Dan Savage: Confidential to the White House; Fuck you, you pack of co-opting cowards.

Dans mad as hell - can't say I don't blame him. Regardless of anything he's said or done in the past he's right on the money here.



http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/10/11/confidential-to-the-white-house

:sarcasm:

K & R.

-MV

The President cannot legally reverse a statute law such as Don't Ask Don't Tell by fiat. Nor can he selectively pick and choose what parts of the law the DOJ will defend in court.

Tell me how this is different from Youngstown?

to lose good people from the service.

Ordering the military to ignore the law is ordering the military to ignore the law. It doesn't matter if it's a good law or a bad law.

This talking point is so stale that it's just silly now. The Commander-in-Chief is empowered to put a Stop-Loss order on servicemembers separated under DADT before Congress acts. He can do it right now. He's chosen to continue to enforce discrimination.

which is why the SLDN supports repeal.

Stop-loss also doesn't cover pregnant women, those in trouble with military justice, etc....

he says he can suspend the discharges...something he can easily do.

And, oh, yeah, the DOJ does not have to defend EVERY law...yeah, they can and do pick and choose...yeesh!

1. The CIC cannot legally order the military to stop enforcing a law.

2. The DOJ has what's called the "duty to defend" federal law.

I've asked the question--How does an EO override a law?

And I've never, ever gotten an actual answer.

until the law can be changed. He can do it because he is CIC of the military. All he has to do is call the Sec Def and make it an order. The Sec Def has no choice but to follow orders, and he passes those orders on down the line. And if you are going to come back with "he can't order the military to do something illegal" then you haven't been paying attention.

Can you cite a single case where being CIC overrode Article 1, Section 8?

command of the military structure. All the article does is list the powers of congress. Where does it say in Article 1 Section 8, that Congress can override a direct order from the Commander in Chief of the Military? If the President gives an order, the Sec Def has no choice but to follow it. You do understand the military command structure right?

That is a specific power granted to Congress. They raise the armies.

So the Congress makes the laws about who can be in the service. And who cannot.

And the Congress made a law--DADT, that says gay people can't be in the military. (read the DADT statute)

And the CIC has no authority to override that. In fact, there's never been a case that seriously challenges this authority.

Do you understand WHY the Founding Fathers DELIBERATELY did not have the raising of the armies put under the control of Executive?

Obama may be CIC--but our system of checks and balances gives Congress the power to 'make' the services.

Now, on edit--

DADT has two parts--

Don't Ask--here, Congress granted the CIC/Sec of Def the authority to decide the methods of investigation--which is why Gates made it much harder to start a DADT investigation--and the numbers are dropping.
http://washingtonindependent.com/80285/gates-will-relax-dont-ask-dont-tell-enforcement-this-week


Don't Tell--in this part of the law, if the servicemember is 'outed'--no matter how--then there is no discretion. DADT finds that being gay is inimical to the service-- there's NO discretion to retain.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

Unless I'm wrong and the above is not the entire code (could someone verify?), the military has all the discretion in the world written right into it.

(e) Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1) the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

emphasis mine.

How does this not give the Commander in Chief, via his Secretary of Defense, the power to suspend the entire thing for reasons of national security (two wars, retention of vital personnel, etc..)?

Frankly I don't see how this can even be argued. If they have the discretion to bag the law in select cases, they can do it in all cases (then it would be up to Congress to close that loophole if they wanted to).

He could've done it on day one. Imagine how different the tone would've been if he had!

The president does have some power in his role as Commander-in-Chief, but that power doesn't extend over legislation passed by congress.

In fact, you might want to read up on what SLDN had to say on the issue.

Quack quack!

And quoting a poli sci professor won't make it any different.

So is pregnancy....so are 8 other conditions.

Care to revise your story?

Care to post it, Mr. Stargate Atlantis villain?

no one is forcing the administration to appeal.

He hasn't done so, despite promising more than one soldier face-to-face that he would act.

Only he's a little more verbose than I.

The President needs to do a special broadcast to our nations schools and address anti-gay bullying and bullying in general. What could be more powerful than that? Think of how many kids lives would be saved and the thousands and thousands of kids who's lives would be made better.

Enough of the words and addresses. Action is what gets noticed.

Legislation must be done and actions but we need something done today, this very moment, to help stop the needless deaths.

I'm just saying that he shouldn't be left off the hook for a speech if inaction will continue to be the rule.

:thumbsup:

But half the parents would keep their kids home to stop them from listening to it.

the time for more talking. He actually needs to do something.

schools.

yup

It was seriously stupid to use a slogan inspired by dead kids as a campaign fundraising stunt.

After Columbine happened Bill Clinton, who was commanding the ongoing and highly illegal bombing campaign in Bosnia (bombed civil targets), modestly suggested that school conflicts be settled with words and not weapons. That sure worked.

Much as Dan's the shyte, Obama's non-response to this problem is typical. Dan has suggested marching on one of the problem schools itself, which is much more likely to yield results.

I forgot that all the interesting people come here at night.
:kick: & R

k & r.

... because they were successful in hijacking another thread. Such adults!:eyes:

The nerve of him, being upset that the key phrase attached to his contribution to a suicide prevention effort is being used as a soundbite by the White House.

:sarcasm:

not worth the energy.

you can go now

And rightfully so.

I cringed a little when Valerie Jarrett mentioned the "It Gets Better" thing at the posh HRC dinner the other night.

It IS just words. Hell, with ENDA, we're not even seeing that mentioned. And as Dan said...what the hell are we supposed to think when the DoJ, when this administration, time and time again, defends these discriminatory laws in federal court? You sure as hell can't say that things "will get better" when you're doing that.

continually shit on gay people and still expect their support. Sorry, Mr. President.

The idea of these second rate hacks simply lifting pharses they think 'speak the language of teh gay' is revolting. Val gets paid for her work, not for Dan's.

then showing a photo of the criminal arne Duncan.

yeah it'll eventually come out.

Democratic office-holder.

"Libel" :scared::eyes:

Libel pertains to journalism and news reporting, not public forums.

oral defamation.

But regardless of what type of defamation we are dealing with, we should ask is it responsible to accuse a Democratic office-holder of serious crimes just because we do not like some of the policies he is implementing.

Politicians in your sig line are pure, virtuous, and white as the driven snow. How dare any silly queer question that.

without a shred of proof. Isn't that what Free Republic is for?

:crazy:

:crazy:

Since the Google doesn't seem to find anything about that.

2. Actually respond to what he said. Or are you afraid of finally being outed as a bigot around here?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE5D91331F934A35752C0A9629C8B63

2. Savage is suggesting that the President should ignore the law if he is unable to change it. Isn't that what so many people accused Bush of doing? Perhaps that is what some people want, someone who uses the same methods which Bush did, but only to further a liberal agenda.

are trying to hang on him as being criminal. Just like Jarrett, you are using Dan's work to do harm to Dan's work.
All posters should click that link and read the facts this poster is distorting. Let Mr Savage speak for himself. Which he does very well.

If his words, or campaign prevents even one kid from taking his/here life, I could give a rip about his fucking around with ballot boxes.

You brought this up to sully someone who criticized the President, and you looked for a reason to get back at him. You didn't bring this up because you care so much about election integrity. While you demand that the rest of us be honest, why not admit that yourself?

I see that you are trying to pull at people's heart strings with the whole teen suicide thing. Of course it is a horrible problem, but the President took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. He needs to address this problem through legal means.

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order


SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 11, 2009 – A study released by the Palm Center and written by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order.

After the Palm Center first proposed the executive option, the idea of ending the ban by presidential order gained momentum. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order and National Security Adviser James Jones was then asked about it by George Stephanopoulos.

Prior to the release of Palm's study, many had argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said “The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light.”

You need to a reality check.

Forgot one important point.

Stop loss specifically excludes 'homosexuality'.

Which is why you should have military law experts on your legal reports.

Thus the SLDN doesn't support this report and in fact it been debunked on this site many times. Just google it.

Learn how to read. Geesh.

Seriously. Name a single military law expert that wrote that report.

To save yourself time, you might google other threads on DU, where the same question was asked--oh heck--tell me which one you think is a "military law expert?"

Dr. Aaron Belkin is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Palm
Center, University of California Santa, Barbara.
Dr. Nathaniel Frank is Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center, University of
California Santa Barbara.
Dr. Gregory M. Herek is Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis.
Dr. Elizabeth L. Hillman, J.D., is Professor of Law at the University of California
Hastings College of the Law and a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.
Diane H. Mazur, J.D., is Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law
and a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.
Bridget J. Wilson, J.D., practices law at Rosenstein Wilson & Dean in San Diego and is a
veteran of the U.S. Army Reserve.

Not one of your experts had any answer when the actual military law experts at the SLDN pointed out to them that stop-loss specifically excludes 'homosexuality.'

Which is why neither Mazur, nor Hillman apparently list this 'report' on their publications list...and Wilson is a prsonal injury lawyer....

In it's current membership, nobody on DU can debunk this.

look at it....

Holy crap.

I hope it sticks....

So why do you think that linking to an Army Times news report, and not any actual LEGAL argument documents is "debunking" the executive order study? Are you an ambulance chaser?

any outside, neutral parties. Of course an organization which is pushing for the end of DADT is going to commission a study which say this. Until I hear from some more neutral sources, I am unconvinced.

Keep reaching for it. You got an excuse for everything.:eyes:

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

And I'm not even believing your claim. Who the fuck cares about that? Kids are dying, and this is all you have to say. Sleep well.:puke:

But Savage is a man with a shady past, and he may not be the best person to articulate how President Obama should proceed with ending DADT.

You demand evidence about your pretty politician. Where's yours on Savage's alleged guilty plea?

He is advocating for gay teens who see no way out. Dismissing his advocacy because he pled guilty years ago to something totally unrelated where nobody got bullied or killed is about is cheap and disgusting as you get.

I just pled guilty for driving 75 in a 55mph zone. Is my credibility now shot to hell, no matter what I'm talking about?

Get real!

suggesting that the President do the same.

3 times you made the same falsehood.

He is more than credible to talk about teen suicide, because he grew up gay in a small town himself.

You, however, do not.

That's very relevant, considering Savage's criminal past.

It has been proven that the CIC can suspend it legally. Your argument has no merit.

Or does it mean that it's bad for him to tell gay kids not to kill themselves?

Sorry, but this is pure ad hominem.

Insanity!:rofl:

And on top of that, he's a Homo Jew!

especially since he is advocating that President Obama violate the law.

All this other shit you brought up is because you can't argue the merits of his statement or outrage. So you bring up this "voter fraud" red herring to distract from the fact that President Obama doesn't like gay people, which there is no way for you to get around denying.

With prostitutes.

I saw it around 2000 or so.

he's wrong about gay rights? I think he may have been rude at one point as a teenager, too.

What does Dan Savage's sex advice have to do with the administration's gay rights policies?

Also, it's funny that you assume people who engage in threesomes don't have "character." The descendants of the Puritans are still with us, huh?

answering your question.

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

How about providing the actual quote in a verifiable link, or admit that you are wrong and are trying to sully the good name of an honorable sex therapist.

What's good for the goose and all that.

I don't want to raise an alarm.

I thought so.:rofl:

http://thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=5199

Sent from my HTC Evo

He resents his wife. She reneged on a promise given. The marriage will only get worse, if it's not over already (and my bet is that they divorced years ago, and not from Savage's advice). The advice given is also obviously tongue in cheek. It was designed to get Hubby to think about what is important to him. How you didn't get that, or the fact that Savage couches most of his advice in smart assed ironic remarks, just shows you were looking for a "He said he invented the internet!" angle to dismiss him.

Your adherence to fidelity and shock at actual humanity is rooted in the Judeo-Christian bullshit you were fed. Time to grow up.

might not appreciate the notion that husband fidelity is rooted in "bullshit", nor the idea that male sexual desires must be fulfilled despite interpersonal costs, not to mention that women's bodies should be put up for sale.

And... You didn't post that because you care about people staying in marriages, or honoring their wives. You posted this to distract from gay kids killing themselves, and that Savage criticized the President over it. You hate the fact that anybody does that, so you looked for a BS reason to question his credibility.

He criticized your rock star, and now he must pay! So stop pretending that you are such a big fan of "commitment".:eyes:

There is absolutely zero point in attempting to engage them, as they are not here for discussion, but to post red herrings and bait people. I'm clearly not allowed to say the t-word, even though they fit this definition perfectly, but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

1. Not all women are into monogamy, and it is sexist to assume so.

2. That is not what Savage was saying at all. Everyone has to choose between sexual desires and interpersonal harmony, and where one draws the line is a matter of what consequences one can expect.

3. Hookers (WHO ARE NOT ALL FEMALE) do not sell their bodies, they rent them out. The assumption that all feminists have the same POV on that as bible thumpers is, that's right, SEXIST.

1. I never meant to imply that all of them are; monogamy is not the issue, but respect for ones' commitments to another person is.
2. He said the guy had a responsibility to cheat.
3. I said "some", not "all".

Feminists get less respect around here than gay civil rights activists - it's still acceptable behavior to do the "bitter PUMA" routine, fffs - so an attempt to use the former to shame the latter is laughable at best.

The whole administration needs to buy a clue. A big one.

Obama has done, quite frankly, a piss poor job of advocating for, and leading on behalf of, the country's gay population. You can smugly point out some legal tidbit about this or that, but you can NOT deny the lack of enthusiastic leadership on behalf of YOUR gay sisters and brothers.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Gay rights is a yes/no proposition. It is TRULY a case of with us or against us.

that survives SCOTUS, and can't be reversed by the next President.

Enjoy your tidbit. Maybe some day you'll actually stop to think and *then* you'll understand.

but the Serviceperson's Legal Defense Network hasn't.

How does an EO overrides a statute of Congress and survive judicial review?


That's not a tidbit, a legal technicality, nor just some inconvenience. It's the Constitution of the United States.

And here's the deal Stinky--some of us actually like that Constitution so much that we'd like to see gay people take their rightful place under its protection and survive review. Congress needs to mop up its own fuckup.

"Leadership"

Google it.

Right.

Buhbye

is the issue. Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. He has had over 57 votes in the Senate since 2009. When has he "whipped" his party members to repeal DADT? When was his big speech on repealing DADT in front of a joint session of Congress?

He only needed 51 votes. It's not that he couldn't get them -- he didn't even try. And, don't hand me a line of bullshit about 60 votes: just look up how many votes healthcare passed with.

And, frankly, I'll never trust a politician like Obama who holds a bigoted view of gay marriage. He has said publicly that he is in favor of perpetuating marriage inequality.

In both 2009, and 2010, he called for repeal.

He cannot make Congress repeal--but he did ask Gates to make it harder to start a DADT investigation--
http://washingtonindependent.com/80285/gates-will-relax-dont-ask-dont-tell-enforcement-this-week


And yes--you need 60 for cloture. Obama can't change that rule.

I mean Clinton was President 15 years ago, how fucking long is it going to take? During the 08' primary, word was whispered that gay issues needed to wait till after the election, well the election came and went, and so did 2 years, and now what? Wait again because of the elections? It's bullshit. And gays are having a hard enough time without having to deal with wishy washy liberals.

This issue is not going to be solved like you think. Gay rights just like civil rights in the 60's, are going to have to be rammed down their throats.

Not going to touch the latter part of that sentence.

You forget that the modern legal challenges to segregation began in the 1930s---so 15 years since Clinton is a shorter time--not that there is ANY excuse for justice delayed.

Now, upthread, I asked you a queston, which you have ignored. If you can answer that question, then you will have your answer as to when DADT ends.

We're talking about our civil rights in general. It's LGBT History Month. How about you familiarize yourself with some of that history http://www.harryhay.com/AH_matt.html It's been 60 years, not 15.

poster did. And the thread OP is about DADT.

I would argue that gay people have been fighting for rights for a lot longer than 60 years--

Please try again.

Yeah, that'll get the WH on their side.

Did it work with Bush? When he tried it on Bush?

That much is clear.

And if you listen real close you can actually hear them.

and claimed that anyone who disagreed with him wanted gay Iraqis to suffer and die:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/say-yes-to-war-on-iraq/Content?oid=12237

Savage should stick to telling people how to pee on their loved ones for kinky thrills: he is no authority on morals, ethics or politics.

Hell, it's worth the 4 paragraphs--

Say "YES" to War on Iraq
Liberals Against Liberation
by Dan Savage

"No to War! No to Oppression!"
The above anti-war message was delivered to me via a sad-looking pink poster. I pulled the poster off a light pole and hung it in my office over my desk. I look at the poster every day when I sit down to work, and every day I wonder how and when the American left lost its moral compass.

You see, lefties, there are times when saying "no" to war means saying "yes" to oppression. Don't believe me? Go ask a Czech or a European Jew about the British and French saying "no" to war with Germany in 1938. War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. It amazes me when I hear lefties argue that we should assassinate Saddam in order to avoid war. If Saddam is assassinated, he will be replaced by another Baathist dictator--and what then for the people of Iraq? More "peace"--i.e., more oppression, more executions, more gassings, more terror, more fear.

SNIP

These developments--a Republican administration recognizing that support for dictators in Third World countries is a losing proposition; a commitment to post-WWII-style nation-building in Iraq--are terrific news for people who care about human rights, freedom, and democracy. They also represent an enormous moral victory for the American left, which has long argued that our support for "friendly" dictators around the world was immoral. (Saddam used to be one of those "friendly" dictators.) After 9/11, the left argued that our support for brutal dictatorships in the Middle East helped create anti-American hatred. Apparently the Bush administration now agrees--so why isn't the American left claiming this victory?

Because claiming this victory means backing this war, and the American left refuses to back this or any war--which makes the left completely irrelevant in any conversation about the advisability or necessity of a particular war. (Pacifism is faith, not politics.) What's worse, the left argues that our past support for regimes like Saddam's prevents us from doing anything about Saddam now. We supported (and in some cases installed) tyrants, who in turn created despair, which in turn created terrorists, who came over here and blew shit up... so now what do we do? According to the left, we do nothing. It's all our fault, so we're just going to have to sit back and wait for New York City or D.C. or a big port city (like, say, Seattle or Portland) to disappear.

SNIP---more insanity at link---

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/say-yes-to-war-on-iraq/Content?oid=12237

:shrug:

Funny you didn't get a response to that inconvenient fact.

If Harry Truman can order the integration of the armed services against the opinions of the military Obama can do the same in this case. I think he's afraid of the right wing steam machine and doesn't want to energize the lunatic fringe of Religious Right. I say fuck 'em. They never vote for any progress anyway. Why should they? They are making millions and have got it made. If this issue goes away it leaves one less arrow in their quiver to dupe people out of their hard earned money. Nothing sells like hate and bigotry from the pulpit.

This has been discussed many times---Congress did not have a law that prevented deseg. of the military, and in fact, Blacks were serving, openly.

Since segregation was an internal policy only, and not a law, an EO covered it. Same for Roosevelt through the civil service.

Here, you have a statute of Congress, like Youngstown...

Obama says he'll end DADT by the end of the year. If he follows through then he will have acted more aggressively and effectively than Truman.

We shouldn't have to wait until its "politically expedient" for equal rights and protections under law for all Americans, nor should we have to bargain with snakes like Bitch McChinless and John Boner.

We need to strike while the iron is hot.

An advocate for gay teens who are bullied was duped into believing Bush lies, like 65% of America did. So he has no credibility where suicide is involved.

You make your mother proud!:puke:

Idiot.

Personal attacks of all stripes, slanders, lies, all in the name of defending a prejudiced politician from criticism. The level of invective they use defines them and all whom they support. Read this thread and learn.

Sheesh.

Calling that "co-opting" is an odd spin. And since Savage raised those issues, here's what she said in that same speech about DOMA and DADT.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/09/it-gets-better

Building a more perfect union means standing against anyone trying to write inequality into our laws and our Constitution – and repealing divisive and discriminatory laws like DOMA. And it means ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell once and for all. This is a promise the President has made in no uncertain terms. For the first time in history, the Secretary of Defense has testified in favor of ending this policy. For the first time in history, we have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has argued forcefully for allowing gay men and women to serve their country without having to subvert their integrity. And for the first time in history, the House of Representatives has passed repeal. Now we’ve got to keep pushing the Senate to do the right thing and get this done.

That's what she did.

ETA: Without attribution and for your own purposes.

Of course they did.

Martin Luther King cried tears of joy when Lyndon Johnson co-opted the phrase "we shall overcome" in a speech to Congress. That's because those who care about an issue WANT people in power to agree and co-opt it. Bloggers who are more interested in taking cheap shots and stoking outrage have a different perspective.

if his work is being exploited or not.

No one wants their work co-opted. Co-opting someone's work is the polar opposite of a tribute or an acknowledgment. When LBJ used that phrase, it was in the context of a supportive act announced to the nation and not in the context of another speech belied by the administration's actions.

Using the tears of MLK to support your argument is pretty disgusting, I have to say.

You can choose whether to be disgusted or to learn something from it.

Jarrett used the phrase in a speech about the administration's action to prevent bullying and suicide among GLBT teens. It isn't just words. They're taking supportive action.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/09/it-gets-better

You are right--he didn't get credit.

And that's what really pissed him off---not just Valerie Jarrett using the phrase, but the fact that the HRC didn't credit him at all for campaign.

The speakers at HRC 2010 all spoke about teen suicide, but no one credited Dan.

But Dan can't hit on the HRC, because he probably still hopes that someday he might be accepted back at the Washington event....

He will always get credit for "Spreading Santorum," though.

Insanity! :rofl:

"I know all about Dan Savage because he criticized my President!"

He tells us what his objection is: his objection is to the invocation of the "It Gets Better" campaign for the political gain of an administration that, he thinks, is not actually committed to making things better.

Lyndon Johnson said "We shall overcome" in the context of advocating for civil rights legislation. If Obama invoked "It Gets Better" in the context of a speech to the American public in support of, say, a legislative drive to pass the Student Non-Discrimination Act, matters would presumably be different.

Ultimately, I appreciated Valerie Jarrett's speech. I think its sentiment was sincerely meant, and I welcome whatever policy changes the executive branch might implement to address the problem of bullying against LGBT people. But speeches do not repeal DADT and DOMA; they do not pass ENDA. The Obama Administration ought to stop trying to appease the LGBT community with speeches, and should turn the power of its rhetoric to building support for real change.

We love our fake sex advice columnist, even forgive him for briefly supporting the invasion of Iraq before changing his mind.

Watch out.

Just read this thread - the content never matters, its always about how to discredit the source. Its bulling at its finest IMO.

While those on the side of right just slowly fade away.

Anyone who was ever a bullied child recognizes the very same dynamic right here at DU. It has poisoned this place for the past three years.

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

:crazy:

So he clearly can't be trusted to speak about the plight of GLBT youth!

:silly:

I wish I could say I'm surprised by some of the comments in this thread, but I'm not. :hi:

:shrug:

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

SAN DIEGO—A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday immediately stopping enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, suspending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay U.S. troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling also ordered the government to suspend and discontinue all pending discharge proceedings and investigations under the policy.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Pentagon and Department of Justice officials said they are reviewing the case and had no immediate comment.


Legal experts say the Obama administration is under no legal obligation to appeal and could let Phillips' ruling stand.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/10/12/judge_orders_dont_ask_dont_tell_injunction/?p1=News_links

*deleted message.* Poor thing!

of rights for the GLBT community. He has worked tirelessly for his brethren for over 20 years now.


And frankly if you have no idea who he is why would you call his "ass" dumb Puma?

You are the one who looks clueless to me.

n/t

I thought it was verboten? Good to know . . .

And not that it really matters, but Dan Savage supported Obama in the primaries.

It truly shocks the conscience that many posting on this thread can utilize a wide arsenal of rationalizations for why President Obama cannot overturn DADT, and somehow remain oblivious as to why the rest of us are so offended at their defense of what is clearly an immoral, and, in my non-law-schooled-opinion, unconstitutional amendment.

And, yes, I know, DADT was passed by Bill Clinton, a Democratic President. And yes, I know, it’s better than how it used to be.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s not a large enough measure.

DEFINITION - “A large enough measure” - I mean like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, something like that, a piece of legislation that makes segregation and discrimination illegal. That was one fuckin’, massive, large-assed measure.

DADT is legislation, that, while helps marginally, is relatively nothing when compared to what it could have been. What it should have been.

(Hint - It should have been an Executive Order/Constitutional Amendment banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.)

For those posters out there who continue to promote the meme that President Obama, the Commander in Chief, cannot pass an Executive Order to effectively end DADT, here‘s an analogy/hypothetical scenario I‘ve come up with that may help you better understand where the rest of us are coming from concerning our frustrations.

- ENTER ANALOGY/SCENARIO -

THE PAST, circa 1947 CE - President Harry Truman existed in a time where segregation and discrimination based on the color of one’s skin permeated the United States. At the time, racism was about as popular as sliced bread. Which, last I checked, is still a big hit.

With the military segregated, and with segregation remaining legal, Harry Truman thought to himself…

“Enough with this racist bullshit, I’m just gonna pass an Executive Order banning the fuck out of segregation in the military. Discriminating against one based on skin color is immoral, and utterly irrelevant when concerning their service in the military. I mean, all I’d have to do is be all like, “Hey, Secretary of Defense Man, this segregation shit is dumb as hell, and here’s my piece of paper letting you know to cut-it-the-fuck-out.” And because I‘m the fuckin’ President, he’ll HAVE to listen to me, because I’m the Commander in Chief, and under the Executive Branch, I was given control over military affairs. Thank you Founding Fathers, you guys are the shit.”

…or something to that effect.

And so, on July 26, 1947, a mere sixty-three years ago, Harry Truman passed Executive Order 9981, effectively making segregation in the military illegal. And it was good.

THE PRESENT, circa 2010 CE - President Obama exists in a time where discrimination against homosexuals permeates the United States. At this time, homophobia is as popular as chocolate chip cookies.

And while I may not have the charts and graphs handy, I’m pretty sure chocolate chip cookies are still pretty fuckin’ popular.

With the current military structure enforcing DADT, President Obama thinks to himself…

“I should pass one sweet-ass Executive Order that would effectively ban discrimination in the military based on one‘s sexual orientation. Discriminating against one based on their sexual orientation is immoral, and utterly irrelevant when concerning their service in the military. And all I’d have to do is just say, “Hey, Secretary of Defense Guy, this DADT shit is dumb as hell, and here’s my piece of paper telling you to stop that shit. It’s fuckin’ killin’ me, our men and women in arms, and just serves as another example for why gays and lesbians feel alienated in our country.” And he’d HAVE to do it, because I’m the fuckin’ President, the Commander-in-CHIEF, and I have that awesome Executive Branch Power that gives ME, the President, direct control over what goes down in the military. Thanks Founding Fathers, damn you fuckers were smart.”

…or something to that effect.

And so, on October 13th, 2010, a mere sixty-three years after Harry Truman passed Executive Order 9981 effectively banning segregation in the United States military, President Obama passed Executive Order (X), effectively banning discrimination against homosexuality in the United States military. And it was good.

- EXIT ANALOGY/SCENARIO -

Posters in defense of President Obama’s refusal to effectively repeal DADT by passing an Executive Order, PLEASE, tell me how, and in great, law-school-y detail, why the Commander in Chief of the United States military, in effect, has no power over the United States military.

I’d love to know. And I eagerly await your responses.

Oh, and for those posters who continue to attack Dan Savage on issues completely unrelated to the issue the OP concerns, please take the time to re-read this…

"Regardless of anything he’s said or done in the past he’s right on the money here.”

Many times I wonder…

“Is it simply innocent, or willful ignorance, when one is constantly throwing around red-herrings and ad-hominem attacks, on a discussion board that despises Republicans for using the same underhanded tactics?”