?) then they'd actually have something to campaign on, rather than a list of laws that passed that they're running away from.
The other half the time, it comes from not standing up to Republicans. This time was it was from not standing up to special interests.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
