Comments on: A quick post on Obama and gay rights

By: Kyle

Kyle — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:33:39 +0000

“It is not terribly credible that there is a significant cost to the military”

That’s ~~not~~ funny because
a.) the national clandestine services scrapped their rules because it was costly for them and good policy to be more inclusive…only DoD has DADT.
b.) increasingly, the military itself is inclined to disagree
c.) you have a very narrow conception of what defines this problem and ignore all of the unexpected and undesirable effects of DADT that have an effect on heterosexual soldiers.

also, sexual perversions? what is this the 1880’s?

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:00:17 +0000

What ‘basic rights’ did you have in mind?

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:58:56 +0000

Matthew Shepard lay dying in a hospital in Laramie, Wyoming over a period of 5 days in October 1998. Over a typical period of five days, 130 Americans will be killed in burglaries, robberies, and drive by shootings. Very few are remembered by anyone other than their friends and relations.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:50:01 +0000

Perhaps 4% of the male population is given to homosexuality to any degree; it is doubtful that a disproportionate share of this 4% are inclined toward military service. The share of these who insist on making a public point of their sexual perversions is likely smaller still. It is not terribly credible that there is a significant cost to the military in refusing to tolerate the disciplinary problems these nuisances generate.

By: EMK1970

EMK1970 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:12:59 +0000

I couldn’ help but notice that not once in this articles did you use the phrase ‘Gay People. Why is this? Do you really want everyone to forget that you are actualy talking about the lives and basic rights of human beings of American Citizens?

By: A quick post on Obama and gay rights « The United States of Jamerica

A quick post on Obama and gay rights « The United States of Jamerica — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:10:52 +0000

[...] A quick post on Obama and gay rights 2009 October 23 tags: gay rights, president obama by Jamelle (cross-posted from the League of Ordinary Gentlemen) [...]

By: Mike at The Big Stick

Mike at The Big Stick — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:38:15 +0000

The point I am making is that while the gay lobby has recently chosen to take the President to the woodshed on DADT, it actually only affects a small number of gays directly. And yes, there are a lot of gays compared to the atendance at a high school football game but they remain a small % of the US population. I think the more important point is that the President is on record as not being in favor of gay marriage. Why isn’t he being attacked for that?

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:29:53 +0000

DADT affects a much wider swath of the military than I think you give it credit for. There’s evidence that it’s used to cover up sexual assaults, led to an increase in illegal fraternization which undermine the integrity of the armed forces more broadly than a handful of individuals. Not to mention the sizeable issue of dismissing translators in vital intelligence roles which, not to be dramatic, directly affects the safety and lives of troops in combat zones.

DADT is poorly reasoned and mounting evidence demonstrates that it causes real harm not just to gays in the military but also to heterosexual women and troops on the ground.

By: Rob (not the same Rob)

Rob (not the same Rob) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:15:45 +0000

Look, for almost nine months we’ve had a Democratic President and overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Not a single piece of gay rights legislation has been passed. Not even a measly little hate crimes bill.

I understand why the Democrats don’t want to spend political capital on something controversial like DOMA repeal, but some pieces of gay rights legislation have the support of a large majority of voters. A majority of *Republicans* want gays to be allowed to serve openly in the military. There’s also widespread support for laws protecting gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination. What are the Democrats waiting for?

By: Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:17:22 +0000

Probably more appropriate than people are willing to admit…seeing as how anemic Jack Kennedy’s movements towards a Civil Rights Act were during his presidency. It was only his death and LBJ’s particular “moment” that led to the CRA’s passage…And somehow I don’t see Republicans crossing over in large numbers to pass a modern version of that for LGBT folk.