Comments on: Will It Be the Senate Or the Courts? DADT Report Throws Down the Gauntlet

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:03:42 +0000

I´m in Argentina at the moment, but couldn´t wait to get to a computer. And I found out what I wanted.

A 29% response rate? In other words, emotions ran the gamut from ho to hum.

Truly, our country should flat out be ashamed of itself. more accurately, our congress should be.

And the Father of the Palinator? Unleashing that woman on us was the worst thing he ever did. This nonsense is pretty close. Has no one called him on this? Could Our Fierce Avocado have even a word to say on the subject?

By: customartist

customartist — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 23:01:49 +0000

The Survey is in and it is indisputable. Senators voting against Repeal vote Against the Will of the American People. The Bigots will be Revealed.

Senatorial voting records during the original Civil Rights Movement might have been obscured or unpublicized, but the Votes of Today’s Senators will be Front Page News!, and we must remind them of this!

Let your voice be heard!

Email Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Email Congress:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Email The Whitehouse
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Call the Senate and Congress: (202)224-3121
*The Operator will direct you if you do not know your representative

*IMPORTANT* Be polite and to the point.

By: Chris Mitchell

Chris Mitchell — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:31:29 +0000

[This commenter impersonated another person, using their name and their return email. The real Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications at Reason Magazine, is a supporter of our community. Reason Magazine is founded on libertarian principles and, as such, opposes arbitrary discrimination based on sexual orientation.]

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:47:53 +0000

Aside: As Bertrand Russell pointed out, due to the privileged position of religion in our society, it’s very very hard for non-religious conscientious objectors to escape enforced military service in times of a draft.

TRiG.

By: Stefan

Stefan — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:53:18 +0000

Kennedy nearly always sides with the plaintiffs on gay rights cases. Also, even with a split, and the lower courts ruling being upheld, it wouldn’t matter since the injunction issued would apply worldwide (as was what the judge in California ordered).

By: Lucrece

Lucrece — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:16:39 +0000

I’m pretty sure DADT repeal would fail in the courts. So bigoted Senators would have no qualms about filibustering.

Kagan would excuse herself, and that would leave a 4-4 split (don’t even think for a moment that Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts would strike DADT down), assuming Kennedy even wants to get involved.

By: Chris McCoy

Chris McCoy — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 02:54:33 +0000

Spartann wrote:

Not for nothing…but I’m sure many of you can remember when tens of thousands of draftees had to rely on the military’s policy on homosexuals as the only way to keep from serving during a time of war.

So allowing non-LGBT a convenient escape clause (by lying about who they are, and capitalizing on and perpetuating homophobia for personal gain) is reason enough to deny actual-LGBT the right to serve? Brilliant.

So tell me, now that it looks like DADT will be rescinded soon, what do you propose they use in the future to keep from fighting the next time we have compulsive military service??? I mean I’m just asking.

Conscientious objector has always been the correct way to escape compulsive military service, and is irrespective of sexual orientation.

By: Boo

Boo — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:49:10 +0000

I’m waiting for McCain to say we still haven’t heard from Joe the Plumber.

You know he wants to.

By: R

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:19:39 +0000

>what do you propose they use in the future to keep from fighting the next time we have compulsive military service???

Move to a country that you are willing to risk potentially having to fight for or that has a draft constitutionally barred, or prepare to make a good C.O. case.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:44:59 +0000

Interesting hypothetical, Larry. Those who were concerned their voices wouldn’t be heard…chose not to speak out at all. And thus, those hypothetical soldiers who opposed repeal so strongly the couldn’t be bothered to fill out a form should have the final say. Why do I get the feeling I’ll hear this talking point all over Fox News this week?